From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 1 00:01:19 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:01:19 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114308 Upthread, I (Hannah) wrote that I hope Sirius doesn't return from the dead. > Alla wrote: > I disagree with Hanna. I want to refer you again to March 2004 chat, where to the question "in which form We will see Sirius again? The reply was something like I don't want to answer that for the fear of incriminating myself" - paraphrasing. > I think it is a given that we will see Sirius in SOME shape or form again. > The only questiuon for me is whether it will be fully human form or not. > Hannah responds: I hope that she's referring to him appearing in a retrospective chapter (what happened at GH/ the prank etc.) or maybe in another pensieve scene. What would happen if they did priori incantum on Bella's wand? >Alla continued: Rowling already proved that she is not afriad to write about death - > Cedric is dead, Lily and James' deaths are always haunting Harry, so > iif it will turns out that Sirius was not "properly dead" in the > first place, it will not cheapen the meaning of the death in the > series for me at all. > Hannah again: I do agree that JKR has shown she's not afraid to write about death, but I don't know if that would make it any better (IMO) if old Sirius comes bounding back from the behind the veil. Also, Sirius' death was in different league to the deaths of Cedric, James and Lily (for me anyway). Cedric was a relatively minor character, whom Harry wasn't overly keen on anyway (of course it was sad when he died, but bear in mind people had thought it was going to be Ron or Hermione prior to book 4). Lily and James have always been dead for us - there is no 'oh no, they're dead' moment. While Harry of course is sad about it, he never really knew them and has always been used to the idea that they are dead. Sirius was different in that we knew him and loved (or hated) him. He was a much more complex and 3-dimensional character than Cedric. His death was a surprise to us, and to Harry. Harry loved him and he had been an important part of Harry's life, so he was even more upset about him dying, and missed him. Because of this I think it is important that he of all the dead characters stays dead. OTOH, I do trust JKR to write it well whatever happens, probably in a way that I can't imagine. Maybe she'll do it so well I won't feel disappointed after all if he comes back. Hannah From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 1 00:16:22 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:16:22 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114309 > Kneasy wrote: > Being a fully paid up member of the awkward squad I took the > opposite line - AGGIE - Lily was enamoured of Snape but was > rejected. There's no real evidence either way of course, but I > prefer my version - mostly because it has the potential to induce > apoplexy among Lily fans - or Snape-aphobics. Hickengruendler: I disagree. I think it's a highly interesting theory, but I don't really think it's true. And the reason is Lily's behaviour in the Pensieve scene after Snape called her a mudblood. I think if she were in love with Snape, she would have been much more hurt or angry. But she didn't really care and reacted like, "well, okay, if you don't want my help, goodbye." This doesn't sound like someone who is in love. I think at this point she was already in love with James, no matter what she said. She was really angry with him, and to me at least it seemed that she was disappointed. Notice that she only yelled at James, and not at Sirius, who behaved as badly as James did. I think she was frustrated that James was still that immature. Kneasy again: >It's generally accepted, though not entirely certain, that James > and "that horrible boy" are one and the same, Hickengruendler: That's true, but, for that matter, it's also not certain if "her" was really Lily. Petunia didn't mention any name. I personally think she lied, because she didn't want to tell the real reason why she knows about Azkaban. (I agree with your theory that her parents were killed by Death Eaters, and I think she learned about the prison when the Evans' murderers came to Azkaban). >Additionally, they > married immediately on leaving school (according to the Lexicon) - > almost indecently hasty IMO. Yet we are also told that at the time > of the wedding the Dursleys were already married. Where? This really isn't sarcastic. I really can't remember it. Where was it mentioned? And I also can't remember, and in this case I think we really weren't told, that it was ever said that Petunia visited her sisters marriage. Hannah: > > Why does Lily have no friends? I mean, old chums of James' keep > popping out of the woodwork/ prison/ petshop, all desperate to > assure him his Dad was a great bloke. Yet Harry still hasn't met > anyone who was friends with Lily, or if they were, wants to say > anything about her. People like DD, Hagrid, Sirius and Lupin, > McGonagall, must have known Lily, but I don't recall any of them > saying; 'Your mother would have done the same thing' or 'Lily was > good at that too.' In five whole books. All they do is harp on > about her eyes. Hickengruendler: I think this is because boys are mostly compared with their fathers, especially in literature. I doubt this says anything about Lily's character. A few times she was described as a really good person. And Lupin did so in the movie, if that counts. Lily's friends could very well be dead. Maybe Marlene McKinnon or Alice Longbottom were her friends. > > LV asking her to stand aside at GH is very, very suss. I know when > asked if Lily was a DE, JKR replied 'how dare you.' That's not > exactly a no, though. I don't think she was one - I think that's > probably too simple for JKR. But for some reason, LV was reluctant > to kill her. One thing that puzzles me; why didn't he just stun > her/ impediment her/ bind her up? Another is; why did she plead with > him? She seemed to have reason to believe that LV, heartless, > merciless, most wicked wizard in the whole world etc. might listen > to her pleading. And this is partly backed up by his apparent > reluctance to kill her, or even jinx her. Hickengruendler: IMO, you already mentioned the biggest problem in this theory. Why didn't he simply stun her? If he really cared for Lily in some way (and JK Rowling already denied that he ever loved anybody, and I'm sure she didn't only mean romantical love), he could have let her live. He could stun her to get her out of the way. See, no need to kill Lily if he were reluctant. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 00:31:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:31:32 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114311 Potioncat wrote: > Here is where you and I may have been confused about each other's viewpoint. For an adult or older teen to act this way is a character flaw. For a little child, or possibly an older child to act this way is an annoying behavior that should be corrected. > So, perhaps the Marauders call Severus that because he snivels for help(?) when they are fighting, or because he tattles...is that your point? I'm talking about 11 -15 year old Severus here. Or even 15 year old Severus stuck with a nickname he was given several years > prior. > Maybe how you and I see this differently is that you think the Marauders are justified and he deserved the nickname. I think they are being mean. I don't know which it is, but I really like how clearly this scene changes based on preconceptions! > >OoP chapter 28 >"How'd the exam go, Snivelly?" said James. >"I was watching him, his nose was touching the parchment," said > Sirius viciously. "There'll be great grease marks all over it, > they won't be able to read a word." > Do you see any snivelling behavior in the Pensieve scene? Or have you seen adult Snape behave in a snivelling manner? Carol adds: I think you're on the right track, Potioncat. The question here, IMO, is not so much how we interpret "snivelling" as how we interpret Sirius's (and James's) intention in using the term. It seems to be a habitual insult, suggesting that it dates from an early point in their acquaintance with Severus, a time when all of them were children rather than teenagers. And as you say, what Severus did at eleven is no indication of his character at fifteen, much less as a man in his thirties. Note JKR's use of "viciously" to describe Sirius's attitude in this scene--not to my mind an indication that we should accept his judgment of Severus's character or view the nickname as appropriate and deserved. And we certainly can't assume that the word relates to tattling (as Valky suggests in a snipped part of the post) when the evidence *seems* to indicate that it relates to his appearance (not even a runny nose but a greasy one, a common affliction among teenagers). At any rate, I think Potioncat's questions are important. If Severus is acting in a "snivelling" manner in the Pensieve scene, then perhaps the nickname is justified. But both James and Sirius use it before Severus has done anything other than take his exam and study the questions afterwards. *They* are setting him up, and he reacts with understandable anger to their bullying. I don't see any sign of cowardice or any indication that he intends to report them to a teacher. Two prefects are present, but he says nothing to Remus for neglecting his prefect duties and not stepping in, and he resents Lily's interference. Contrast this behavior with the groveling cowardice of Peter Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack. *That*, I think we all agree, qualifies as snivelling by any definition. Does the adult Snape "snivel"? Certainly he has his faults, from sarcasm to (occasional) uncontrolled anger, but he also shows remarkable courage on a number of occasions, remaining at Hogwarts when Karkaroff "flees," showing his Dark Mark to Fudge, and going into danger at the end of GoF being the ones that come immediately to my mind. He holds weakness in contempt, and we never hear him whimper. Note that when the Dark Mark burns him, he grabs his arm convulsively but makes no noise and then drops his arm when he realizes what he's doing. Carol, who doesn't think we can judge Snape by an insulting nickname given to him by his schoolboy enemies regardless of its meaning, any more than we can judge Harry and Ron by Draco's use of "Potty and the Weasel" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 00:40:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:40:20 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114313 "Cunning_spirit" wrote: > > Please forgive me if this has been discussed before -- wading > through over a hundred > > thousand posts is a bit daunting...BUT has anyone here ever > discussed > > just what constitutes Dark Magic? > > > Alla: > > It was discussed here and there, but I also don't remember any long > threads specifically on that topic. The problem is that we DON'T > exactly know what constitutes the Dark Magic, except Unforgivables, > of course. > > > JKR did not give us the clear criteria yet of which spells > constitute Dark Magic. I would say that Dark Magic are the specific > spells, NOT the action behind them. > If you can harm the person badly with "Wingardium Leviosa" is it a > Dark magic or not? > > I mean, Rowling clearly hinted that the intent matters greatly, > when Harry's Crucio! did not work. > > As possible examples of Dark magic the posters cited Polijuice > potion, Animagi transformation (I don't think either of those is the > Dark magic, but just to give the examples). > > I am sure something else was cited as the example of the Dark magic, > but I don't remember right now) > > > Cunning spirit: > > > In the books we see plenty of scarey looking spells tossed around, > including by mages > > who claim to be agin' Dark Magic. > > Alla: > > I tend to think that only specific spells are considered to eb dark > magic, but again, if you kill somebody with the light spell, what is > it then? > I wish JKR would clarify it. From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 1 01:10:10 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:10:10 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114314 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" wrote: > samnanya wrote: > > I wonder if JKR will suprise us all and have Draco Malfoy > turn out to be the Half-Blood Prince. We know that his > mother's line is pure because of the Blacks, but precious > little is said about Lucius' ancestry...... > JKR has already said that pureblood is not necessary to > be a Death Eater. > At the end of GOF (706) Fudge responds to Harry's > allegation that Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater by saying > "Malfoy was cleared! ... A very old family -" > Hmmm I ownder why the word "wizard" or "wizarding" was > not added as it was in so many other places. > Not much yet to go on, but isn't that what suprises are all > about? If you don't think so, please provide CANON evidence > that Lucius is indeed pureblooded........ > > kmc provides the cannon: > Page 113, OotP, Hardback, American version Chapter Six (emphasis mine) > > "He pointed to another samll round burn mark between two names, > Bellatrix and Narcissa."'Andromeda's sisters are still her because > they made lovely, respectable PURE-BLOOD marriages,' > > "Sirius mimed blasting the tapestry with a wand and laughed sourly. > Harry, however, did not laugh; he was too busy staring at the names > to the right of Andromeda's burn mark. A double line of gold > embrodidery linked Narcissa Black with LUCIUS MALFOY, and a single > vertical gold line from their names led to the name Draco." > > Cannon - Lucius is full-blood as is Draco. > > BTW - When I first heard the title of book six, I was pulling for > Draco to be half-blood. But, alas, this is not support by cannon. > > - kmc > > Dharma replies: > > I personally do not believe that it is impossible for Witches and > Wizards who believe they are purebloods to find out that such is not > the case. There are characters who hold some pretty important facts > to be true, only to find out that they are just plain wrong. Canon > often reflects what the characters know, until it is the right time > in the plot to reveal the truth, or another character has a reason to > present to appropriate information. > > -Sirius believes that Peter could not be a spy for 2 or so years, > only to discover the truth at the cost the Potters' lives. > > -Remus and Dumbledore believe Sirius to be a spy and murderer for > more than a decade, until they are witness the impossible. > > -Most of Hogwarts seems to be under the impression that Trelawney has > no Sight, but that is not the case. She makes very accurate > predictions regularly. She only has two known prophesies under belt, > but her predictions work out. > > -Bellatrix is unable to accept that Voldemort is not a pureblood > wizard even though she is given information to the contrary. Barty > Jr. knows so why doesn't she? > > -Harry believes that Mrs. Figg is just an older Muggle woman in his > neighborhood. > > -Almost every member of the Wizarding community, including Sirius who > was imprisoned with him, believed that Barty Crouch Jr. was dead. > > Canon suggests to us that "pureblood" families would start disowning > members if they stepped out of line. This to me sets up the perfect > scenario for some family mythology. Hiding facts, telling lies and > ignoring evidence have been done commonly in history to > maintain "noble" family reputations. We do have canon to suggest > that there are Wizards who would willingly lie and scheme to protect > their children (see Mr. and Mrs. Crouch). If there is one > illegitimate child somewhere in a family history, or a not so > publicized marriage, it's not too difficult for a pureblood Wizard to > be come a half blood Wizard. > > Narcissa's phenotype comes to mind on this one. She might have > gotten all of those recessive features from the Black line. But then > again, we only know what Sirius knows about that part of the family, > and for me the information is not very complete. Her mother's family > is never discussed. If it only takes one Muggle or Muggleborn Wizard > in an individuals lineage to alter one's pureblood status and canon > only reflects what the characters believe to be factual, then we > could be in for some surprises. > > With that said I'm not sure who the HBP is, but it could be > interesting if it did turn out to be a character who is under an > erroneous/incomplete impression about his family history. That could > lead to some very interesting developments in books 6 and 7. kmc again: The challenge was to provide cannon that Malfoy was pure-blood. Consider that Mrs. Black blasted off every member of the family who did not conform to the her ideals of pure-blood. I see the marriage between Lucius and Narcissa more as the proper thing to do - maybe even an arranged marriage. As has been stated, there aren't a lot of choices if you are only going to let your sons and daughters marry pure blood wizards. It may be why Narcissa looks like there is "a nasty smell under her nose." She had to go to the Quidditch Cup with Lucius. One of the girls in my youth group and I were discussing the Draco as half-blood prince on a recent car ride. I was arguing for him being the HBP and she was able to counter everyone of my "dreams" with cannon. We discussed affairs, a hidden Mugggle in ancestory. She used the arguments I posted here for the hidden Muggle. I argued that maybe Narcissa had a Muggle in her background that was hidden from the Black family but she pointed out that Kreacher did not take orders from half-blood Tonks. He would not run to Narcissa if she was Half-blood. As to Lucius not being Draco's biological father - Lucius and Draco have the same features and coloring. That Harry recognizes him as Draco's father in COS. Much as I would have loved to see Draco be the HBP, I have to admit she convinced me that it was impossible. I used to hope there will be a showdown between Draco and Harry in the books but now I don't see that as a possible. Harry has battled adult DEs - if Draco tries to stand in Harry's way, Draco better bring the entire Slytherin House not just Crabbe and Goyle. -kmc From empooress at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 00:29:51 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: <1096540409.14430.72769.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041001002951.15001.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114315 Angie wrote: > Just wondered what half-baked theories anyone had about how Book 6 > will open. > > JKR has said that Harry's stay at Privet Drive will be the shortest > yet. > > Here's my half-baked theory: > > I can see Voldemort trying to attack Harry at the > Dursleys' house. On JKR's website she says that the opening chapter of book 6 was orginally written for the first book but that she decided not to use it as it gave too much away. I'm thinking that Petunia still has that letter that Dumbledore left with the baby Harry on the Dursley's doorstep and we'll finally find out what it says. Which may explain quite a few things, the death of Lily and James, the "blood" charm with Petunia and perhaps even a bit more about the profecy. I don't see Voldemort tring to attack Harry at #4 Privet Drive, as even Voldemort knows he's still protected there, or perhaps that will be his downfall, as he used Harry's blood to restore himself to a body and can now touch Harry perhaps he'll think he can "get" Harry there. Empooress __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Oct 1 01:12:14 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:12:14 -0000 Subject: Dream on. Back to the Dream. Was: Survival of AK In-Reply-To: <20040930194223.9020.qmail@web54103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114316 Mandy wrote (in response to Kneasy): >> I support your GH theory of possession. That LV wasn't >> trying to kill Harry at all and did not cast an AK on >> him, but instead tried to possess him and was ejected >> by the protection Lily placed over Harry when she died. >> >> [snip] >> >> Harry's memory of the green flash was the AK that killed >> his mum, right before LV jumped into his head and Harry >> passes out with pain as he did at the end of OotP. It >> is the only physical representation of that event that >> he remembers. He was too young to talk really understand >> language so his brain processes it as sound and light. Kim replied: > I still think (dare I say, know?) that the last green > flash Harry saw was from the Avada Kedavra Voldemort > aimed at him, that is, the AK that ended up rebounding > onto Voldemort. If the last green flash Harry saw was > from the AK that killed Lily, why would JKR say this at > the Edinburgh Festival this past summer? Quote "..I > really thought this one through. Harry did not see his > parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. > Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then > cut it..."). > > [snip] > > For more substantiation, here's another quote from JKR > from the festival, same Q&A session: > > "The first question that I have never been asked ... is > Why didn't Voldemort die? Not Why did Harry live? but Why > didn't Voldemort die? The killing curse rebounded, so he > should have died. Why didn't he?" > > The killing curse (Avada Kedavra) she's talking about was > the killing curse LV aimed at Harry. Just wanted to point out that it's not just the interviews that tell us about what happened in Godric's Hollow. The protagonist himself tells us during the graveyard scene in GF: "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.... I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself." What reason would Voldemort have for lying about what he did and did not do? -- Matt From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 00:58:13 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:58:13 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cunning_spirit" wrote: > BUT has anyone here ever discussed just what constitutes Dark Magic? > > In the books we see plenty of scarey looking spells tossed around, including by mages > who claim to be agin' Dark Magic. James Potter's upside-down pantsing of Snape doesn't > look very different from what the DEs were doing to the muggle Roberts family after the > QWC. And that Bat-Bogey Hex Ginny Weasley seems so adept at in OotP -- wowsers!! > And nobody seems to scream "Dark Magic" whenever Draco's gang and The Trio start > flipping hexes at one another. What am I missing? > > Sandy here: Glad you asked, because I've been wondering the same thing. Aside from the unforgiveable curses, I don't think we've been told anything specific. And the few times we've seen what's going on in DADA class haven't been too revealing, what with Umbridge having them read a boring textbook and all. Seems like Lupin's whole year was spent on "Defense Against Dark Creatures" and, while dangerous, I don't think its fair to attribute practicing dark arts to a creature that doesn't have human thoughts/intelligence/intentions. From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Fri Oct 1 00:57:50 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:57:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of being Draco Malfoy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415CAB8E.5040807@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114318 (snip) Chris wrote: > Here are my thoughts: > > Malfoy's upbring though spoilt is also of a arroagant nature. This > much is obvious, but I cannot see how he will change in anyway, > especially go against his father, who in my opinion he idolises as > much (if not more than Tom Riddle). Malfoy, in simple terms, will be > on the opposite side to Harry come the end of the series. I cannot > see how it could be any other way. (snip) Hi...first-time poster here, still working my way through the 237 still-unread messages in my folder for this group, so I'm terribly sorry if I repeat anything. That much being said, I think that Draco has a chance, if not a great one, of defecting to the..."side of light," I guess I'll call it. As you said, he's spoiled and arrogant, and this is true. However, no matter how much he idolizes his father, he *is* a very spoiled boy, and at some point, when the plans made by Harry, DD, and company start working out, he's going to stop getting what he wants on an epic scale (spoiler for those who haven't read OoP - this has already started, with the elder Malfoy in Azkaban), and it seems like what he wants is power and attention. Being arrogant, he's also not going to want to be on the losing side, and I think the Malfoy men are probably taught to be cold enough to abandon their family members to further themselves. Despite being biased, Draco's an intelligent kid, and if it looks like Voldemort is going to lose, he'll break away pretty quickly. If it looks like Voldemort wins, he'll stay. Either he gets to be part of the second generation of loyal supporters of Voldemort, or he gets to follow in his father's footsteps again, but go a step further - "I was brainwashed and misled by those terribly evil people, but despite danger to my life, I am going over to the side of light and right and other things rhyming with that. Am I not wonderful?" Both possibilities would indulge his own arrogance, and both would indulge his spoiled nature - a (probable) member of the new ruling class or the brave defector who faced unspeakable odds. If this comes up, I agree that yes, Snape defected, but he didn't get any press attention - but Snape was older at the time, and thus would have probably been considered more able to hold up under such pressure. He was also, all things considered and (I think) all indications noted, less popular, less handsome, and less well-bred than Draco is. So if I try to conclude this post logically, I'd say that Draco isn't *definitely* going to defect, but it does seem like a possibility. Please do debate this, especially if you see any gaping holes in my logic... - Gabriel Fey From kethryn at wulfkub.com Fri Oct 1 01:08:54 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:08:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic References: Message-ID: <00fc01c4a753$3a76b9c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114319 >>cunning spirit - Please forgive me if this has been discussed before -- wading through over a hundred thousand posts is a bit daunting...BUT has anyone here ever discussed just what constitutes Dark Magic? In the books we see plenty of scarey looking spells tossed around, including by mages who claim to be agin' Dark Magic. James Potter's upside-down pantsing of Snape doesn't look very different from what the DEs were doing to the muggle Roberts family after the QWC. And that Bat-Bogey Hex Ginny Weasley seems so adept at in OotP -- wowsers!! And nobody seems to scream "Dark Magic" whenever Draco's gang and The Trio start flipping hexes at one another. What am I missing? Kethryn - I'm just going to theorize here for a bit so pardon me if I ramble. Dark Magic, to me so far as we have been shown, are magics that are unforgivable or that severly distort or change (permanently) the natural order of things (imperious - removes free will, crucio - removes free will through agonizing pain, ak - kills you). Obviously, there is a ton of cannon for the unforgivables so now I will wander off into the realm of the not quite cannon. When I say spells (or potions) that change the natural order of things on a permanent basis, that would mean something like permanetly transforming a class mate into a slug with no reversal spell or potion to make it all better. That would explain why those curses/hexes the kids use aren't punished (the kids, not the spells)...all the damage they inflicted (think Malfoy on the train going home) was easily reversed and no lasting damage was caused. One could also presume that a love spell or potion that was not breakable or did not go away after a while would also be horribly dark magic because the spell/potion would take away the other person's free will. As for the Death Eaters levitating the muggles, what they were doing was undeniably wrong but I'm not convinced they were using anything other than wingardium leviosa which is, in and of itself, a perfectly harmless spell that the DE's distorted into something else entirely. The polyjuice potion, on the other hand, I can see that being considered darker magic (a somewhat dark gray) because you can abuse it so easily (well, easy enough if you can make the potion in the first place). Dark magic has always been traditionally portrayed as raising or speaking to the dead (we'd have to rule out the speaking part, the ghosts would be offended if no one talked to them) but we haven't seen anyone doing that yet. Of course, I rather doubt Voldemort has anyone in the otherworld that he would deign to talk to and he is the only one powerful and evil enough to do it. I think, since we have heard nothing on that front other than the Unforgivable curses, that it is really the attitude of the weilder that determines whether it is dark magic or not. The way I have been thinking about it in my mind is that the Unforgivable curses are like nuclear bombs (horribly evil nasty should be gotten rid of NOW) and all the other curses and hexes are guns (mostly harmless in the right hands...even good people can have accidents). The polyjuice potion, in the wrong hands, I equate with a fully automatic machine gun that is fully loaded with armor piercing bullets tipped with uranium. So maybe those books in the restricted section are more about the bad wizards and witches than about the actual spells they performed. I dont know though but that seems a good a reason as any. Kethryn - who is not sure on this matter at all but wanted to throw that out there to see what everyone else would say. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 01:36:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:36:25 -0000 Subject: What are the WW rules? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114320 > sad1199 wrote: > > In reading recent posts about Molly buying Ron ugly robes and > not being able to make them magically I started wondering. There > must be rules or laws in the WW world that allow for certain things > but not for other things. Otherwise everyone could just zap up > whatever they wanted and be as rich as Lucius Malfoy. WW has money > and stores and stuff; if a witch or wizard could just pop some > clothes out of their wands why would they need money or stores? > Maybe most magical spells and charms and potions are just temporary? > Carol responds: JKR was asked a similar question in a July 2000 interview: "Q: It seems that the wizards and witches at Hogwarts are able to conjure up many things, such as food for the feasts, chairs and sleeping bags. . .if this is so, why does the wizarding world need money ? What are the limitations on the material objects you can conjure up ? It seems unnecessary that the Weasleys would be in such need of money. . . (Jan Campbell) A: Very good question (well done, Jan!!). There is legislation about what you can conjure and what you can't. Something that you conjure out of thin air will not last. This is a rule I set down for myself early on. I love these logical questions!" You can read the whole interview at http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0700-swns-alfie.htm I remembered reading the interview previously and found it by doing a search for "conjure" and "money" at the Quick Quotes portion of the Lexicon site. The Quick Quotes home page is at http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/index.html Based on JKR's response, it seems that wizards and other magical beings can't conjure money (remember the Leprechaun gold Ludo Bagman uses to pay the twins that disappears after a few hours?) or food--if you could conjure food, Sirius would only need a wand to prevent himself from starving and wouldn't require chicken legs and hams owled to him by the kids. No one would need to earn a living and the Weasleys could be as rich as the Malfoys. Lupin wouldn't have to wear shabby robes. Etc. Etc. Probably the chairs that Dumbledore conjures disappear when they're no longer needed. I would argue that the chamberpots in the Room of Requirement do, too. That makes more sense to me than the alternative argument that they were somewhere else in Hogwarts but transported themselves to the RoR when Dumbledore needed them. Carol From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Oct 1 01:49:45 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:49:45 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114321 To Beatnik: There was a thread on this subject earlier this month, starting at #111850 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/111850). I agreed with your read. To Annemehr: Yes, Muggles can "stopper death" in the same sense Snape means. They can also "bottle fame" and "brew glory" -- ask Jonas Salk, or Johnnie Walker for that matter. Snape is waxing poetic, but it's not about the magical nature of what he does; it's about Power. Potions will get you noticed. Potions will get you praised. Potions will give you the power of life and death. (And, correspondingly, I don't find it surprising that a certain segment of the WW might find poisons just as fascinating as Muggles do. I don't think Snape is offering to teach the first-years about poisons any more than a chemistry teacher who drops a hint that "in my advanced classes, we make cyanide.") -- Matt beatnik24601 wrote: >> I've heard a lot of people referencing this quote from >> Snape (about wizards ability to 'brew fame, bottle glory, >> even stopper death" from PS/SS), and seeming to interpret >> it as meaning 'stopping death'. However, I always thought >> that Snape meant 'stopper' the bottle of death (i.e. put >> a cork in the flask which contains 'death'). In other >> words, he was talking about ability to brew poisons.... Annemehr replied: > I completely agree with Beatnik24601 that the sense of > the words certainly seem to imply brewing up a flask of > something lethal. > > The trouble with that, though, is that it's boring! Isn't > it? Ordinary Muggles are perfectly capable of mixing up > poisons, after all. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 01:59:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:59:06 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114322 Mac wrote: > > No, No, No, not his 'new' target: I'm sorry to KEEP belabouring > this > > point, BUT why oh why does everone seem to keep ignoring 'Dobby's > > warning'? when it is so strongly a cannon point? Dobby *knew* the > > plot was about HP from the start. *HOW* we don't know. Even so, > > there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation of Dobby's > > behaviour in CoS. > > Geoff responded: > If I might take up Hannah's case and belabour a different point, Tom > Riddle himself says > > "For many months now, my /new target/ has been - you." > > (COS "The Heir of Slytherin"p.230 UK edition) - my emphasis. Carol adds: Which seems to indicate that Lucius Malfoy's target (Harry, based on Dobby's protestations) was different from Tom Riddle's initial target (Muggleborns). Tom has switched from his original intention of "carrying on Salazar Slytherin's noble work" to confronting Harry, whom he has somehow learned was able to defeat his own future self. Although I originally thought that Lucius had somehow communicated with Tom through the diary, informing him about Harry, it appears from the quotation Geoff cites that Tom learned about Harry from Ginny. That simplifies Tom's motivation but does nothing to clarify Malfoy's. Mac is right--Malfoy's plot apparently centered around Harry from the beginning. But how could it? How could he know what the diary would do if he hadn't written in it, and if he *had* written in it, why would he think that killing "mudbloods" had anything to do with Harry? Yes, I know. Others have asked the same questions. All I'm saying is that we have two sets of motives here and the connection between them is anything but clear. Carol, who is beginning to think that CoS has more plotholes than any other book in the series From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 02:12:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:12:54 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114323 Brent wrote: > > Why would have had it for 50 years. I would assume LV had it until he lost at GH. So Most likely LM only had it for 12 years or so. > It might have been part of a stash of stuff LV left in whatever > hideout he was using at the time. > > Geoff: > > But what does canon say..... "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 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.230 UK edition) - my emphasis. Carol asks: So you think that Tom Riddle left the diary in, say, the Slytherin common room or his dorm room for another Slytherin to find? Wouldn't it have made more sense, and still fit the meaning of "left behind," for him to give it to a school friend (say Malfoy's father) to be used if it were needed? And if Malfoy Sr. died before Voldemort returned, it could have been passed on to Lucius, who might or might not have known what it was. The alternative is for a school-age Lucius to find it at school, in which case the question becomes, why didn't someone else find it first? There's a twenty-seven year gap between Tom Riddle's age and Lucius Malfoy's. Surely the diary wouldn't have remained hidden that long? I agree that it wasn't in LV's possession in some hideout, but where was it and how did Lucius come by it, in your view? Carol, who isn't arguing, just trying to determine the point you're making with the quotation From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Oct 1 02:36:23 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:36:23 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114324 Angie asked: >>>> If the students are not allowed to do magic away >>>> from Hogwarts, why don't they get into trouble for >>>> practicing spells during the summer? It seems like >>>> they are required to do that, but I haven't seen/ >>>> heard any mention of an exception to the rules for >>>> doing homework Kmc referred to Fred & George's use of magic that we see on Harry's visits to the Burrow, and in their development of magic gags such as the ton-tongue toffey. Kethryn replied: >> maybe the reason that George and Fred get away with >> it is because their parents are magic users [and] the >> MoM cannot tell who is actually the person doing the >> magic. Steve responded: > I have to believe that there are exceptions to the > Statu[t]e of Secrecy. The Dursleys obviously know about > the wizard world, and Petunia claims to have witnessed > magic in her youth. The Dursleys have even witnessed > magic.... The Obliviators squads haven't come and erased > their memories of these events. Also note the the > Obliviators DID come and erase Aunt Marge's memory.... I had wondered about Angie's question, too. According to the letter Harry gets in CS, there are two laws involved, the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, which prohibits underage wizards from performing spells outside of school, and the International Statute of Secrecy, which prohibits magic that risks notice by Muggles. As Steve points out, there seems to be some exception from the Statute of Secrecy for Muggles who are "in the know," although that does not prevent Harry from being put on trial in OP (under both laws) despite the fact that the only Muggle who witnessed his patronus was Dudley. Possibly students only do written homework over the summer, and no spell practice. (We certainly have not seen Harry doing any practical homework.) Possibly there is an exception for homework, but the assignments get communicated to the Ministry so that they know that the spells are permitted. Possibly the Ministry conflates the two rules (as Harry sometimes seems to do) and only punishes underage magic if it is done in front of Muggles. On the other hand, Fred and George are pretty secretive about the magic they do over the summer before Book 5. And then in Book 5 Molly comments that they are magicking everything about as they revel in their newfound freedom to do whatever magic they wish, implying that they were not free to do so before they came of age. All in all, I suspect that this is one of those subjects that JKR hasn't really thought through in a perfectly comprehensive manner, but she has made a big enough deal of the restrictions that I suspect she would resolve doubts in favor of a broad reading of both laws. (I.e., Fred and George were getting away with things when they did magic, not taking advantage of an exception that Harry doesn't know about.) -- Matt From feklar at verizon.net Fri Oct 1 01:38:25 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:38:25 -0400 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <00fe01c4a757$58b3d3b0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114325 Sorry for the belated response, I have been off-line for a week or so. > Valky: > Also it is intersting to me that while both have the same literal > meanings they are entirely opposite in figurative terms, snuffles is > endearment and snivelling is berating. Since Sirius bestowed both > names, it appears, there seems to be some insight there into Sirius' > veiws on snottiness. They don't seem to be so one-eyed after all. feklar: Alternatively, that Sirius bestowed the names could be conclusive evidence that they are purely based on his subjective opinion--he gave himself the more pleasant name and the guy he hated the disapproving nickname. Feklar From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 02:49:16 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:49:16 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > Angie asked: > >>>> If the students are not allowed to do magic away > >>>> from Hogwarts, why don't they get into trouble for > >>>> practicing spells during the summer? It seems like > >>>> they are required to do that, but I haven't seen/ > >>>> heard any mention of an exception to the rules for > >>>> doing homework >Steve wrote: > Possibly students only do written homework over the summer, and no > spell practice. (We certainly have not seen Harry doing any practical > homework.) Possibly there is an exception for homework, but the > assignments get communicated to the Ministry so that they know that > the spells are permitted. Possibly the Ministry conflates the two > rules (as Harry sometimes seems to do) and only punishes underage > magic if it is done in front of Muggles. Angie's still clueless: Well, Hermione's parents are Muggles, and she apparently practiced spells before she ever set foot at Hogwarts. Hermione told Ron adn Harry in SS, the first time she met them, "I've tried a few simple spells, just for practice and it's all worked for me." From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 02:56:42 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:56:42 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > --- > > > Kethryn now - > > > > > > Well, maybe the reason that George and Fred get away with it is > > because their parents are magic users? [P]resumably, the MoM > > cannot tell who is actually the person doing the magic just that > > magic is being performed. Maybe. > > > > Angie replies: > > > > This makes sense, but the attorney in me smells a discrimination > > suit. This sort of policy obviously discriminates against wizards > > who live in Muggle households! :) > > > bboyminn: > > I have to believe that there are exceptions to the Statue of Secrecy. > Surely, in mixed muggle/wizard marriages, the wizard isn't required to > keep his/her magical abilities for their spouse. Seamus's father seems > fully aware that his wife is a witch, and it's reasonable that she > doesn't hide her routine use of magic. Angie replies: Good point. Of course, I assume in a spousal situation, the wizards would be of age, so at least the provision against underage wizards doing magic away from HW wouldn't apply. bboymin wrote> > And for the record, I did see the 'smiley face' at the end of your > statement. Angie replies: :) From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Oct 1 02:57:20 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 02:57:20 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114328 Matt wrote: > Possibly students only do written homework over the summer, and no > spell practice. (We certainly have not seen Harry doing any > practical homework.) Possibly there is an exception for homework, > but the assignments get communicated to the Ministry so that they > know that the spells are permitted. Possibly the Ministry > conflates the two rules (as Harry sometimes seems to do) and only > punishes underage magic if it is done in front of Muggles. Yb on the ball: >From what we've seen, a lot of Hogwarts HW is essays, and I think all the holiday work is written, not practical. "This separation from his spellbooks had been a real problem for Harry, because his teachers at Hogwarts had given him a lot of holiday work. *One of the essays...* " PoA, AmVer, p.3, emphasis mine This quote implies that *all* the holiday work is written. Plus, the notes handed out at the end of PS/SS don't mention anything about exceptions for homework. Matt again: > On the other hand, Fred and George are pretty secretive about the > magic they do over the summer before Book 5. And then in Book 5 > Molly comments that they are magicking everything about as they > revel in their newfound freedom to do whatever magic they wish, > implying that they were not free to do so before they came of > age. Fred and George were getting away with things when they did > magic, not taking advantage of an exception that Harry doesn't > know about. I think I have some sort of canon support that they are getting away with it, not using a loophole. Fred and George get the notices too, because they [F&G] hope they [school admins] forget to hand them out. I think this implies that the twins are not exempt from the rules. Perhaps it's a combination of being from a magical family, thus only being around magical areas and people, and the fact that their father works in the ministry, and can take care of any "issues" that arise with the Improper Use office and Underage Wizard statutes, that lets them get away with all their pranks and practices. ~Yb From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:03:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:03:54 -0000 Subject: Priori incantatem (Was: Survival of AK) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114329 Geoff wrote: > > "Months ago, this point was raised and I asked then as to how would we expect to see a failed spell shown using a "Priori Incantatem"? It didn't kill Harry, it didn't kill Voldemort on its rebound....." > > Kneasy responded: > But it did destroy his body and, so we have assumed, wreck the house. You can't claim that there was no result and therefore it won't show. The only 'failure' was that it wasn't Harry that got zapped. > > Personally, I think Voldy being ripped from his body with added extreme pain would register on the Richter Scale of measurable effects. It did after all recall the screams of pain caused by the Crucio! to Avery and others. So where is Voldy's agony? Where is his body? There was a lifeless body left behind afterwards - either that or a set of special effects even Tarantino would be proud of as the corpse explodes. Carol responds: Although we can't know this for certain, I think that priori incantatem records particular spells in particular ways (useful to aurors determining the guilt of a wand user from the state of his wand. A Morsmordre, we know from an earlier chapter in GoF (where the spell is "prior incantato" because Amos Diggory is looking only for the last spell cast) shows up as a small, spectral green Dark Mark, a shadow of the lasting mark the DEs cast to cause terror (GoF Am. ed. 136). Wormtail's new hand also shows up as a shadow of itself (665). The Crucios register as screams of pain, the successful AKs as ghostlike specters of identifiable victims, but able to speak, to recognize Harry and identify their murderer (665-68)--surely useful incriminating evidence if ever a priori incantatem were used at a hearing or a trial. But a failed AK, I would argue, wouldn't register because it never happened. There was no victim who could appear as a ghost. Both Harry and Voldemort were present and alive; neither had died like the ghostly shadows who struggled out of Voldemort's wand. Not even Harry's scar (which in any case may have been a shield created through Lily's magic, not LV's) nor the shadow of Voldemort's spirit being ripped from his body could appear because such an unrecognizable, unpredictable result could not be built into the program for a priori incantatem, which is apparently designed to detect spells used by DEs and other criminals through the characteristic effect of a particular spell. Just a theory, but it explains the absence of a "shadow" for the AK better than the idea that it was some other spell. After all, if the silver hand and the Dark Mark show up as recognizable indicators of the spell cast to create them, then whatever curse Voldemort attempted to put on Harry would also show up in a priori incantatem--unless failed curses of whatever kind leave no record. (It wouldn't show up as a scream because a scream is the record of a Crucio.) So, Kneasy, what do you think? Anybody? Carol From feklar at verizon.net Fri Oct 1 02:49:46 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:49:46 -0400 Subject: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) References: Message-ID: <01a401c4a761$50523e50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114330 Antosha wrote: > In JKR's fictional world, outward beauty seems to go hand-in-hand > with vanity, an evil for which she has little patience. It will be > interesting to see if Fleur continues to flourish (pardon the pun) > and Cho redeems herself. Ironically, I've always thought the opposite -- any character that is fat or ugly is also evil, stupid or both. Vernon, his sister and Dudley are all of the above, Petunia is "horse-faced" and abusive. Pettigrew is fat and probably ugly. Fudge is fat. LV is ugly (tho' 16 yo TR was not). Most Slytherins are described as ugly in some way (Crabbe and Goyle, Flint, Bulstrode). Hagrid and Neville aren't evil, but they are generally portrayed as having unflattering looks and being somewhat stupid. About the only exceptions are the Malfoys, they get away with being beautiful and evil. Feklar From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 01:59:10 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:59:10 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: <00fc01c4a753$3a76b9c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114331 > >>cunning spirit - > Please forgive me if this has been discussed before -- wading > through over a hundred thousand posts is a bit daunting...BUT > has anyone here ever discussed just what constitutes Dark Magic? > Kethryn wrote: > Dark Magic, to me so far as we have been shown, are magics that are > unforgivable or that severely distort or change (permanently) the > natural order of things (imperious - removes free will, crucio - > removes free will through agonizing pain, ak - kills you). cunning spirit replies: There is an interesting essay by J. Odell (Red Hen) here: http://www.redhen-publications.com/HistoryofMagic.html which basically posits that "dark magic" has nothing to do with intention, but how the forces behind magic are channeled. I'm not sure I totally buy the argument. The author seems to be trying to make the magics that appear in the Potterverse conform with magic as it appears in earlier British folklore, particularly Celto-British Arthurian magics -- an honest mistake, given how frequently Merlin's name is invoked in the Potter books, but Rowling has clearly set up her own rules for how magic works. We just haven't seen them all yet. From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 1 03:05:17 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:05:17 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114332 samnanya wrote: I wonder if JKR will suprise us all and have Draco Malfoy turn out to be the Half-Blood Prince. We know that his mother's line is pure because of the Blacks, but precious little is said about Lucius' ancestry...... JKR has already said that pureblood is not necessary to be a Death Eater. At the end of GOF (706) Fudge responds to Harry's allegation that Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater by saying "Malfoy was cleared! ... A very old family -" Hmmm I ownder why the word "wizard" or "wizarding" was not added as it was in so many other places. Not much yet to go on, but isn't that what suprises are all about? If you don't think so, please provide CANON evidence that Lucius is indeed pureblooded........ kmc provides the cannon: Page 113, OotP, Hardback, American version Chapter Six (emphasis mine) "He pointed to another samll round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa."'Andromeda's sisters are still her because they made lovely, respectable PURE-BLOOD marriages,' "Sirius mimed blasting the tapestry with a wand and laughed sourly. Harry, however, did not laugh; he was too busy staring at the names to the right of Andromeda's burn mark. A double line of gold embrodidery linked Narcissa Black with LUCIUS MALFOY, and a single vertical gold line from their names led to the name Draco." Cannon - Lucius is full-blood as is Draco. BTW - When I first heard the title of book six, I was pulling for Draco to be half-blood. But, alas, this is not support by cannon. - kmc Dharma replies: I personally do not believe that it is impossible for Witches and Wizards who believe they are purebloods to find out that such is not the case. There are characters who hold some pretty important facts to be true, only to find out that they are just plain wrong. Canon often reflects what the characters know, until it is the right time in the plot to reveal the truth, or another character has a reason to present to appropriate information. -Sirius believes that Peter could not be a spy for 2 or so years, only to discover the truth at the cost the Potters' lives. -Remus and Dumbledore believe Sirius to be a spy and murderer for more than a decade, until they are witness the impossible. -Most of Hogwarts seems to be under the impression that Trelawney has no Sight, but that is not the case. She makes very accurate predictions regularly. She only has two known prophesies under belt, but her predictions work out. -Bellatrix is unable to accept that Voldemort is not a pureblood wizard even though she is given information to the contrary. Barty Jr. knows so why doesn't she? -Harry believes that Mrs. Figg is just an older Muggle woman in his neighborhood. -Almost every member of the Wizarding community, including Sirius who was imprisoned with him, believed that Barty Crouch Jr. was dead. Canon suggests to us that "pureblood" families would start disowning members if they stepped out of line. This to me sets up the perfect scenario for some family mythology. Hiding facts, telling lies and ignoring evidence have been done commonly in history to maintain "noble" family reputations. We do have canon to suggest that there are Wizards who would willingly lie and scheme to protect their children (see Mr. and Mrs. Crouch). If there is one illegitimate child somewhere in a family history, or a not so publicized marriage, it's not too difficult for a pureblood Wizard to be come a half blood Wizard. Narcissa's phenotype comes to mind on this one. She might have gotten all of those recessive features from the Black line. But then again, we only know what Sirius knows about that part of the family, and for me the information is not very complete. Her mother's family is never discussed. If it only takes one Muggle or Muggleborn Wizard in an individuals lineage to alter one's pureblood status and canon only reflects what the characters believe to be factual, then we could be in for some surprises. With that said I'm not sure who the HBP is, but it could be interesting if it did turn out to be a character who is under an erroneous/incomplete impression about his family history. That could lead to some very interesting developments in books 6 and 7. kmc again: The challenge was to provide cannon that Malfoy was pure-blood. Consider that Mrs. Black blasted off every member of the family who did not conform to the her ideals of pure-blood. I see the marriage between Lucius and Narcissa more as the proper thing to do - maybe even an arranged marriage. As has been stated, there aren't a lot of choices if you are only going to let your sons and daughters marry pure blood wizards. It may be why Narcissa looks like there is "a nasty smell under her nose." She had to go to the Quidditch Cup with Lucius. Dharma replies: Narcissa might just not like Quidditch. She may have and issue with sitting in a crowded stand. The look on her face tells us nothing about any moment other than what we see. She might find community functions annoying. There is just as much likelihood that she loves Lucius as there is that she tolerates Lucius. kmc wrote: One of the girls in my youth group and I were discussing the Draco as half-blood prince on a recent car ride. I was arguing for him being the HBP and she was able to counter everyone of my "dreams" with cannon. We discussed affairs, a hidden Mugggle in ancestory. She used the arguments I posted here for the hidden Muggle. I argued that maybe Narcissa had a Muggle in her background that was hidden from the Black family but she pointed out that Kreacher did not take orders from half-blood Tonks. He would not run to Narcissa if she was Half-blood. Dharma replies: Kreacher acts on information from Mrs. Black. If any male Black married a Muggleborn, Muggle or half blood Witch, why would they tell the truth and have their bigoted relatives, most certainly Mrs. Black, potentially attack their mate? It is common knowledge that Andromeda married a Muggleborn Wizard; therefore Kreacher is able to act on the information (ignoring Tonks). Andromeda chose to marry a known Muggleborn and was apparently ousted from the family. Does everyone have that kind of courage? What do we know about Narcissa's mother? We know what Sirius knows. There is more than enough canon to suggest that Sirius could have legitimately believed false information. We've had more than one instance of Wizards lying to protect their skin. Kreacher's behavior is just not conclusive. kmc wrote: As to Lucius not being Draco's biological father - Lucius and Draco have the same features and coloring. That Harry recognizes him as Draco's father in COS. Dharma replies: Did anyone in this thread suggest that Lucius was not Draco's father? If so, you did not include that bit in your post. If you are referring to my comment about illegitimate children, my comment could apply to any "pureblood's" family history at any point. I certainly never suggested that Lucius was not Draco's father. From elfundeb at comcast.net Fri Oct 1 03:11:22 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:11:22 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114333 Mac wrote: > > > No, No, No, not his 'new' target: I'm sorry to KEEP belabouring > > this > > > point, BUT why oh why does everone seem to keep ignoring 'Dobby's > > > warning'? when it is so strongly a cannon point? Dobby *knew* the > > > plot was about HP from the start. *HOW* we don't know. Even so, > > > there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation of Dobby's > > > behaviour in CoS. Carol: > Mac is right--Malfoy's plot apparently centered around Harry from the > beginning. But how could it? How could he know what the diary would do > if he hadn't written in it, and if he *had* written in it, why would > he think that killing "mudbloods" had anything to do with Harry? Ah, but Dobby doesn't say the plot was about HP. What he says is quite interesting. He says he knows of "a plot to make most terrible things happen at Hogwarts. . . . Harry must not put himself in peril. He is too important, sir!" We can also surmise that Lucius intended the diary to release the basilisk to "purge the school of all who were [in Slytherin's view] unworthy to study magic." According to Binns, this meant those who were not from "all-magic families." Lily's Muggleborn status may have put Harry at risk, even though all of the basilisk's victims were Muggleborns, and not children of Muggleborns. This would be one possible explanation of Dobby's concern for Harry. I think Lucius's actual goal may not have been for the Basilisk to "get Harry" per se, but to wreak havoc at Hogwarts so that Dumbledore would be dismissed as headmaster, as he tried to do later in CoS. What I find really interesting, though, is Dobby's reason for trying to keep Harry away from Hogwarts: Harry is "too important." How does he know of Harry's importance? Is it because he knows about the Prophecy? Dobby seems to know a great deal about Harry (do the Malfoys talk about him *that* much?), and he knows that it's Riddle in the diary. Maybe what Dobby fears is a confrontation between Riddle and Harry that Harry will be too young to handle. Debbie who thinks Dobby learned about the Prophecy from his deceased former masters, the Potters, and that's why he's so loyal to Harry From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 1 03:14:27 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:14:27 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114334 > > Dharma replies: > Did anyone in this thread suggest that Lucius was not Draco's > father? If so, you did not include that bit in your post. If you > are referring to my comment about illegitimate children, my comment > could apply to any "pureblood's" family history at any point. I > certainly never suggested that Lucius was not Draco's father. > kmc replies: I used the comment about Draco's resemblance to his father to provide Cannon as to why Draco is not the HBP. The original challenge was to provide cannon to counter the HBP!Draco. (see post 114332 for the snipped text. -kmc From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Oct 1 03:15:17 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:15:17 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: <902DA87A-12E3-11D9-8F21-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114335 While I found most of the speculation about Lily's backstory a bit weak (at least in canon support), the bit about the Evans parents being victims of Voldemort or his minions strikes me as likely: * They certainly wouldn't be expected to have died of old age when their daughter was only 20-something. * We know that there were lots of fatalities in the war, some fighting and some violence against family members of those involved (e.g., Arthur's story about people coming home to find the Dark Mark over their houses). We know that James and Lily had "defied" LV three times, which presumably did not endear them to his heart. We know that by the time of Godric's Hollow they had no family left, excepting the Dursleys. Surely it was not by chance that *all* of their other relations were dead. * Petunia appears to be terrified by the idea of Voldemort, arguably moreso than a single murder (of her allegedly hated sister) would explain. By way of contrast, the Dursleys do not appear terribly scared at the news about mass-murderer Sirius Black in PA -- Vernon is principally indignant, while Petunia takes the suggestion that he might be on their street somewhat in stride, peeking outside to see if she might be the one to turn him in. Certainly this is an area where JKR must have thought about the backstory, and it presumably ties in in some way with the issue of Dumbledore's bargain with Petunia and her odd behavior in OP. Unless Petunia's portrayed character is a complete red herring, she must be getting something out of the arrangement other than the satisfaction of knowing that Harry is protected. And the simplest explanation (yeah, I know, never a safe bet with Rowling, but...) would be that she or Dudley or the whole family is being protected as well. -- Matt From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:16:40 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:16:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114336 -Angie wrote > I agree it is a good thing that JKR has children's characters that > > deal with death. But I also think if her goal is to help with > > that, she should have written Sirius off in such a way that his > > death would could not be questioned. Here, she clearly left the > > door open, so IMO it's not a case in which a dead relative suddenly > > pops back. I agree that would not be good. I would hope that any > > child reading the series would be old enough to understand Sirius's > > disappearance behind the veil can be interpreted as something other > > than him being dead. > > > SSSusan: > But *do* children question Sirius' death? It's only been adults in > my experience who do. I think children are more accepting that he's > gone. Angie: I don't know if children question Sirius's death. I haven't talked to any children who have read the series and I don't "chat" online with children. So, I don't know. I don't know that I agree that they are more accepting that he is gone. In my experience, kids like concrete answers as much as adults (maybe even more so because they thinks adults fail to give them straight answers) -- if you leave them an opening, they will see it. > Sometimes death isn't very "satisfying" in the sense that it's clear > and all that. If you're a child and grandpa drifts off during his > sleep, is death as clear as when grandpa gets killed in a car crash > or murdered by a thug? I don't think so. What about when someone > presumably drowns, though the body is never recovered? That happened > last year with a student on the campus where I work. At some point, > there was enough circumstantial evidence that the search was called > off and a memorial service was held. It's NOT as "satisfying" [poor > word, but I think you'll know what I mean by it?] as seeing a cold, > lifeless, bloodstained body. But I don't agree that it isn't a good > example of death to use with kids (or us!), because that kind of > death *does* happen. > Angie again: Seems like what you are talking about is closure and being able to identify a specific time and place of death. There is definitely something within us that rails against believing someone is dead unless we see the body, I agree. However, we know for certain that someone goes under water, unless they come back up within a certain time frame, they will drown. We do not know for certain that a person dies because they pass through the veil (DD's comment notwithstanding). Susan again: > > I also think it may speak to JKR's interpretation of what death is > about ["the next great adventure"]. Angie replies: Good point. I'm all on board for getting children to believe in life after death -- but she still has to be clear that he's dead first! :) From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 1 03:19:17 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:19:17 -0000 Subject: What were the Malfoys DOING there? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > Mac wrote: > > > > No, No, No, not his 'new' target: I'm sorry to KEEP > belabouring > > > this > > > > point, BUT why oh why does everone seem to keep > ignoring 'Dobby's > > > > warning'? when it is so strongly a cannon point? Dobby *knew* > the > > > > plot was about HP from the start. *HOW* we don't know. Even > so, > > > > there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation of Dobby's > > > > behaviour in CoS. > > Carol: > > > Mac is right--Malfoy's plot apparently centered around Harry from > the > > beginning. But how could it? How could he know what the diary > would do > > if he hadn't written in it, and if he *had* written in it, why > would > > he think that killing "mudbloods" had anything to do with Harry? > > > Ah, but Dobby doesn't say the plot was about HP. What he says is > quite interesting. He says he knows of "a plot to make most > terrible things happen at Hogwarts. . . . Harry must not put himself > in peril. He is too important, sir!" > > We can also surmise that Lucius intended the diary to release the > basilisk to "purge the school of all who were [in Slytherin's view] > unworthy to study magic." According to Binns, this meant those who > were not from "all-magic families." Lily's Muggleborn status may > have put Harry at risk, even though all of the basilisk's victims > were Muggleborns, and not children of Muggleborns. This would be > one possible explanation of Dobby's concern for Harry. I think > Lucius's actual goal may not have been for the Basilisk to "get > Harry" per se, but to wreak havoc at Hogwarts so that Dumbledore > would be dismissed as headmaster, as he tried to do later in CoS. > > What I find really interesting, though, is Dobby's reason for trying > to keep Harry away from Hogwarts: Harry is "too important." How > does he know of Harry's importance? Is it because he knows about > the Prophecy? Dobby seems to know a great deal about Harry (do the > Malfoys talk about him *that* much?), and he knows that it's Riddle > in the diary. Maybe what Dobby fears is a confrontation between > Riddle and Harry that Harry will be too young to handle. > > Debbie > who thinks Dobby learned about the Prophecy from his deceased former > masters, the Potters, and that's why he's so loyal to Harry kmc adds: What if it was to get Hermione? After all she beat Draco in grades, she's a Muggle. And she helped Harry defeat QuirrelMort. And Hermione reminds Lucius of that other meddling Muggle-born witch - Lily. Voldemort got rid of her - Tom's memory can rid the WW of Hermione before she gets too powerful. -kmc From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Oct 1 03:26:09 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:26:09 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114338 Angie wrote: > Well, Hermione's parents are Muggles, and she apparently > practiced spells before she ever set foot at Hogwarts. > Hermione told Ron [and] Harry in SS, the first time she met > them, "I've tried a few simple spells, just for practice > and it's all worked for me." True. Possibly just an inconsistency; she never discusses practicing spells outside of school after the first year. Rowling might say "it was overlooked because the Muggle-born students hadn't yet been told not to do spellwork outside of school." -- Matt From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:34:13 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:34:13 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > Angie wrote: > > Well, Hermione's parents are Muggles, and she apparently > > practiced spells before she ever set foot at Hogwarts. > > Hermione told Ron [and] Harry in SS, the first time she met > > them, "I've tried a few simple spells, just for practice > > and it's all worked for me." > > Matt wrote: True. Possibly just an inconsistency; she never discusses practicing > spells outside of school after the first year. Rowling might say "it > was overlooked because the Muggle-born students hadn't yet been told > not to do spellwork outside of school." > To which Angie would respond: Hard to believe Hermione didn't know about the restrictions, since she apparently knows every rule ever written about everything! But I guess she didn't know, because she wasn't a rulebreaker at that point. From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Fri Oct 1 03:39:02 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:39:02 -0000 Subject: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) In-Reply-To: <01a401c4a761$50523e50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114340 Antosha wrote: >> In JKR's fictional world, outward beauty seems to go >> hand-in-hand with vanity, an evil for which she has >> little patience. It will be interesting to see if Fleur >> continues to flourish (pardon the pun) and Cho redeems >> herself. feklar replied: > Ironically, I've always thought the opposite -- any > character that is fat or ugly is also evil, stupid or > both. Vernon, his sister and Dudley are all of the > above, Petunia is "horse-faced" and abusive. Pettigrew > is fat and probably ugly. Fudge is fat. LV is ugly > (tho' 16 yo TR was not). Most Slytherins are described > as ugly in some way (Crabbe and Goyle, Flint, > Bulstrode). Hagrid and Neville aren't evil, but they > are generally portrayed as having unflattering looks and > being somewhat stupid. > > About the only exceptions are the Malfoys, they get away > with being beautiful and evil. While I won't dispute the correlation (btw, you missed the best example, Ms. Umbridge!), it certainly is not universal. Dumbledore has his somewhat odd looks, and Tonks is decidedly odd. Snape is certainly not handsome (although his allegiance has some ambiguity to it). McGonagall is severe at best, and Mad-Eye is no eye candy. Bellatrix was once a beauty, and Narcissa apparently still is. Perhaps there's a bit of a motif of people's looks being twisted by their descent into evil (Bellatrix; Riddle). Perhaps some of what we see of peoples' looks is colored by Harry's positive or negative perceptions -- is Dudley really wider than he is tall? -- Matt From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:39:12 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:39:12 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114341 > >Alla continued: Rowling already proved that she is not afriad to > write about death - > > Cedric is dead, Lily and James' deaths are always haunting Harry, > so > > iif it will turns out that Sirius was not "properly dead" in the > > first place, it will not cheapen the meaning of the death in the > > series for me at all. Angie wrote: I agree. It seems to me we've got a little "overkill" with all the deaths flying around. And of course, Harry eventually will have to deal with the fact that he will have to kill Voldemort. I wonder why he doesn't ever think about the fact that he killed Quirrell. Hmmm . . . So much to think about, so little time, I guess. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:46:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:46:49 -0000 Subject: C!M and Imperius (was: How did Snape know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114342 Yb wrote: > ...and we know C!M is a VERY powerful wizard > > Ravenclaw Bookworm responded: > What makes you say this? About the only things we know about > Crounch Junior is that he was sent to Azkaban for being part of the > group that tortured the Longbottoms and he was under the Imperious > Curse for 12 years. We don't know how much he actually contributed > in the torture. And as you pointed out, it took him years to throw > off the curse. > > Dumbledore says it would take a powerful wizard to confuse the > Goblet. I just wonder how much of Real!Moody's powers he had access > to, and how much help he might have had from Bagman or someone > else. Carol notes: Actually, it was Crouch!Moody himself who said it would take a powerful wizard to confuse the goblet. "Imagining things, am I?" growled Moody. "Seeing things, eh? It was a skilled witch or wizard who put the boy's name in that goblet. . . " "Ah, what evidence is zere of zat?" said Madame Maxime, throwing up her huge hands. "Because they hoodwinked a very powerful magical object!" said Moody. "It would have needed an exceptionally strong Confundus Charm to bamboozle that goblet into forgetting that only three schools competed in the tournament. . . ." (379) IMO, he's telling them exactly what he did himself while leading them to believe that he's talking about someone else. And he's also congratulating himself on his skill (though the others don't know that, of course). As for whether this view of himself is accurate, I think yb's response re his use of the Unforgiveable Curses, transfiguring his body into a bone, etc. is pretty persuasive. (I made a similar argument in another post but I don't know the message number. I think it was in the thread about whether Crouch Jr. was a DE in VWI. I say there's no question that he was; otherwise he couldn't have learned the Unforgiveable Curses. Evil little git fooled everybody!) Carol From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:49:40 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:49:40 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: <20041001002951.15001.qmail@web52105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114343 ---Empooress wrote" I'm thinking that Petunia still has that letter that > Dumbledore left with the baby Harry on the Dursley's > doorstep and we'll finally find out what it says. > Which may explain quite a few things, the death of > Lily and James, the "blood" charm with Petunia and > perhaps even a bit more about the profecy. > Angie replies: I've often wondered what that letter said. But I have trouble believing that Petunia would keep it, for fear that Dudley or Harry would stumble across it. I have to wonder if she even let Vernon see it, given that he didn't seem to understand/know why they had to let Harry stay in OOP. I can see her going to get the mail (which seems to come awfully early at Privett Drive), finding Harry, reading the letter and destroying it. I mean, at some point, she would have had to explain why they had to keep Harry, but I wonder when it was. I've always assumed that Vernon read the letter and knew about everything from the get-go, but what you just said has made me curious. > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From annegirl11 at juno.com Fri Oct 1 03:22:56 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: stopper death Message-ID: <20040930.235435.1780.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114344 I noticed yet another reference to Snape, Harry, and poison in PoA today. US Paperback, p244, "... Harry sat finishing a nasty essay on Undetectable Poisons for Snape." A few things: 1. If someone was poisoned, but you didn't know by what (ie, the poison was undetectable), what would you use? A cure that's effective against "most poisons." The, whasimcallit, goat stone. 2. You almost never read of homework being done for a specific professor, it's always ".... essay for Arithmancy," or Transfiguration, etc. On this page alone, there's half a dozen references to homework they're doing for classes, but only one specific mention of a professor. Rowling must have been specifically linking Snape and poisons again, or else it would have read, "an essay for Potions." It's starting to look like we're supposed to be expecting Snape to poison Harry (or maybe we were supposed to have expected that in OOtP, the occlumancy red herring, Snape "poisoning" Harry's mind). But I don't believe in ESE!Snape, so ... we're back to the same question we've been asking. :-/ Will he rescue Harry? Will Harry rescue someone because of something Snape taught him? Aura ~*~ "Words are flowing out like rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe. Nothing's gonna change my world." Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Fri Oct 1 03:14:14 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:14:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? Message-ID: <20040930.235435.1780.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114345 SS Susan said: > SSSusan: > Given that *Harry* got blamed when Dobby did magic on Privet Drive, > some have speculated that the Ministry's ability to detect underage > wizardry may be imprecise. Perhaps they can isolate a location but > not an individual? If that's true, then Ron could probably get away > with a lot--as would any underage witch or wizard in a wizarding > family, since the "magic detector" would *expect* to find magic > being performed at those locations. Maybe they watch Muggle-born kids more closely, the logic being that Wizard parents can keep an eye on their own kids and know when they're up to no good. A muggle parent wouldn't know a wand from a stick. Also, Wizard parents can oversee their kids' magic (ie allow them to use it for cleaning the kitchen, but not for putting their little sister on the roof. 'Cause that's so what my brother would've done to me -- daily -- if he had powers), so maybe the Ministry doesn't worry too much about who's doing magic in wizard homes. Aura ~*~ "Words are flowing out like rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe. Nothing's gonna change my world." Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 03:56:33 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:56:33 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114346 > > Annemehr, before: > > Actually, now that I think of it (better late than never), we > > already had this sort of thing in the beginning of OoP: Dementor > > attack in Little Whinging, Harry whisked off at Dumbledore's > > behest and given info by Sirius, and trouble with the Law > > including a hearing where he very nearly *didn't* get off. > > Dungrollin: > Ok then, how about this: > Voldemort knows that Harry's safe from everyone including him when > he's at number four, because that's where his mother's blood dwells. > However, is anyone protecting Petunia and Dudley? It would seem > obvious that if the only thing protecting Harry at No.4 is that > Petunia (and possibly Dudley) live there (and this protection > appears to cover only Harry), then would try to make them stop > living (there), and he could surely do that with a minimum of fuss. Annemehr: Er...Theoretical Blood Protection and Its Practical Application was never one of my strengths (don't bother seeing my published works). Still, sure, you'd expect him to think of taking out Petunia and/or Dudley. It's not against the Evil Overlord rules or anything, is it? Dungrollin: > So, Petunia and/or Dudley will be attacked/kidnapped/killed, and > Vernon throws a massive wobbly and chucks Harry out. > Any takers? Annemehr: You do realise, don't you, that something very near to this *also* happened in the beginning of OoP? In other words, we're not so much theorising here as we are plagiarising. :P Let's not have them killed, anyway. I want Harry to have his seventeenth birthday living with them, and they somehow come to know that he is of age and can do all the magic he wants. Other than that, I seem to be fresh out of ideas, unfortunately. Maybe I'll think of something in the morning... > Dungrollin > > PS (gloomily) Actually, in all of the books something exciting has > happened before he gets to Hogwarts on September 1st. PS - loads of > stuff, CoS - Dobby and the flying ford anglia, PoA - the Grimm and > the Knight bus, GoF - all that kerfuffle at the QWC... That's bad? Annemehr, confused From kethryn at wulfkub.com Fri Oct 1 03:38:49 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:38:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Magic References: Message-ID: <013301c4a768$2c1f4260$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114347 cunning spirit replies: There is an interesting essay by J. Odell (Red Hen) here: http://www.redhen-publications.com/HistoryofMagic.html which basically posits that "dark magic" has nothing to do with intention, but how the forces behind magic are channeled. I'm not sure I totally buy the argument. The author seems to be trying to make the magics that appear in the Potterverse conform with magic as it appears in earlier British folklore, particularly Celto-British Arthurian magics -- an honest mistake, given how frequently Merlin's name is invoked in the Potter books, but Rowling has clearly set up her own rules for how magic works. We just haven't seen them all yet. Kethryn now - He/she makes some really good points but I am not sure that I buy that either, to tell you the truth. But I do admit that the vast majority of my personal literature dealing with magic in any form (other than HP, of course) stems mostly from my D&D books, Mercedes Lackey, and the Forgotten Realms stuff. So I think I tend to put on my D&D rules when dealing with magic in any form (that is why the end of PoA would bother me if I let it - according to the physical rules of spell casting, Harry would have been flat on his back for a couple of days, not hours, days after driving off that many dementors) but I also take a lot of it on faith...especially if I can fit the rules to the spell. Ah, sorry, that was a sideways step. Back to the other person's post. I do see a lot of the folklore in her (JKRs) writing (and, to be honest, some Lucas as well - wizard's chess looks just like chess in Star Wars) but, if you look hard enough, you can see that stuff in darn near everything you read. Well, except maybe for the USA Today. As an english major, I can't begin to tell you how many times I have read flood stories, for example. There are just so many ways to tell stories and there are some things that only make sense to the majority of people one way. Like the rules of AI robots that Heinlein wrote...I bet those rules will be physically implemented into any AI robots we manage to create because it only makes sense to do it that way. So, dragging myself back from the meandering train of thought, basically what I am saying is that I tend to view the magic from a D & D perspective and, playing with those rules, most of the spells themselves are not evil (there are, I admit, a few that are super duper nasty). Using said spells (the nasty ones) can cause your DM to change your alignment to an evil variation but it is, again, all about choices. The spell does not make the man evil, what he chooses to do with the spell does. Kethryn - who hopes this post is clear... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at vcem.com Fri Oct 1 04:22:32 2004 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:22:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why buy Ron Maroon? (Was: Why buy 5 sets of Lockhart's book? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1145445114.20040930212232@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114348 Hi, Thursday, September 30, 2004, 2:27:23 PM, justcarol67 wrote: > IMHO, maroon sweaters are just a fact of life that Ron should learn to > live with-- And I think he *has*. But I don't find it surprising that he will occasionally grouch about it and other things to his friends. That's perfectly normal, imo, and working at a school I constantly hear kids complain to each other about all sorts of home related subjects. :) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 1 04:28:56 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:28:56 -0000 Subject: Eureka! Snape's Hair (frivolous) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114349 I was in my bath just now and thought of THE solution to the Snape's Hair Problem. He has dry skin (probably because the castle has an old-fashioned heating system that sucks all the moisture out of the air) and puts olive oil in his bath for it (my doctor says this is better, as well as cheaper, than anything specially made for the purpose). And he can't be arsed to draw a separate, oil-free bath just to wash his hair in. 'Cause he's all busy with, you know, teaching and espionage n-stuff. There, gives us a clean-yet-greasy Snape, and those with Snape-crushes can be certain that once he's found someone to rub him with lotion the whole thing will be taken care of. Alex From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 1 04:42:47 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:42:47 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: Dharma replies: Did anyone in this thread suggest that Lucius was not Draco's father? If so, you did not include that bit in your post. If you are referring to my comment about illegitimate children, my comment could apply to any "pureblood's" family history at any point. I certainly never suggested that Lucius was not Draco's father. kmc replies: I used the comment about Draco's resemblance to his father to provide Cannon as to why Draco is not the HBP. The original challenge was to provide cannon to counter the HBP!Draco. (see post 114332 for the snipped text. -kmc Dharma replies: There is nothing conclusive about this argument one way or another. There is no irrefutable proof that any of the Malfoys is a pure blood, other than what the characters say. Again that leaves all 3 of the Malfoys' claims as up in the air as anyone else's. What proof do we have beyond Lucius Malfoy's word that there are no half bloods, Muggles or Muggleborns in the Malfoy line? The only Malfoys we know are Lucius, Draco and Narcissa. Unless you can prove that everyone is correct in his or her understanding his or her heritage, it makes little difference to determining if Draco could be the HBP. Lucius could be lying about or under a false impression of his family's history. Canon shows us that the characters can sincerely believe what they are saying and be wrong, or just not tell the truth. Any argument about Draco's resemblance to Lucius is just not definitive. It does not further the case one way or the other. Draco has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on . From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 04:47:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:47:18 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114351 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my point entirely, Carol. I do > NOT believe that Lucius had any opportunity to tell Voldy about the > diary plot at ANY point before the graveyard scene. It is precisely > that fact which, to me, makes it extremely significant that he does > not use that first moment of opportunity in the graveyard to protest > about what he's done! > > *IF* he had really set up the diary plot as a means of helping Voldy > return, then **at this first opportunity** [read: graveyard] to > brag about how hard he worked, about the risk he took, about how > close he came to success, then why NOT do it? I'm simply taking > Lucius' reticence at that moment as evidence that he DIDN'T set up > the diary plan as a means of bringing Voldy back at all, but rather > set it up to advance his own position in the WW. Carol responds: Gotcha. (SSS breathes a sigh of relief.) But we don't know what he told LV *after* the graveyard scene. He really had no opportunity to say so *during* it. First it was Voldemort's monologue about his return (which it would be most unwise for Malfoy to interrupt), then it was the DEs welcoming Voldemort back and accepting their punishment for disloyalty (and again saying as little as they could get away with if they had any sense--Lucius came off pretty well and wisely left well enough alone), then it was the confrontation with Harry which was supposed to end in triumph for LV but instead ended in humiliation and chaos--most definitely a time to remain silent and try to obey the frantic order to "Stupefy him!" At that time our witness, Harry, returned to Hogwarts, and we have no idea of what followed his departure. It's possible that Malfoy, who clearly was on good terms with Voldemort throughout OoP, remaining his righthand man despite LV's awareness of his "slippery" nature, found the time to tell him--in secret, away from anyone else--about the diary incident (*if* he knew that Tom Riddle was Voldemort and that the diary could have restored Tom to life). But why would he? The plot failed. You don't brag about an attempt that didn't work. I'm not saying that Malfoy *was* trying to bring Voldemort back. I'm as confused as anyone else regarding his motives and how he came by the diary in the first place. I'm just saying that slippery Lucius knows when to keep his mouth shut, and this strikes me as just such a time. I don't consider his silence (if he *was* silent after the graveyard scene) as evidence of his intent one way or the other. Carol, who hopes she's playing on the right court this time From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 05:01:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:01:08 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr and the DE's mark In-Reply-To: <20040930030612.41907.qmail@web52108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114352 Kim McGibony wrote: > He [Crouch Jr.] may or may not have had the mark on his > arm; however, he most certainly did know about the mark > as he conjured one to appear in the sky with Harry's > wand at the campground after the Quidditch cup match. Carol adds: And he knew about Snape's Dark Mark as well, as indicated by his snide remark that "some stains never wear off," which causes Snape to grab his arm convulsively until he realizes what he's doing and lets go. Barty knew about the Dark Mark, all right, and based on his knowledge of its workings, probably had one himself. He also knew how to cast a Crucio and an Imperio and how to AK his father, curses he could only have learned before he was sent to Azkaban and then kept prisoner by his father. Nineteen or not, he was in the company of LV's most faithful Death Eaters when they Crucio'd the Longbottoms, and based on his actions in DADA class when he prolongs the torture of the spider, oblivious to its effects on Neville even though he knows exactly who Neville is, I'd say he was as guilty as Bellatrix and just as fanatical, and that he did have a place in the inner circle of the Death Eaters. The only reason why the other DEs didn't know that he was the loyal DE at Hogwarts is that they thought he had died in Azkaban. Carol From zanelupin at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 05:07:52 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:07:52 -0000 Subject: Who killed Quirrel? (Was: Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114353 Angie wrote: > I agree. It seems to me we've got a little "overkill" with all the deaths flying around. KathyK: Aw, come on! I don't want to hear any of that. ;-) There's no overkill. In fact, we could do with a few more deaths. Voldemort is supposed to evil and scary. He and his Death Eaters are meant to wreak havoc and cause serious pain throughout the WW. We have yet to see this in the numbers their reputation demands. Angie: >And of course, Harry eventually will have to deal with the fact that he will have to kill Voldemort. I wonder why he doesn't ever think about the fact that he killed Quirrell.< KathyK: Harry did not kill Quirrel. Voldemort did. When Harry lost consciousness at the end of PS/SS Quirrel was still alive. He was in pain and blistered thanks to Harry's touch but alive just the same. Voldemort says himself in GoF, Chapter 33 US ed pg 654: "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as ever I had been" He possessed Quirrel and then left him to die (As Dumbledore also mentions in PS/SS). Then again there are those faithful who know despite what Voldemort, Dumbledore, and JKR have said, Quirrel is indeed alive. :-) *Waves to Constance Vigilance* KathyK From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 1 06:26:12 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:26:12 -0000 Subject: A tunnel, a diary and a memory..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Geoff: > > > > But what does canon say..... > "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 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.230 UK edition) - my emphasis. > Carol: > So you think that Tom Riddle left the diary in, say, the Slytherin > common room or his dorm room for another Slytherin to find? Wouldn't > it have made more sense, and still fit the meaning of "left behind," > for him to give it to a school friend (say Malfoy's father) to be used > if it were needed? > I agree that it wasn't in LV's possession in some hideout, but where > was it and how did Lucius come by it, in your view? > > Carol, who isn't arguing, just trying to determine the point you're > making with the quotation Geoff: Possibly your suggestion,immediately above. The point I'm making is that the diary was not in /his/ possession. The puzzling thought is, why did he consider that he was wasting years of searching if he didn't leave the diary "behind", wherever that is? I'm afraid much of my posting about Tom recently has been questions looking for answers and so the views of other members are of great interest. Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 07:23:53 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:23:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death and The Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > > ...edited... > > And I thought that that was JKR's point. As much as it sucks, deaths > like that do just happen sometimes. We can't make sense of them, we > don't WANT to believe it, but they're still "proper" deaths. > > I also think it may speak to JKR's interpretation of what death is > about ["the next great adventure"]. For children, seeing that death > ... may NOT have been designed to get them to question whether it > was Death or Something Else, but rather to get them to see death in > a *particular way,* > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: I'm going to use SSSusan's post as a jumping in point to make the point I always make when this subject comes up, unfortunately, it doesn't address SSSusan's comments directly. There are those who suppose that Sirius's alleged death is some grand conspiracy to fake his death and get him out of the picture for a long list of assorted reasons, and by a long list of assorted persons, although Dumbledore is most often the named conspirator. In response to this speculation, I only ask that you look at the immense complexity of this ruse. To assume that anyone threw together the whole 'Voldemort has Sirius' plan so they could fake Sirius's death is a conspiracy that positively dwarfs the 'Kennedy-Second Gunman/CIA/Mafia' conspiracy. For anyone to plan that impossibly complex set of occurances for that purpose is next to impossible to believe. Even if Sirius's fake death was just tacked on to Voldemort's "I've got Sirius' plot, it still next to impossilbe to predict that in the heat of a real battle Sirius would be in the proximity of the Veil in a way that would allow him to /accidently/ fall through. It's a great fun theory, but functionally and wholly impractical. Certainly, if Dumbledore needed Sirius out of the picture, there were many and much better ways to do it. He could have let Sirius leave and go into hiding back in the land of the large tropical birds. Or, if it really had to be a fake death, he certainly could have come up with something more workable than the off chance Sirius might fall through the Veil. Finally, one very important point, the room isn't called the Room of Tricks, Jokes, Red Herrings, and Elaborate Conspiracies, it called the Death Chamber. That should really give us a pretty solid clue about what goes on in there; people die. To finally address SSSusan's comment, I think she is right on in her interpretation of how JKR intends to present death to us, and to the message she wants youger reader to get from the references to death. Contained there in are really two messages, the first is that you are meant to live out your time on earth to it's fullest, you are meant to live out your destiny and not to circumvent it. And, when your time does come, it's nothing to fear. Afterall, you are not really going to be that far away from your loved ones, you're just going to be over there on the other side of the Veil, living the next great adventure. In summary, neither life nor death are something to be feared. Finally, I say Sirius is dead, but the dead we love never truly leave us or so I've heard from a reliable source. I think Sirius will never come back to life, but will without a doubt come back into the story. All that said, I can't believe that an icon as prominent as The Veiled Archway in The Death Chamber is a one shot deal, never to be heard of again. I can't shake this whole concept of traveling beyond the Veil for some specific purpose, for, most likely, Harry, the hero, to take a hero's journey beyond the Veil to gain specific wisdom to help in the ultimate defeat of his enemy. But I am completely baffled as to how JKR will manage to bring the fight into the Death Chamber again. It doesn't seem like a place that Harry is likely to want to visit again. According to Joseph Campbell, who sadly has gone beyond the Veil himself, all hero's journeys are about death and rebirth, but in a metphorical sense. In that sense, Harry has already died and been reborn. At the Dursleys, he was figuratively beyond the Veil, and when Hagrid brought him back to the wizard world, he was reborn again. Symbolic deaths and rebirths abound in the book and are at the heart of all hero's journeys. So, there it is, for what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 1 10:40:19 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:40:19 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > While I found most of the speculation about Lily's backstory a bit > weak (at least in canon support), the bit about the Evans parents > being victims of Voldemort or his minions strikes me as likely: Hickengruendler: I agree, but like some other posters pointed out, the chat last March where she said that the grandparents are not very important to the plot sort of contradicts the theory. On the other hand, we don't know what JKR considers important. Maybe the death of characters who never appeared in the books is not important for her, even if they were Harry's grandparents. > > * They certainly wouldn't be expected to have died of old age when > their daughter was only 20-something. Hickengruendler: I agree, and therefore I think it's likely that at least one of Petunia's parents felt victim to the Death Eaters. Especially because James parents are missing as well. And there where still alive when Sirius left his home. It just seems unlikely for me that all four of them died of natural causes, especially because they were closely related to the baby Voldemort wants to kill. > We know that James and Lily had "defied" LV three > times, which presumably did not endear them to his heart. Hickengruendler: And maybe the grandparents died during one of the times the Potters defied Voldie. > * Petunia appears to be terrified by the idea of Voldemort, arguably > moreso than a single murder (of her allegedly hated sister) would > explain. Hickengruendler: There I disagree with you. No matter how much you might hate your sister, the idea that her murderer is on the loose is terryfying. Especially, because the reason why Lily and James were killed is now living under Petunia's roof. I would be afraid, as well. > By way of contrast, the Dursleys do not appear terribly > scared at the news about mass-murderer Sirius Black in PA -- Vernon is > principally indignant, while Petunia takes the suggestion that he > might be on their street somewhat in stride, peeking outside to see if > she might be the one to turn him in. Hickengruendler: Here is a pretty beloved fandom-theory. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but it certainly is interesting. Harry misinterprets his Aunts behaviour in PoA. Petunia really recognised Sirius during the news. She knew who he was and ran to the window, because she thinks he's after Harry and knows that he has a reason to appear in Little Whinging. > > Certainly this is an area where JKR must have thought about the > backstory, and it presumably ties in in some way with the issue of > Dumbledore's bargain with Petunia and her odd behavior in OP. Unless > Petunia's portrayed character is a complete red herring, she must be > getting something out of the arrangement other than the satisfaction > of knowing that Harry is protected. And the simplest explanation > (yeah, I know, never a safe bet with Rowling, but...) would be that > she or Dudley or the whole family is being protected as well. > > -- Matt Hickengruendler: And here I don't really agree with it as well. The only safe place is the Dursley's home, and even assuming that Petunia and Dudley are safe their as well, at the very least Dudley isn't safe while he is at Smeltings, which is most of the year. Surely he would have been safer, if he hadn't got to do anything with Harry at all. And Petunia clearly loves Dudley, no matter how nasty she is otheriwse. And still in this case she seems to put him in danger to keep Harry safe. From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 11:31:53 2004 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 04:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041001113153.89861.qmail@web12204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114357 --- Nora Renka wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > > wrote: > > > Others postulate that Snape believes that only by > rescuing him could > > James save Lupin, Sirius and DD from a whole load > of trouble. Only > > by rescuing Snape could the presence of a werewolf > in the school > > be hushed up. And it was hushed up. No known > punishment for Sirius > > and Snape was told to keep his mouth shut. > > *Snip* > > > > That being so, why should Snape feel gratitude if > James's thoughts > > were centred on others? > > Oh, just to be contentious: > > Because Snape himself seems to follow a rather, > ummm, object-oriented > morality? In other words, at least the defense is > often made for > him: 'It's not why he does it, but what he does, > that's important'. > This also seems to be at least a little part of his > current self- > conception: 'I'm doing the right thing even though I > may loathe it a > decent amount of the time, and I still don't really > *like* most of > you, anyways'. It seems fair that if one expects > gratitude for ones > actions regardless of motivation (see: bended knee > comments in the > Shrieking Shack), one should be polite enough to > extend such > consideration unto others. *Snip* Mezu thinks: I'm not 100% sure Snape did _not_ know what he was getting into going to the Shreiking Shack. Snape seems too smart for that, and I just don't mean books. By both admission, Snape followed the Marauders around. It would be obvious to figure out Lupin was a werewolf, as Hermione did (she was the only one mentioned to have done the homework). If Snape did his homework, as he must have to complete his OWLs so dilagently, he could have figured it out. Then we go onto why he would willingly go to the Shack. The books never said Snape was scared. This is a way out idea, but Snape went to get bitten or killed, as in a suicide. That would give credit to his intense hatred of James for not letting him get through. And it would be the prefect revenge for all the pranks, getting all the Marauders expelled, thus ruining their lives. Letting the Marauders off would seem like a slap in the face to Snape, and almost telling him that would have happened anyway. This would lead to a mindset of 'If I can't get them now, I'll get them later' and the DEs must have seemed like angels from heaven to him. This could also explain his dislike of life in the 'present' time. He would be forbidden to die because of the debt to DD. ===== "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 12:01:25 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:01:25 -0000 Subject: Something about Harry (was: Snape and Harry again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114358 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > To me this indicates there is, indeed, Something About Harry. > > Training is helping, too, but DD is seeing things in Harry he's > > never seen in others. And all while "struggling under more > > burdens than any student who has ever passed through this > > school" [839]. Nope, I still interpret this as DD's believing > > Harry is truly different from other wizards, truly gifted in > > some extraordinary way. Carol again: > I don't disagree with you. I just say that there's no definitive > evidence that Harry was *born with* those special powers (other > than his skill at Quidditch/flying, which I do think he inherited > from James). They could be the result of the encounter with > Voldemort, which "marked" him as Voldemort's (future) equal. And > regardless of whether they're inherited or acquired or both, they > have to be developed through training and practice, a point you've > already conceded. > > Here's the point I haven't made yet, the reason this is so > important to me. I don't want the future of the WW to be already > mapped out, with Harry and Voldemort and the rest as puppets > playing preassigned roles. I like JKR's emphasis on choice, which > means that Harry's decisions, even at Hogwarts, matter--and so do > his mistakes. SSSusan: I'm going to snip almost all of this, because I think you & I are now at the point where there is only subtle disagreement between us. Because neither of us can prove our point fully w/ the evidence at hand, we just have different preferences for what we'd like to see. The one thing I'd like to point out, though, is that even though I *do* think Harry was born with a special something(s)--power, talent, skill--and that it was in large part still in its "potential" stage, i.e., it needs to be "trained up a bit," I DON'T think this means everything was pre-destined. I definitely think Harry still has choice. That is, he still needs to *decide* whether to take that "training up" seriously and to work his ass off at it; he still needs to *decide* whether he's going to face up to his burden and go willingly to fight Voldy, or whether he's going to run away and hide. The issue of things looking preordained seems, to me, to come up more with the *prophecy* than with whether there's something special about Harry from birth. It's the *prophecy* which some could argue takes away more of the choice--it surely brings into more clear focus that specialness of his, anyway, and makes it clearer what his choice is about. Before he knew the prophecy, Harry chose more freely--unknowingly, if you will--to do "good things" like going after the stone, rescuing Ginny, etc. Now that he knows about the prophecy and his ultimate Big Choice, it almost feels that his choices, though still present, are more limited. Sheesh, I don't think I've explained that well at all. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 1 12:28:08 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:28:08 -0000 Subject: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114359 Marla: > So why can't Snape accept the fact that he really does owe him a debt of gratitude and why does he really hate James so much more than the others?< James was co-leader of the gang, and in Snape's mind he either knew what the others were up to or he should have done. In the same way, Snape blamed Harry when Neville blew up his cauldron in that first potions class. (This way of thinking is not limited to Snape. McGonagall also blamed Harry for Neville's rule breaking in PS/SS.) Marla: >One more thing, I don't agree with the idea that Snape knew Lupin was a werewolf before entering the tunnel. He was still too curious to find out what was going on down there, what sane person would take such a risk. < No sane person, of course, which leads me to conclude that Snape was tricked, jinxed or blackmailed into going down the tunnel. That is why he so firmly believes that the Marauders were trying to murder him. As usual, Snape has correctly identified the crime but is blaming the wrong person-- IMO the only one who had murder in mind was EverSoEvil!Lupin. He was the only one whose life would have been ruined if the werewolf outings were exposed and they were all expelled. The threat of punishment doesn't seem to hang heavily over Sirius or James in the Pensieve, and why should it? Having passed their OWLs they would no longer lose their wands if they were expelled, and they both expected to inherit wealth so they didn't need to worry about their job prospects. But Lupin's family seems to have exhausted its resources in searching for a cure. Dumbledore's trust was the only thing Lupin had going for him, and Snape was set to discover that Lupin had betrayed it. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 12:45:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:45:59 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114360 List elves, kindly forgive what is to follow. It's not OT, really, but I recognize that it is my airing of a pet peeve. We all boo-boo from time to time--heaven knows I've deleted a fair number of my own posts here and have been red-faced over errors in logic--but if I might, I would like to point out the following: cannon - a large, artillery gun, usually on wheels; a firearm for discharging heavy shot with great force canon - sanctioned or accepted body of related works; the authentic works of a writer JKR has produced a canon, not (as far as we know) a cannon. :-) Please forgive if this sounds pompous or snarky; it's not intended to. Just a friendly neighborhood Public Service Announcement. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 13:06:25 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:06:25 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114361 Angie wrote: >>> I agree it is a good thing that JKR has children's characters that deal with death. But I also think if her goal is to help with that, she should have written Sirius off in such a way that his death would could not be questioned. Here, she clearly left the door open, so IMO it's not a case in which a dead relative suddenly pops back. I agree that would not be good. I would hope that any child reading the series would be old enough to understand Sirius's disappearance behind the veil can be interpreted as something other than him being dead.<<< SSSusan replied: >> But *do* children question Sirius' death? It's only been adults in my experience who do. I think children are more accepting that he's gone.<< Angie: > I don't know if children question Sirius's death. I haven't > talked to any children who have read the series and I don't "chat" > online with children. So, I don't know. I don't know that I > agree that they are more accepting that he is gone. In my > experience, kids like concrete answers as much as adults (maybe > even more so because they thinks adults fail to give them straight > answers) -- if you leave them an opening, they will see it. SSSusan: I don't chat online with children, either [yikes, that sounds like something illegal when I type it!], but I have two of my own and know several others through them & church. I think you're right that children like concrete answers. So here the issue is probably more about what children will question and what they will accept simply because the author said so. Thus, I think the question in this case is, "DO they see an opening here?" A lot probably depends on their age, since "kids" covers a large age range. Perhaps some do question; others, I think, just take Lupin's statement "He's dead" and NHN's statement "He won't be coming back" at face value. We adults are more inclined to question or--esp. because she's JKR!--to look for subtleties which could appear as one thing but actually indicate something else. I compare this Sirius' death issue to the kids' (I know) view of Snape. They don't see the layers of complexity most of us adults do; they think he's just flat-out a mean bad guy who unfairly picks on Harry & Neville. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 13:17:08 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 06:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041001131708.36952.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114362 > Where this bothers me is that James didn't have anything > to do with sending him to the Willow. So why can't Snape accept > the fact that he really does owe him a debt of gratitude and why > does he really hate James so much more than the others? > > Marla Until we hear otherwise, I'm assuming that it's because Dumbledore saw James as the big hero of the night, made him Head Boy a year later, praised him as having (finally) matured and probably told Snape how grateful he should be to James. Which if you're Snape and are convinced that the whole thing was a set-up from the get-go, would be really hard to take. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Oct 1 13:24:10 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > Kneasy wrote: > > > Being a fully paid up member of the awkward squad I took the > > opposite line - AGGIE - Lily was enamoured of Snape but was > > rejected. There's no real evidence either way of course, but I > > prefer my version - mostly because it has the potential to induce > > apoplexy among Lily fans - or Snape-aphobics. > > Hickengruendler: > I disagree. I think it's a highly interesting theory, but I don't > really think it's true. > Kneasy: I'd put odds against it too. In fact I'd put odds against most of the theories emanating from my keyboard. Some are exercises in lateral or perverse thinking; some are deliberately contrarian - offering alternative interpretations that might make posters think, even if they don't agree with them; some are (hopefully) humorous twists on canon and some are meant to be rigorous analysis, even though JKR will probably shoot them down in flames eventually. I'd be very disappointed if everything I posted were to be taken at face value. > >Additionally, they > > married immediately on leaving school (according to the Lexicon) - > > almost indecently hasty IMO. Yet we are also told that at the time > > of the wedding the Dursleys were already married. > Hickengruendler: > Where? This really isn't sarcastic. I really can't remember it. Where > was it mentioned? And I also can't remember, and in this case I think > we really weren't told, that it was ever said that Petunia visited > her sisters marriage. > Kneasy: I seem to remember it being referred to in canon somewhere. Just been to try and nail it down - and naturally I can't find it. I will keep looking though. It's a reasonable assumption that the Dursleys didn't attend the Potter nuptials: According to the Lexicon it was 3 years between leaving school and leaving this mortal plane and Lily "had not seen her sister for a number of years.." I'd expect a positive identification of Sirius when news of his escape was broadcast on TV. Sirius Black is hardly a common name and since he was the Best Man he'd be a central figure in what, for the Dursleys, would have been a truly nightmarish day - being surrounded by the perversion that dare not speak its name. Some theorists believe that Petunia did recognise him; not I, her reaction isn't strong enough - see how Vernon responds when Harry breaks the news of a murderous Godfather/friend of his parents at the end of PoA. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 1 13:35:48 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:35:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114364 > Kethryn said: > > 1. In the Sorcerer's Stone, all those "chats" Snape had with Quirrel are bugging me. > > If Snape knew that Voldemort was leeching on Quirrel, then I'm not sure that he would have even talked to Quirrel, not if he wanted to protect his identity as a double agent.< Quirrell tells us that he knew it was Snape who had interfered with his jinx, and that Snape had threatened him, but he doesn't tell us what rationale Snape presented for doing it. We don't know what Snape said between "You know perfectly well what I mean" and "--your little bit of hocus-pocus. I'm waiting." It could have been "You're trying to steal the Stone, but you won't succeed. Not without my help. You want Potter out of the way? Cut me in on the deal and next time I won't interfere with--" Since Quirrell did not tell Snape that he had Lord Voldemort on his side, Snape's loyalty to Voldemort was not in question. > > Dungrollin rolls up her sleeves: > > As I see it, there are 4 possibilities: > (I suspect that someone has already gone through this before > 1. ESE!Snape > 2. MoralConversion!Snape > > 3. ReluctantlyGood!Snape > > 4. Oscar-winner!Snape Pippin: I see Snape as a combination of all four, with a measure of Ally's Vengeance-driven!Snape as well, though I think Rowling is saving a true moral conversion for the end. I see Snape as someone with a strong sense of justice (and injustice) but being a true Slytherin, he posits no external set of values by which to judge. He measures everything against his internal sense of injury or benefit. I think Voldemort taught him occlumency with the unintended consequence that for the first time in his life Snape learned to control his anger. At that point, the rational side of Snape's character could assert itself. He began to see that his service to the Death Eaters was pointless, and that Voldemort was not interested in obtaining justice for his followers but only in power for himself. Snape might have faked his death and disappeared, but he wanted revenge against Voldemort for manipulating him and there was still the debt to James. So Snape defected, but Voldemort got blown away and James got killed before the debts could be cleared, leaving Snape in a pretty quandary. How can you pay back a debt to someone who (apparently) can't be killed? I think Dumbledore assured Snape that Voldemort would be back and Harry would need Snape's help someday. So Snape has remained in Dumbledore's service, because of his very self-interested subjective concept of justice. That brings us to OscarWinner!Snape. I think Snape is a hard, cruel bitter man, possibly not entirely human. But he doesn't hate Harry, or at least we've had some powerful hints that he does not. Twice, in OOP, Harry thinks he has seen hatred and is corrected. He's told that Lily didn't hate James and Sirius didn't hate Kreacher. I don't believe Snape hates Harry, but he has a real problem with Harry's attitude, and his sense of injury is magnified by his frustration and his lingering resentment of James, whom he did hate and with good reason. As Snape punishes people commensurate with his sense of injury rather than their crimes, it's no wonder that he's too harsh with Harry and too soft on his Slytherins. It might be objected that Harry didn't have an attitude toward Snape to start with, but I would counter that before he entered the first potions class, Harry already believed that Snape didn't like him, that the pain in his scar had something to do with Snape, that only Slytherins became dark wizards, that Snape was very interested in the dark arts, that Slytherins were a hard lot, and most of all that no decent wizard would want to be in Slytherin House. It would be amazing if Snape didn't pick up on any of that. So while Snape is not acting when he is cruel to Harry, I don't think Harry is correctly interpreting his motives. On the other hand, I think that Pensieve aside, Snape's capslock rages are not entirely genuine--the feelings are real, but the sense he projects of being out of control is an act. The point is not to intimidate Harry, but to convince Voldemort, through his proxies, that Snape is still mastered by his rage and easy prey for the Dark Lord. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 13:44:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:44:07 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: <20040930.235435.1780.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114365 Aura: > 1. If someone was poisoned, but you didn't know by what (ie, the > poison was undetectable), what would you use? A cure that's > effective against "most poisons." The, whasimcallit, goat stone. SSSusan: Bezoar, dear. :-) Aura: > It's starting to look like we're supposed to be expecting Snape to > poison Harry (or maybe we were supposed to have expected that in > OOtP, the occlumancy red herring, Snape "poisoning" Harry's mind). > But I don't believe in ESE!Snape, so ... we're back to the same > question we've been asking. :-/ Will he rescue Harry? Will Harry > rescue someone because of something Snape taught him? SSSusan: For what it's worth, I vote for option 2. As an aside, wouldn't it be great if Harry really DID stop resisting and start learning from Snape? Don't get me wrong, I understand his resistance, but I'm still holding out for Maturing!Harry in books 6 & 7, who will begin to treat Snape differently even if Snape continues in his modus operandi. And since I've finally got an excuse to post on this thread, I'm going to second Steve's comments from #114287. I took, from the beginning, Snape's "stopper death" comment to mean a means of delaying or postponing death. Siriusly Snapey Susan From yswahl at stis.net Fri Oct 1 13:45:01 2004 From: yswahl at stis.net (samnanya) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:45:01 -0000 Subject: NSP!Lucius and Who can fathom the mind of a house elf? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114366 What a great thread! Solid canon, not some half-baked opinions, and moreover, a thread that leads to more insight rather than to opinion mongering................ Most interesting that kmc provides the canon and also an interesting argument for NSP!Malfoy (NotSoPureblooded) When I read the paragraphs that follow, I finally had a decent explanation for one of the biggest puzzles in COS - why did Dobby betray his master's trust to warn Harry Potter? That never made sense to me given the strict house elf code of obedience to one's master. However, if Lucius was a Half-Blood, the argument that Dobby, like Kreacher, could "betray" his master makes a lot more sense. Dumbledore did defend Kreacher in OOP and talked about the "trust" that Kreacher had for Narcissa Black, which allowed him to betray Sirius. Also interesting is exactly where Kreacher ends up at the start of Book 6, and exactly what secrets he will divulge to Narcissa. I doubt that he will remain at HQ to have his head lopped off by Harry or some other order member. Once again, form your own opinion, but don't be suprised if Lucius comes from an "old family" not necessarily a wizarding one. THanks kmc! kmc wrote: One of the girls in my youth group and I were discussing the Draco as half-blood prince on a recent car ride. I was arguing for him being the HBP and she was able to counter everyone of my "dreams" with cannon. We discussed affairs, a hidden Mugggle in ancestory. She used the arguments I posted here for the hidden Muggle. I argued that maybe Narcissa had a Muggle in her background that was hidden from the Black family but ---> she pointed out that Kreacher did not take orders from half-blood Tonks. He would not run to Narcissa if she was Half-blood. <----- ============================================================ original slightly snipped thread samnanya > I wonder if JKR will suprise us all and have Draco Malfoy > turn out to be the Half-Blood Prince. We know that his > mother's line is pure because of the Blacks, but precious > little is said about Lucius' ancestry...... > JKR has already said that pureblood is not necessary to > be a Death Eater. > At the end of GOF (706) Fudge responds to Harry's > allegation that Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater by saying > "Malfoy was cleared! ... A very old family -" > Hmmm I ownder why the word "wizard" or "wizarding" was > not added as it was in so many other places. > Not much yet to go on, but isn't that what suprises are all > about? If you don't think so, please provide CANON evidence > that Lucius is indeed pureblooded........ > > kmc provides the cannon: > Page 113, OotP, Hardback, American version Chapter Six (emphasis mine) > "He pointed to another samll round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa."'Andromeda's sisters are still her because they made lovely, respectable PURE-BLOOD marriages,' Cannon - Lucius is full-blood as is Draco. BTW - When I first heard the title of book six, I was pulling for Draco to be half-blood. But, alas, this is not support by cannon. Dharma replies: I personally do not believe that it is impossible for Witches and > Wizards who believe they are purebloods to find out that such is > not the case. There are characters who hold some pretty important > facts to be true, only to find out that they are just plain wrong. > Canon often reflects what the characters know, until it is the right > time in the plot to reveal the truth, or another character has a > reason to present to appropriate information. > > -Sirius believes that Peter could not be a spy for 2 or so years, > only to discover the truth at the cost the Potters' lives. > > -Remus and Dumbledore believe Sirius to be a spy and murderer for > more than a decade, until they are witness the impossible. > > -Most of Hogwarts seems to be under the impression that Trelawney > has no Sight, but that is not the case. She makes very accurate > predictions regularly. She only has two known prophesies under > belt, but her predictions work out. > > -Bellatrix is unable to accept that Voldemort is not a pureblood > wizard even though she is given information to the contrary. > Barty Jr. knows so why doesn't she? > > -Harry believes that Mrs. Figg is just an older Muggle woman in his > neighborhood. > > -Almost every member of the Wizarding community, including Sirius > who was imprisoned with him, believed that Barty Crouch Jr. was dead. > > Canon suggests to us that "pureblood" families would start > disowning members if they stepped out of line. This to me sets up > the perfect scenario for some family mythology. Hiding facts, > telling lies and ignoring evidence have been done commonly in history > to maintain "noble" family reputations. We do have canon to suggest > that there are Wizards who would willingly lie and scheme to > protect their children (see Mr. and Mrs. Crouch). If there is one > illegitimate child somewhere in a family history, or a not so > publicized marriage, it's not too difficult for a pureblood Wizard > to be come a half blood Wizard. > > Narcissa's phenotype comes to mind on this one. She might have > gotten all of those recessive features from the Black line. But > then again, we only know what Sirius knows about that part of the > family, and for me the information is not very complete. Her > mother's family is never discussed. If it only takes one Muggle or > Muggleborn Wizard in an individuals lineage to alter one's pureblood > status and canon only reflects what the characters believe to be > factual, then we could be in for some surprises. > > With that said I'm not sure who the HBP is, but it could be > interesting if it did turn out to be a character who is under an > erroneous/incomplete impression about his family history. That > could lead to some very interesting developments in books 6 and 7. > > kmc again: > > The challenge was to provide cannon that Malfoy was pure-blood. > Consider that Mrs. Black blasted off every member of the family who > did not conform to the her ideals of pure-blood. I see the marriage > between Lucius and Narcissa more as the proper thing to do - maybe > even an arranged marriage. As has been stated, there aren't a lot of > choices if you are only going to let your sons and daughters marry > pure blood wizards. It may be why Narcissa looks like there is "a > nasty smell under her nose." She had to go to the Quidditch Cup with > Lucius. > > Dharma replies: > > Narcissa might just not like Quidditch. She may have and issue with > sitting in a crowded stand. The look on her face tells us nothing > about any moment other than what we see. She might find community > functions annoying. There is just as much likelihood that she loves > Lucius as there is that she tolerates Lucius. > > kmc wrote: > One of the girls in my youth group and I were discussing the Draco as > half-blood prince on a recent car ride. I was arguing for him being > the HBP and she was able to counter everyone of my "dreams" with > cannon. We discussed affairs, a hidden Mugggle in ancestory. She > used the arguments I posted here for the hidden Muggle. > > I argued that maybe Narcissa had a Muggle in her background that was > hidden from the Black family but she pointed out that Kreacher did > not take orders from half-blood Tonks. He would not run to Narcissa > if she was Half-blood. > > Dharma replies: > > Kreacher acts on information from Mrs. Black. If any male Black > married a Muggleborn, Muggle or half blood Witch, why would they tell > the truth and have their bigoted relatives, most certainly Mrs. > Black, potentially attack their mate? It is common knowledge that > Andromeda married a Muggleborn Wizard; therefore Kreacher is able to > act on the information (ignoring Tonks). Andromeda chose to marry a > known Muggleborn and was apparently ousted from the family. Does > everyone have that kind of courage? What do we know about Narcissa's > mother? We know what Sirius knows. There is more than enough canon > to suggest that Sirius could have legitimately believed false > information. We've had more than one instance of Wizards lying to > protect their skin. Kreacher's behavior is just not conclusive. > > kmc wrote: > As to Lucius not being Draco's biological father - Lucius and Draco > have the same features and coloring. That Harry recognizes him as > Draco's father in COS. > > Dharma replies: > Did anyone in this thread suggest that Lucius was not Draco's > father? If so, you did not include that bit in your post. If you > are referring to my comment about illegitimate children, my comment > could apply to any "pureblood's" family history at any point. I > certainly never suggested that Lucius was not Draco's father. From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 1 13:49:06 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:49:06 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114367 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: List elves, kindly forgive what is to follow. It's not OT, really, but I recognize that it is my airing of a pet peeve. We all boo-boo from time to time--heaven knows I've deleted a fair number of my own posts here and have been red-faced over errors in logic--but if I might, I would like to point out the following: cannon - a large, artillery gun, usually on wheels; a firearm for discharging heavy shot with great force canon - sanctioned or accepted body of related works; the authentic works of a writer JKR has produced a canon, not (as far as we know) a cannon. :-) Please forgive if this sounds pompous or snarky; it's not intended to. Just a friendly neighborhood Public Service Announcement. Dharma replies: Well at the risk of find and Elf shoe far too close to my posterior, I'm posting a reply :) Thanks for the reminder to watch spelling and homophony. There is quite a bit of room for error with words like Kreacher-Kreature- Creature-Creacher, Snivellus-Snivelus, cannon-canon, Hermione- Herminie, Weasley-Weasly and Sirius--serious-serous-series. These are all little things that I've seen or done myself in a rush. Because wordplay is such an important part of the HP series, there is quite a bit of room for a typo here or there. It is easy to make a mistake, and not always so easy to see minor errors while in the midst of formulating ideas, theories and arguments. So thanks again for the reminder to be consistent!! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 13:53:57 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:53:57 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114368 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: >> I'm afraid you're misunderstanding my point entirely, Carol. I do NOT believe that Lucius had any opportunity to tell Voldy about the diary plot at ANY point before the graveyard scene. It is precisely that fact which, to me, makes it extremely significant that he does not use that first moment of opportunity in the graveyard to protest about what he's done! *IF* he had really set up the diary plot as a means of helping Voldy return, then **at this first opportunity** [read: graveyard] to brag about how hard he worked, about the risk he took, about how close he came to success, then why NOT do it? I'm simply taking Lucius' reticence at that moment as evidence that he DIDN'T set up the diary plan as a means of bringing Voldy back at all, but rather set it up to advance his own position in the WW.<< Carol responds: > Gotcha. (SSS breathes a sigh of relief.) But we don't know what he > told LV *after* the graveyard scene. He really had no opportunity > to say so *during* it. First it was Voldemort's monologue about his > return (which it would be most unwise for Malfoy to interrupt), > then it was the DEs welcoming Voldemort back and accepting their > punishment for disloyalty (and again saying as little as they > could get away with if they had any sense--Lucius came off pretty > well and wisely left well enough alone), then it was the > confrontation with Harry which was supposed to end in triumph for > LV but instead ended in humiliation and chaos--most definitely a > time to remain silent and try to obey the frantic order > to "Stupefy him!" At that time our witness, Harry, returned to > Hogwarts, and we have no idea of what followed his departure. It's > possible that Malfoy, who clearly was on good terms with Voldemort > throughout OoP, remaining his righthand man despite LV's awareness > of his "slippery" nature, found the time to tell him--in secret, > away from anyone else--about the diary incident (*if* he knew that > Tom Riddle was Voldemort and that the diary could have restored > Tom to life). But why would he? The plot failed. You don't brag > about an attempt that didn't work. > > I'm not saying that Malfoy *was* trying to bring Voldemort back. > I'm as confused as anyone else regarding his motives and how he > came by the diary in the first place. I'm just saying that > slippery Lucius knows when to keep his mouth shut, and this > strikes me as just such a time. > Carol, who hopes she's playing on the right court this time SSSusan: Yea!! Indeed you are on the same court w/ me now. And you raise some possibilities I had not considered. I know that I likely was doing some projecting when I suggested Lucius would've been inclined to blurt out, "But, Master, I DID try to help you!" Because, monologue or no monologue, wise or not wise, that's what I would've done if it were true. But Lucius is decidedly not me. He *is* slippery and smooth and ambitious, and I'm...well...a blurter. I like the thought that Lucius might've told his story later; that makes a good deal of sense to me. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who took the day off to clean the house, so she'd better hop to it. Besides, my cat is on top of my monitor and keeps dropping his paws down over the screen so I can't see. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Oct 1 14:01:36 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:01:36 -0000 Subject: Priori incantatem (Was: Survival of AK) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Just a theory, but it explains the absence of a "shadow" for the AK > better than the idea that it was some other spell. After all, if the > silver hand and the Dark Mark show up as recognizable indicators of > the spell cast to create them, then whatever curse Voldemort attempted > to put on Harry would also show up in a priori incantatem--unless > failed curses of whatever kind leave no record. (It wouldn't show up > as a scream because a scream is the record of a Crucio.) > Two points. It's my contention that PI will show any spell that has a demonstrable physical effect. If an AK was used against Harry at GH it ripped Voldy's spirit from his body - leaving behind a dead body. I'd call that a demonstrable effect, wouldn't you? And since Voldy admits to "pain beyond pain" I'd expect a yelp or two - but there's nothing. But my main point is that I think it didn't show up for the very good reason that it wasn't an AK and probably wasn't even wand magic. I know many don't agree with me but IMO it cuts out the contortions of "how many green flashes, how can a repelled AK transfer powers, why didn't Voldy die?" altogether. Much, much simpler. Only one person ever says it's an AK and how the hell does he know? I think that what happened at GH was very like what Voldy tried in the Ministry - a possession. Kneasy From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 14:32:47 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 07:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041001143247.2067.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114370 > Angie wrote: > JKR has said that Harry's stay at Privet Drive will be the > shortest yet. My theory: Harry is picked up early from Privet Drive because he's being taken to a special, private Order memorial ceremony for Sirius - who's death is not official knowledge because - oh, for all kinds of reasons. The person sent to pick up Harry is Snape - who very much wants to see Harry on his "home turf" so that he can finally determine if the memories Snape saw in occlumency lessons were real or not because he really doesn't want to surrender his Harry-as-spoiled-brat-in-the-home-of-Lily's-sister image of the kid. Harry has spent a couple of weeks convincing Vernon and Petunia (jumpy after meeting Mad-Eye's mad eye) that wizards really are "just folks". So the last thing they're prepared for is the stereotypical grouchy bad-ass dark wizard apparating into the breakfast room one sunny morning and announcing he's there to pick up Harry.... Magda (one can always hope, at least) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 15:33:25 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041001153325.71307.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114371 > Angie responds: > One thing we know for sure, then, is that either you or I will be > disappointed, because I will be disappointed if Sirius is dead. :) > I agree it is a good thing that JKR has children's characters that > deal with death. But I also think if her goal is to help with > that, she should have written Sirius off in such a way that his > death would could not be questioned. Here, she clearly left the > door open, so IMO it's not a case in which a dead relative suddenly > pops back. Well, I think JKR went to a great deal of effort to let us know that Sirius is well and truly gone: Dumbledore says he's dead, Nick explains to Harry how ghosts come to be and that Sirius isn't one, Harry goes through pages of grief and angst. Not to mention that JKR told the press last summer that she wept when she killed him off and her husband told her that if it made her feel bad then she shouldn't have done it. So I would respectfully suggest that it's more a matter of fan-denial than vagueness on JKR's part. Sirius is dead. She's talked in interviews about the character who died (without naming him for fear of spoiling it for those who haven't read OOTP yet)and I really don't think she's going to pull a fast one on us and have him reappear. I for one would be a very unhappy reader if she did. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From patientx3 at aol.com Fri Oct 1 15:44:39 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:44:39 -0000 Subject: Something about Harry (was: Snape and Harry again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114372 Carol wrote: > I just say that there's no definitive > evidence that Harry was *born with* those special powers (other > than his skill at Quidditch/flying, which I do think he inherited > from James). They could be the result of the encounter with > Voldemort, which "marked" him as Voldemort's (future) equal. And > regardless of whether they're inherited or acquired or both, they > have to be developed through training and practice, a point you've > already conceded. > > Here's the point I haven't made yet, the reason this is so > important to me. I don't want the future of the WW to be already > mapped out, with Harry and Voldemort and the rest as puppets > playing preassigned roles. I like JKR's emphasis on choice, which > means that Harry's decisions, even at Hogwarts, matter--and so do > his mistakes. SSSusan replied: [a lot of snipping] >>The issue of things looking preordained seems, to me, to come up more with the *prophecy* than with whether there's something special about Harry from birth. It's the *prophecy* which some could argue takes away more of the choice--it surely brings into more clear focus that specialness of his, anyway, and makes it clearer what his choice is about. Before he knew the prophecy, Harry chose more freely--unknowingly, if you will--to do "good things" like going after the stone, rescuing Ginny, etc. Now that he knows about the prophecy and his ultimate Big Choice, it almost feels that his choices, though still present, are more limited.<< HunterGreen: (jumping in) I feel the same way about the prophecy, and was severely disappointed when it was introduced into the text. I think I agree with both Carol and SSSusan in that regard. I would prefer for Harry to have been special when he was born (with the ability to do things like throw off the imperius curse and learn difficult things like the patronus charm very easily), because that means the prophecy is not self- fulfilling. If Harry was born as an average wizard (with perhaps the capacity for being a Quidditch prodgidy), and the prophecy came along and *caused* him to be special (by causing Voldemort to attack him/give him some of Voldemort's powers, and causing his mother to die to save him, which gave him the blood protection), then I think Harry has Professor Trelawney to blame for his life. I would prefer to think that Harry *already* had the power to defeat the dark lord, and that she only *predicted* it, rather than causing it (the events at the end of PoA would have happened the same if she hadn't predicted them, for example). However, I think this is where the story is going, so I have trouble believing it, its more of a lingering hope. Either way (born or by prophecy), Harry being the 'saviour' of the Wizarding World eliminates choice. Yes, he can choose not to, but that's not much of a choice. Especially where the prophecy is concerned, he's being told its his responsibility. Some things in the series--like in real life--are barely a choice. Its easy to get caught up in the idea of choice as a theme and that everything comes down to choice, but that's not *always* the case. With the things that have happened in Harry's life, there have been many things that were hardly his *choice* at all (like being raised by a family who hates him and being kidnapped at the end of GoF which thrust him into the liar/attention wanter role that he had in OotP). He's known as 'the-boy-who-lived', a title he can't really escape, was that his choice? From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 1 16:03:38 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:03:38 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > Dharma replies: > Did anyone in this thread suggest that Lucius was not Draco's > father? If so, you did not include that bit in your post. If you > are referring to my comment about illegitimate children, my comment > could apply to any "pureblood's" family history at any point. I > certainly never suggested that Lucius was not Draco's father. > > kmc replies: > > I used the comment about Draco's resemblance to his father to provide > Cannon as to why Draco is not the HBP. The original challenge was to > provide cannon to counter the HBP!Draco. > > (see post 114332 for the snipped text. > > -kmc > > Dharma replies: > > There is nothing conclusive about this argument one way or another. > There is no irrefutable proof that any of the Malfoys is a pure > blood, other than what the characters say. Again that leaves all 3 > of the Malfoys' claims as up in the air as anyone else's. What proof > do we have beyond Lucius Malfoy's word that there are no half bloods, > Muggles or Muggleborns in the Malfoy line? The only Malfoys we know > are Lucius, Draco and Narcissa. Unless you can prove that everyone > is correct in his or her understanding his or her heritage, it makes > little difference to determining if Draco could be the HBP. Lucius > could be lying about or under a false impression of his family's > history. Canon shows us that the characters can sincerely believe > what they are saying and be wrong, or just not tell the truth. Any > argument about Draco's resemblance to Lucius is just not definitive. > It does not further the case one way or the other. Draco has 2 > parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on . kmc challenges :) I think we are going to disagree on this one until book 6 is released but... - give me some specific Cannon to support Draco as the HBP. Is there cannon of Lucius lying? Lucius may not tell all that he knows but I don't remember anywhere in the books when Lucius lied. I am not saying he is not evil or does things "out of the goodness of his heart" but can you show an actual lie to support your theory. Lucius is only a few years older than Sirius, so there is a good chance that Mrs Black would know Lucius parents and possible grand- parents. Sirius is one of the characters who states that Lucius is full- blood. Please show me an occasion when Siruis believed what he was saying but was wrong. I agree it would be a great story line but it just is not supported by cannon. -kmc From kjones at telus.net Fri Oct 1 04:38:24 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:38:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415CDF40.8070306@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114374 Hannah wrote: -- > > Kim now (also, forgive me if this is a rehash of previous posts): > > > > Also, I too hope the Veil is a teaser, because I'm convinced on > > some level that Sirius isn't really dead... Else how do you explain > > still hearing people's voices if they're dead and gone for good? > > Should we take Dumbledore's word for it that Sirius is dead? > > > In the last interview which JKR gave she answered a question from the > crowd about Sirius and spoke of him in the present tense. Afterward, she said a couple of times that she had given too much away. I think the interview can be read on the JKR website. KJ From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 09:14:26 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:14:26 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114375 > Dharma replies: > > There is nothing conclusive about this argument one way or another. > There is no irrefutable proof that any of the Malfoys is a pure > blood, other than what the characters say. Again that leaves all 3 > of the Malfoys' claims as up in the air as anyone else's. What proof > do we have beyond Lucius Malfoy's word that there are no half bloods, > Muggles or Muggleborns in the Malfoy line? The only Malfoys we know > are Lucius, Draco and Narcissa. Unless you can prove that everyone > is correct in his or her understanding his or her heritage, it makes > little difference to determining if Draco could be the HBP. Lucius > could be lying about or under a false impression of his family's > history. Canon shows us that the characters can sincerely believe > what they are saying and be wrong, or just not tell the truth. Any > argument about Draco's resemblance to Lucius is just not definitive. > It does not further the case one way or the other. Draco has 2 > parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on . cunning spirit ponders: The tapestry showing the geneaological connections of the House of Black is an ancient object that was charmed in one manner or another to update the information it shows with regards to marriages and births within the family. Were these changes entered manually a la Sirius' demonstration of his mother's methods for deletion, or was the magic involved in additions somehow automatic, sort of like the magical quill at Hogwarts that notes the births of all magical babies in the British Isles? If the latter is true, then the tapestry might be the one source where the failings of human error and opinion would be minimal. The tapestry seems to think that Lucius Malfoy is a pureblood, so possibly he may just be that. From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 1 16:36:54 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:36:54 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114376 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > List elves, kindly forgive what is to follow. It's not OT, really, > but I recognize that it is my airing of a pet peeve. > > We all boo-boo from time to time--heaven knows I've deleted a fair > number of my own posts here and have been red-faced over errors in > logic--but if I might, I would like to point out the following: > > cannon - a large, artillery gun, usually on wheels; a firearm for > discharging heavy shot with great force > > canon - sanctioned or accepted body of related works; the authentic > works of a writer > > JKR has produced a canon, not (as far as we know) a cannon. :-) > Please forgive if this sounds pompous or snarky; it's not intended > to. Just a friendly neighborhood Public Service Announcement. > kmc here: Thanks for the reminder. I have now added canon to my spell checker at work. We had cannon but not canon in the web spell checker. I automatically excepted the change with out thinking. - kmc From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 1 17:53:10 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:53:10 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gilding the Lily References: <1096585846.5715.63660.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001101c4a7df$84d7d760$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 114377 Distaiyi wrote: > In war time how is it "remarkable" to die? > The wizarding world was in "civil war" so to speak. Voldemort was on > a rampage. It is not remarkable that the parents of two Volemort > resisters would have met untimely ends. Point taken, but with just two provisos. First one is not that it would have been unremarkable in the context of the war for Harry's grandparents all to have died at the hands of the DEs, but wouldn't it have been fairly important in the context of the _story_ for Harry to learn what had happened, not only why he didn't have any grandparents but also whether that was the real explanation for Petunia and her fear and loathing of wizardry. Second point is that the WW isn't behaving like a society which had suffered the kind of trauma which losing most of a generation would inflict. Admittedly the only grandparent we've seen is Neville's gran (and even she's a widow) but that could just as easily be perspective: we haven't seen a lot of _parents_ either, apart from the Weasleys and, fleetingly, the Graingers. There could quite easily be a grandad Septimus and a great-grandad Heironymus hidden away at Malfoy Mansion! Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From cat_kind at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 15:49:04 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:49:04 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114378 Kim writes: > Hello! I think this is definitely something to consider. However, > I imagine the clue is something much more subtle than that-- a word, > a thought, something he just walks by in passing. For example, I've > often wondered about some of the items mentioned in the Dark Arts > shop in Chapter Four of CoS. (snip) cat_kind replies: I've wondered about those Dark Artefacts too. The one that catches my fancy is the Hand of Whateveritis. One (somewhat far-fetched) supporting argument is that I heard in an interview with the screenwriter for the film version of CoS that JKR had insisted on keeping a certain apparently unimportant scene because of its significance later in the series. The Hand was one of the few things in the film that had no obvious significance elsewhere. I agree with Kim that it would be typical of JKR to bring in an important item disguised as an example of something else, or part of the scenery. I expect to hear more about the founders in Book 6 too. cat_kind (newbie, don't bite it!) From distaiyi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 16:00:41 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:00:41 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114379 All of the previous posters have made good points, I just don't see it the same way... JKR has made it abundantly clear throughout her books that it isn't the magic or the talent but what one does with it that matters. Using that as an informative base for "Dark Magic" we must say that "Dark Magic" is magic used for dark purposes. I suspect that JKR is using magic similarly to how they used it in the 1996 movie "The Craft". Magic/power comes from Manu and Manu is described somewhat as follows: If God and Satan were football teams, Manu would be the grass, the stadium, the sky, the sun, the stars, the air. Manu is older and superior to all later constructs. So the power comes from Manu. A witch/wizard learns to channel that power. What they do with it (intent) is what makes it "light" or "dark." Think of it this way, a gun/sword/knife is neither evil, nor good. What is done with it is. So, Dark Magic is created from intent and action, not from something inherent in the magical source. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 16:08:54 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:08:54 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > SSSusan: > For what it's worth, I vote for option 2. As an aside, wouldn't it > be great if Harry really DID stop resisting and start learning from > Snape? Don't get me wrong, I understand his resistance, but I'm > still holding out for Maturing!Harry in books 6 & 7, who will begin > to treat Snape differently even if Snape continues in his modus > operandi. Isn't he? I mean isn't he learning from Snape? It certainly seemed that he passed his Potion's OWLs (granted we don't KNOW that yet but)... maybe it was juts my perception, it's been over a year since I read OoTP. > And since I've finally got an excuse to post on this thread, I'm > going to second Steve's comments from #114287. I took, from the > beginning, Snape's "stopper death" comment to mean a means of > delaying or postponing death. Total agreement from me on this. "distaiyi" From cat_kind at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 16:12:16 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:12:16 -0000 Subject: Bullying. Was: James and Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114381 > Potioncat: > Just to quickly clarify, because I've seen a couple of replies to > this question. Only in the above quotes, doesn't JKR's descripton > of Sirius' behavior sound like her description of Draco's behavior? > I never noticed it until I started copying it down. I am not saying > at all that Sirius and Draco are counterparts. cat_kind: Yes, Draco and Sirius' bullying behavious is not dissimilar. I think other characters do it too, even Harry with Dudley at the start of OotP. Has there been a thread yet discussing bullying in general in the books? There seems to be a lot of it going on in various directions, whether physical or verbal, and particularly in OotP. I wonder if JKR is trying to get any messages across. cat_kind - forcibly restraining itself from a rant. For now. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 16:29:20 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:29:20 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114382 Could it be that Lucius merely wanted something he could pin on the Weasleys? "Oh my, my, the Weasleys have really been up to no good! Look here what their dear daughter brought into the hallowed halls of Hogwarts! Tom Riddel's Diary from 50 years ago!" Thus deflecting attention from him to Mr. Weasley. Just a thought... sometimes the most simple answer is the answer. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 18:21:33 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:21:33 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: <001101c4a7df$84d7d760$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114383 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Point taken, but with just two provisos. > > First one is not that it would have been unremarkable in the context of the > war for Harry's grandparents all to have died at the hands of the DEs, but > wouldn't it have been fairly important in the context of the _story_ for > Harry to learn what had happened, not only why he didn't have any > grandparents but also whether that was the real explanation for Petunia and > her fear and loathing of wizardry. I don't think so, at least not until more recently in the story and it appears that we're going to see some of this come out. Is it important to me that my paternal grandfather (who I never knew, as Harry never knew his) died to TB? No, not really, it doesn't inform who I am and what I do in the world. It does force me to have chest xrays instead of tb tests but how is that significant to my story? > Second point is that the WW isn't behaving like a society which had suffered > the kind of trauma which losing most of a generation would inflict. > Admittedly the only grandparent we've seen is Neville's gran (and even she's > a widow) but that could just as easily be perspective: we haven't seen a lot > of _parents_ either, apart from the Weasleys and, fleetingly, the Graingers. I respectfully disagree, they are acting like a culture which isn't sure the dictator who did it to them is really gone. They're still afraid to speak the name of the dictator! I think they are acting exactly like a society who lost a lot of people to a war, but who aren't sure the leader of the enemy forces are gone, and in fact know the enemy soldiers live among them. They are sheltering their children from the horror they hope the children will never have to deal with. They are watching neighbors with suspicion. They are protecting what they see as the ultimate weapon, just in case they need it again. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 18:28:08 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Priori incantatem (Was: Survival of AK) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041001182808.68698.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114384 Just Carol wrote: >> Just a theory, but it explains the absence of a "shadow" for the AK better than the idea that it was some other spell. After all, if the silver hand and the Dark Mark show up as recognizable indicators of the spell cast to create them, then whatever curse Voldemort attempted to put on Harry would also show up in a priori incantatem--unless failed curses of whatever kind leave no record. (It wouldn't show up as a scream because a scream is the record of a Crucio.)<< Kneasy wrote: >>Two points. >>It's my contention that PI will show any spell that has a demonstrable physical effect. If an AK was used against Harry at GH it ripped Voldy's spirit from his body - leaving behind a dead body. I'd call that a demonstrable effect, wouldn't you? And since Voldy admits to "pain beyond pain" I'd expect a yelp or two - but there's nothing. >>But my main point is that I think it didn't show up for the very good reason that it wasn't an AK and probably wasn't even wand magic. I know many don't agree with me but IMO it cuts out the contortions of "how many green flashes, how can a repelled AK transfer powers, why didn't Voldy die?" altogether. Much, much simpler. Only one person ever says it's an AK and how the hell does he know?<< >>I think that what happened at GH was very like what Voldy tried in the Ministry - a possession.<< Kim here: We're all certainly entitled to our own opinions. But didn't JKR herself say it was a killing curse? Wouldn't she have the last word? I just think she confused people with the way she wrote the PI scene in the graveyard. Maybe she (pardon the term) goofed a little bit, even after she corrected the order of the images that came out of the wand. Needless to say, I don't think she writes with the fine tooth comb audience (us) foremost in her mind. Her writing isn't always perfect but that doesn't mean it isn't marvelous. To add to the theory that Voldemort learned some immortality tricks from the vampire crowd, here are some quotes from The Book of Vampires (found it on the Web): "...and it was in 1443 that the first Nosferatu was born. That name rings out like the cry of a bird of prey. Never speak it aloud..." (He Who Must Not Be Named...?) "Living people may also be forced to do their dreadful bidding." (Death Eaters?) "One can recognize the mark of the vampire by the trace of his fangs on the victim's throat..." (the Dark Mark, in a certain sense?) "At night, creatures of the Abyss visit homes of the living to sow death and despair." (didn't Voldemort visit GH at night?) "Only a woman can break his frightful spell - a woman pure in heart..." (Lily Potter?) "The monsters, who cannot find peace, must be murdered so that persecuted Mankind may be freed from its nightmare." (Harry Potter to the rescue!) Kim --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 1 18:51:51 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:51:51 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114385 Dharma replies: There is nothing conclusive about this argument one way or another. There is no irrefutable proof that any of the Malfoys is a pure blood, other than what the characters say. Again that leaves all 3 of the Malfoys' claims as up in the air as anyone else's. What proof do we have beyond Lucius Malfoy's word that there are no half bloods, Muggles or Muggleborns in the Malfoy line? The only Malfoys we know are Lucius, Draco and Narcissa. Unless you can prove that everyone is correct in his or her understanding his or her heritage, it makes little difference to determining if Draco could be the HBP. Lucius could be lying about or under a false impression of his family's history. Canon shows us that the characters can sincerely believe what they are saying and be wrong, or just not tell the truth. Any argument about Draco's resemblance to Lucius is just not definitive. It does not further the case one way or the other. Draco has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on . cunning spirit ponders: The tapestry showing the geneaological connections of the House of Black is an ancient object that was charmed in one manner or another to update the information it shows with regards to marriages and births within the family. Were these changes entered manually a la Sirius' demonstration of his mother's methods for deletion, or was the magic involved in additions somehow automatic, sort of like the magical quill at Hogwarts that notes the births of all magical babies in the British Isles? If the latter is true, then the tapestry might be the one source where the failings of human error and opinion would be minimal. The tapestry seems to think that Lucius Malfoy is a pureblood, so possibly he may just be that. Dharma replies: Again, there is canon for powerful magical objects being bamboozled. The Gringott's vault in SS and the actual Goblet of Fire are perfect examples. Less prone to error is not error proof. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the tapestry reflects only pureblood heritage other than what Sirius says about that people on the tapestry. Speculation about how the tapestry works is not canon. Canon states very clearly that Mrs. Black blasted people off of the family tree. The tapestry did not do this on it's own. So again we have canon to the idea that a powerful Witch or Wizard can tamper with a magical object. So we are back to the argument not being conclusive. After Andromeda, Sirius and Uncle Alphard were removed from the tapestry, the only thing that we can truly conclude is that their families were not on it either. Their link to Black line was cut off. This is not equivalent to proof that Lucius Malfoy is a pureblood. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 19:11:21 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:11:21 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114386 SSSusan wrote: > > As an aside, wouldn't it be great if Harry really DID stop > > resisting and start learning from Snape? Don't get me wrong, I > > understand his resistance, but I'm still holding out for > > Maturing!Harry in books 6 & 7, who will begin to treat Snape > > differently even if Snape continues in his modus operandi. distaiyi: > Isn't he? I mean isn't he learning from Snape? It certainly seemed > that he passed his Potion's OWLs (granted we don't KNOW that yet > but)... maybe it was juts my perception, it's been over a year > since I read OoTP. SSSusan: Well, yes & no. I think he's getting by in Potions, but he doesn't seem to be any great shakes at it. I'm also thinking of Occlumency lessons, which Harry didn't (for all kinds of reason) take very seriously nor work very hard at. Harry has understandably been frustrated and angered by Snape's treatment of him, but I have my doubts that Snape will see any reason to or show any interest in changing *his* behavior towards Harry, so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, arrogant, strutting git." Well. I can't say that I can actually imagine Harry using those particular words, but hopefully you'll get what I mean. :-) Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but (again, understandably, imo) he's not learned all he could because of the "stuff" that's gotten in the way. I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and prove he is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his emotions and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 19:13:18 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:13:18 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114387 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "distaiyi" wrote: > All of the previous posters have made good points, I just don't see > it the same way... > > JKR has made it abundantly clear throughout her books that it isn't > the magic or the talent but what one does with it that matters. > Using that as an informative base for "Dark Magic" we must say > that "Dark Magic" is magic used for dark purposes. I'm going to partially disagree here. The 'choices' theme is, indeed, a little different than it is frequently remembered--it is our choices...that SHOW what we truly are. Notably not phrased as 'make'. There are things, I think, in JKR's world, that are *inherently* Dark Magic, no matter who uses them. Now, it's also noted that perhaps, someone who is disinclined to be a dark wizard is not going to use these things, even though he or she could, which is a valid point. I think there are classes of magic that are inherently dark because what it takes to do them is inherently dark. Now, what is Dark in JKR's world is an interesting debate, but it seems to often involve 1) force 2) the destruction of the right to be a subject (a thinking, self-controlling entity). The Unforgiveables have been endlessly discussed in the light of Numbah Two there. The other big piece of Dark Magic that we've seen, the resurrection, involves the forceable blood-letting, the misuse of human remains, etc. I can easily envision other spells that *have no other purpose* other than to overrun another person, in a particular way. Dark Magic is, in part, composed by intent--but I think in JKR's world, it has an essentialist component, too, which should not be neglected. -Nora dresses in all black--tonight is Otello From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 19:19:33 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:19:33 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114388 I (SSSusan) wrote earlier: > We all boo-boo from time to time--heaven knows I've deleted a fair > number of my own posts here ... And I add now: See what I mean? Look at that subject line above! "Lobbying," I wrote, for goodness' sake! It's lobbing, dufus, lobbing! Eating a wee bit of crow, Siriusly Snapey Susan From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 1 19:45:22 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:45:22 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: <20041001143247.2067.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114389 > > Angie wrote: > > JKR has said that Harry's stay at Privet Drive will be the > > shortest yet. > Magda replied: > Harry is picked up early from Privet Drive because he's being taken > to a special, private Order memorial ceremony for Sirius - who's > death is not official knowledge because - oh, for all kinds of > reasons. > > The person sent to pick up Harry is Snape - who very much wants to > see Harry on his "home turf" so that he can finally determine if the memories Snape saw in occlumency lessons were real or not because he really doesn't want to surrender his Harry-as-spoiled- brat-in-the-home-of-Lily's-sister image of the kid. > > Harry has spent a couple of weeks convincing Vernon and Petunia > (jumpy after meeting Mad-Eye's mad eye) that wizards really are "just folks". So the last thing they're prepared for is the stereotypical grouchy bad-ass dark wizard apparating into the breakfast room one sunny morning and announcing he's there to pick up Harry.... Hannah now: I like this idea of Snape turning up at Privet Drive to collect Harry - can you imagine the look on Harry's face? I can just see DD deciding they need to spend some quality time together... I would be very interested in the interaction between Snape and the Dursleys . I don't get the impression Snape knows much about muggles. It would be interesting to see how he treats them; would he sympathise with Vernon over having to bring up Potter, or would he be disgusted by them and their attitude to Harry? It might also give us some more idea about Snape's attitude to muggles and feelings about pure-blood supremacy, which could shine more light on his joining/leaving the DE's. It might just be because I'm a massively biased Snape fan, but I've always felt that Snape had a certain amount of sympathy for Harry over the occlumency memories he saw, particularly at first (later he was just annoyed that Harry still hadn't learnt to hide them). I know he's not exactly gushing pity for Harry, but that would be out of character. His 'to whom did the dog belong?' comment sounds a lot less nasty than his usual stuff. Harry just can't see it because he is too busy 'hating Snape' for having seen those memories in the first place. I think with Snape that, while he considers it OK for him to be mean to students, he wouldn't necessarily condone other people behaving as badly towards them. For example, IMO he loathes Umbridge, and certainly doesn't seem very supportive of her. It would be so funny if Snape apparated into the Dursley's kitchen. I wonder if Aunt Petunia's first words would be 'it's that dreadful boy from twenty years ago!' Hannah From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 1 20:08:36 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:08:36 -0400 Subject: NSP!Lucius Message-ID: <001d01c4a7f2$6fddfd40$97c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114390 DuffyPoo: Excuse me for butting into this thread...espcially without quoting anything/anyone. I did just check JKR's site, however, and read up on the bit that was-to-be between Draco and Theodore Nott, "...because we rarely see Draco talking to anybody he considers a real equal, and he is forced to see Theodore as such, because Theodore is just as *pure-blooded* as he is, and somewhat cleverer." Does this not rule out the NSP part of NSP!Lucius? Draco cannot be pure-blooded unless Lucius is, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tzakis1225 at netzero.com Fri Oct 1 20:14:36 2004 From: tzakis1225 at netzero.com (demetra1225) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:14:36 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol, who doesn't think we can judge Snape by an insulting nickname > given to him by his schoolboy enemies regardless of its meaning, any > more than we can judge Harry and Ron by Draco's use of "Potty and the Weasel" Demetra: I've been fascinated by this thread as another example of others reading the same thing I do and coming up with a completely different conclusion. I always thought that Sirius/James using the name "Snivellus" was JKR again showing dead-on characterization of kids taunting each other. I don't think there is any great meaning or value judgment behind the use of the name Snivellus. It is simply a derogatory name that it is a clever twist on the name Severus. Much like some of the schoolyard bullies when I was in school, who cleverly changed around and embellished the letters in the name Phyllis, and started referring to a classmate as Syphilis. I'm sure their intent was not to expose her as having an STD, but rather to use a nasty insulting name that sounded somewhat like her real name. From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 19:44:41 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:44:41 -0000 Subject: more on Snape's hair (also rather frivolous) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114392 Alex's post about Snape's hair reminded me of an observation I made sometime ago about the HP characters hair and how this directly correlates to what cause they are working for (DD's or LV's). I believe this observation proves whether Snape is a goodie or a baddie; I'm not talking about whether he is moral vs. sadastic, or whatever, but whether, in the big picture, he is working for the greater good (ie with Dumbledore) or the greater evil (ie with Voldemort). Although, as this post is rather frivolous, I'm not really talking about anything, but simply rambling, aren't I? heh heh...sorry, about that, but anyway...on to the observation. Have you ever noticed that all the people that we can fairly safely assume are 'good' have hair that is less than ideal according to society? No, seriously... :) 1. Harry - from the beginning JKR makes it clear that Harry's hair is perpetually messy, and this is of great consternation to Vernon (the epitome of normal society). "About once a week, Uncle Vernon...shouted that Harry needed a haircut...but it made no difference, his hair simply grew that way-all over the place" (p 21, PS). 2. Hermione - her hair is bushy (again, not acceptable to 'society') 3. Ron (Weasleys) - 'flaming' red hair, which was originally thought to be unlucky, and definitely not desirable 4. Hagrid - can't even get a comb through his hair (GoF) 5. Dumbledore - long, seemingly, untamed hair; not really acceptable in society (speaking as someone who has long, seemingly, untamed hair, i can attest to this) I could go on, but...let's look at the baddies, now... 1. the Malfoys - described as having 'sleek, blonde hair', very neat, clean, etc. 2. Dudley and Vernon - have "thick, blonde hair that lay[s] smoothly" on their heads...again, very neat and normal. 3. Tom Riddle - okay, so we all we know is he had 'jet black' hair, but I've always pictured it as well-kept... So, yes, Snape, he has greasy hair (something that is shunned by society), so, logically, he must really be working for Dumbledore; in the long run, he's a goodie. Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but that's certainly put to rest any doubt I had in my mind.;) Peace, Beatnik (who, in reading over this post, reaffirms that she has way too much time on her hands...or perhaps not enough sleep) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 21:15:08 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:15:08 -0000 Subject: Who killed Quirrel? (Was: Re: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114393 ---> Angie wrote: > > > I agree. It seems to me we've got a little "overkill" with all > the deaths flying around. > > KathyK: > > Aw, come on! I don't want to hear any of that. ;-) There's no > overkill. In fact, we could do with a few more deaths. Voldemort > is supposed to evil and scary. He and his Death Eaters are meant to > wreak havoc and cause serious pain throughout the WW. We have yet > to see this in the numbers their reputation demands. > Angie responds: Oh, you're right in that we've only seen two deaths, but the whole idea of deaths, many deaths past and yet to come, permeate the story. Still a lot of death for a children's story, anyway you slice it, seems to me. > Angie wrote: > > >And of course, Harry eventually will have to deal with the fact > that he will have to kill Voldemort. I wonder why he doesn't ever > think about the fact that he killed Quirrell.< > > KathyK: > > Harry did not kill Quirrel. Voldemort did. When Harry lost > consciousness at the end of PS/SS Quirrel was still alive. He was > in pain and blistered thanks to Harry's touch but alive just the > same. > > Voldemort says himself in GoF, Chapter 33 US ed pg 654: > > "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as > ever I had been" > > He possessed Quirrel and then left him to die (As Dumbledore also > mentions in PS/SS). > Angie responds: Does "when" mean "because?" Why would he die just because LV no longer possessed him? I always thought the reason LV left Quirrell's body was because Quirrell was dying. Hmm. Thanks for clarifying. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 21:21:10 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:21:10 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114394 Susan wrote: >I think, just > take Lupin's statement "He's dead" and NHN's statement "He won't be > coming back" at face value. We adults are more inclined to question > or--esp. because she's JKR!--to look for subtleties which could > appear as one thing but actually indicate something else. > Angie replies: I didn't remenber Lupin flatly stating "He's dead"? I remember that he began to say it, but didn't finish it. I'm sure you are right that adults are more inclined to look for questions/subtleties. Which I guess is the mark of the genius of JKR that she can write in such a manner as to make us do precisely that, while still writing at a level that children can relate to. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 21:28:06 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:28:06 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room In-Reply-To: <415CDF40.8070306@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114395 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > Hannah wrote: > > -- > > > Kim now (also, forgive me if this is a rehash of previous posts): > > > > > > Also, I too hope the Veil is a teaser, because I'm convinced on > > > some level that Sirius isn't really dead... Else how do you explain > > > still hearing people's voices if they're dead and gone for good? > > > Should we take Dumbledore's word for it that Sirius is dead? > > > > > > Angie chimes in: By all means, don't take DD'w word for it! He's a very manipulative, sneaky thing, IMO. :) I know he's a good guy, but I believe either Sirius is dead or he's not and DD knows about it, and probably helped plan the whole thing so that Voldemort wouldn't use Sirius against Harry anymore. Of course, I favor the second option because I want Harry to have some kind of adult in his life when all of this is over! Consider, too, that DD doesn't know to what extent LV can see into Harry's thoughts. That means he can't let Harry in on it. In any event, I think Harry's going to need all the rage he can muster to perform the Avada Kavdra (is that right?) curse on LV -- and believing LV is responsible for Sirius's death is a sure way to build some rage in the little guy. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 1 21:55:40 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:55:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114396 Susan wrote: > >I think, children just take Lupin's statement "He's dead" and > > NHN's statement "He won't be coming back" at face value. We > > adults are more inclined to question or--esp. because she's JKR!- > > -to look for subtleties which could appear as one thing but > > actually indicate something else. Angie replies: > I didn't remenber Lupin flatly stating "He's dead"? I remember > that he began to say it, but didn't finish it. SSSusan: You're right, Angie. Lupin said "There's nothing you can do", "It's too late", "He's gone...", and "He can't come back, because he's d-- ". So there was a little Gestalt going on there on my part, I suppose, in completing that incomplete word. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who still believes the word is "dead." :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 00:09:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:09:01 -0000 Subject: TEH Half-Blood Prince (WAS: Re: The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: <00ac01c4a670$70a5d280$f8f595c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114397 Elanor Pam wrote: > Well... there are two people I can remember from the top of my head that are half-blood - Seamus Finnigan and Dean Thomas. Dean Thomas has no idea he is a half-blood as far as we know. > And the official information we received from JKR (in her site) is pretty limited. And she herself said she wanted to add Dean's bg story in CS (or at least I'm under the impression she said that...), and that there was a storyline she had moved from CS to HBP. Since she added no information on Dean's father's background, maybe she was saving that for the next book. > Carol responds: Dean Thomas is presented as a Muggleborn in the books. The plot line about his being a half-blood was rejected. Surely the books have greater value as canon than material was edited out of the books. (Ron Weasley's Slytherin cousin and Hermione's little sister fall into the same category.) Unless the currently *unofficial* information on Dean's real father finds its way back into the books at some later point (as it very well could), I think we need to consider him a Muggleborn. Carol From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 00:49:09 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:49:09 -0000 Subject: Malfoy, Diary and Dark? Sirius (was: what were Malfoys) (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Mac wrote: > > > No, No, No, not his 'new' target: I'm sorry to KEEP belabouring > > this > > > point, BUT why oh why does everone seem to keep ignoring 'Dobby's > > > warning'? when it is so strongly a cannon point? Dobby *knew* the > > > plot was about HP from the start. *HOW* we don't know. Even so, > > > there just doesn't seem to be any other explanation of Dobby's > > > behaviour in CoS. > > > > Geoff responded: > > If I might take up Hannah's case and belabour a different point, Tom > > Riddle himself says > > > > "For many months now, my /new target/ has been - you." > > > > (COS "The Heir of Slytherin"p.230 UK edition) - my emphasis. > > Carol adds: > Which seems to indicate that Lucius Malfoy's target (Harry, based on > Dobby's protestations) was different from Tom Riddle's initial target > (Muggleborns). Tom has switched from his original intention of > "carrying on Salazar Slytherin's noble work" to confronting Harry, > whom he has somehow learned was able to defeat his own future self. > Although I originally thought that Lucius had somehow communicated > with Tom through the diary, informing him about Harry, it appears from > the quotation Geoff cites that Tom learned about Harry from Ginny. > > That simplifies Tom's motivation but does nothing to clarify Malfoy's. > Mac is right--Malfoy's plot apparently centered around Harry from the > beginning. But how could it? How could he know what the diary would do > if he hadn't written in it, and if he *had* written in it, why would > he think that killing "mudbloods" had anything to do with Harry? > > Yes, I know. Others have asked the same questions. All I'm saying is > that we have two sets of motives here and the connection between them > is anything but clear. > > Carol, who is beginning to think that CoS has more plotholes than any > other book in the series Mac: There's something to be said for an earlier post (sorry for not being able to quote it) that Draco would have told Lucius about Quirrel!Mort - he was in the forest remember when the evil thing that drank unicorn blood was abroad and he may well have heard 'rumours' (not least from Hermione and/or Ron as originators, though not I'd suspect directly) about what Harry did in the chamber. Lucius never misses a trick - he is far from stupid (though some things he's done seem so - e.g. he's part of the almost slapstick DE incompetence in the MoM at the end of OotP). I'm with Siriusly Snapey Susan that he has an agenda to bring back a Tom Riddle he might manipulate where he cannot do this with LV proper. But maybe he thinks Diary!Tom *CAN* take over Harry and Harry *WAS* his target (after all, Dobby thinks so). I don't think it's insignificant that Harry contains enough of LV (e.g. parselmouth skill) to be a perfect physical (i.e. his body) vessel for LV's reincarnation and he even looks like a young TMR to boot (dark hair etc). Perhaps LV's 'agenda' with James was to gain back a better body than what he'd ended up as (Snakey!Mort) after the measures (whatever *they* were) he'd taken to try to secure immortality. This all reminds me a little of the horror film Hellraiser if you've seen it. Anyway, as I said in post 113632, if each book is in some way an attempt by LV to return (early books) and/or take revenge on Harry, then the TMR approach is one in a series. Book 1 - try to get him by possessing another wizard - doesn't work. 2. Try to get him by direct possession - doesn't work. We'll come back to book 3 later. Book 4 - get reincarnated but try to break the blood thing - doesn't work (all this btw highly influenced by better and more well argued posts by kneasy). Book 5 now I'm back use ALL my powers to try reposession - doesn't work. What is the other thing in book 5 that might explain the necessity for book 3? Apart from being a cracking book (in my opinion easily the best of the series so far), PoA introduces Sirius - an extremely ambiguous character but who we are supposed to love, like Harry (and James). Harry's view of Sirius by the end of PoA and through much of GoF and OotP is of adulation. No wonder he's clutching at straws since he has NO-ONE, literally, to love or that he can consider really cares about him apart perhaps from DD, but then maybe not him even. So why must Sirius have an entire book (PoA) and then be so suppressed and even 'necessarily' killed? Where does it fit? Lots of characters in the books and lots of HPfGU posters read Sirius very differently than I had always done, namely they see him dark: I saw him misunderstood and good: He's James' best mate, Harry's godfather, even DD trusts him (or does he?) - flawed, reckless, but esentially good. Hmmmm .... Sirius comes from an arcehtypically pureblood family (how far can we escape our roots?), he *hates* (always has) Snape who, awful though he is to Harry (I think its an act as much as based in justifiable dislike) works tirelessly to protect Harry, he is accused again and again as a DE (but we ignore it/forgive Sirius - he's *always* got a 'reasonable' explanation - even comes across as persecuted), he breaks rules, is a loose canon, instigates terrible (if you think about it) and risky behaviour by the Marauders (how did DD possibly *not* know?) and, one way or another, knew enough about the Potter's demise to be on the spot straight after it happened (if only that late). Why does JKR say that in early drafts of GH a DE met Sirius there? Sirius is not stupid enough to be duped, so why is he associating with DE's? Especially at GH. So, please, it must have been discussed. Point me towards posts that accuse Sirius of being much darker than the books let on at times. has anyone ever suggested he was a DE?: more the person that Stan Shunpike, Ernie Prang and that always ammbiguous character Fudge think he is (Voldy's right hand man, 2nd in command), as opposed to the noble 'wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot wand' saint we have so far been led to believe in. I can give some quotes from the books which, if reinterpreted, could support a theory I am trying to get to work (but can't yet) that yes Sirius was a DE all along and, moreover, they (DE's) now hate him - the reason he was lured to MoM and killed there by them. He, not Snape, I can imagine (sorry Sirius fans), just might be the one who LV says 'has left me forever - he will be killed'. So, please help me to either redeem Sirius (I really really would like to be able to do this while understanding why he 'had' to die) or else drive nails into his coffin (of course he had to die). My chief problem is that while his being in hiding between PoA and the end of OotP makes sense if not only the MoM but also the DE's are 'after him' (as they killed his brother), his ability in this position to do anything useful at the end of GoF isn't clear to me, yet DD dispatches him to do *something* (and no I don't think it was just to open up Grimmauld Place as an OotP HQ, though it makes sense that he did that too). If it assumed that Sirius was once a 'major' DE, but betrayed LV at GH for his friend James, is there anything Sirius could do by the time of GoF to get back 'in' with the DE's, bearing in mind he *must* be killed at the end of OotP? From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 01:27:30 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:27:30 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114399 > Bookworm: > To paraphrase someone (Mr. Spock?): when all the impossible options > have been eliminated, the one of the remaining options, no matter > how improbable, is the answer. "ujs31415" Sherlock Holmes in, 'The Sign of Four' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (from: http://www.bartleby.com/66/93/17693.html) Bookworm I'm currently watching "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". Mr. Spock just spoke this line. But considering how much Shakespeare has been tossed in, it isn't surprising Sherlock Holmes was too. To bring this back OT, here is the list of the Priori Incantatem: screams of pain Wormtail's silver hand more screams of pain Cedric Diggory more screams of pain Frank Bryce Bertha Jorkins Lily Potter James Potter We know that spells other than the AK are revealed, if only through the screams they generate. What was Voldemort up to between killing Frank Bryce and the Graveyard? Also, there was apparently no spell cast between the Lily's and that of Bertha a dozen years later. Kneasy: So where's the spell? Of course if it wasn't a wand spell but something else (something I've been banging on about for a long time) then that would explain it, wouldn't it? Bookworm: This may be more likely than my original suggestion that a different wand was used - although I don't rule out a second wizard there as a witness. JKR has given us enough hints about Harry's wandless magic. Ravenclaw Bookworm From shalimar07 at aol.com Fri Oct 1 15:56:47 2004 From: shalimar07 at aol.com (mumweasley7) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:56:47 -0000 Subject: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? In-Reply-To: <20040930.235435.1780.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114400 Angie: > In the COS, Ron used his wand to open the trunk and start the car - > - so why didn't he get into trouble for practicing magic outside > of Hogwarts? > SSSusan: > Given that *Harry* got blamed when Dobby did magic on Privet > Drive, some have speculated that the Ministry's ability to > detect underage wizardry may be imprecise. Perhaps they can > isolate a location but not an individual? I recall Harry asking Ron why he didn't get into trouble (or something to that effect) and he said he didn't do magic...the car was enchanted..Something his father had gotten from a muggle. Mary From yswahl at stis.net Sat Oct 2 02:57:10 2004 From: yswahl at stis.net (samnanya) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:57:10 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114401 kmc challenges :) give me some specific Cannon to support Draco as the HBP. Is there cannon of Lucius lying? Lucius may not tell all that he knows but I don't remember anywhere in the books when Lucius lied. I am not saying he is not evil or does things "out of the goodness of his heart" but can you show an actual lie to support your theory. Sirius is one of the characters who states that Lucius is full- blood. Please show me an occasion when Siruis believed what he was saying but was wrong. I agree it would be a great story line but it just is not supported by cannon. samnanya That's easy on both counts -- how about I am not a death eater - Lucius Malfoy even the Dark Lord knows that Lucius is slithery ... and the Dark Lord always knows From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 17:21:47 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041001172147.25371.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114402 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: >List elves, kindly forgive what is to follow. It's not OT, really, but I recognize that it is my airing of a pet peeve.< >We all boo-boo from time to time--heaven knows I've deleted a fair number of my own posts here and have been red-faced over errors in logic--but if I might, I would like to point out the following: >cannon - a large, artillery gun, usually on wheels; a firearm for discharging heavy shot with great force< >canon - sanctioned or accepted body of related works; the authentic works of a writer< >JKR has produced a canon, not (as far as we know) a cannon. :-) Please forgive if this sounds pompous or snarky; it's not intended to. Just a friendly neighborhood Public Service Announcement.< Then Dharma replied: >Well at the risk of find and Elf shoe far too close to my posterior, I'm posting a reply :)< >Thanks for the reminder to watch spelling and homophony. There is quite a bit of room for error with words like Kreacher-Kreature-Creature-Creacher, Snivellus-Snivelus, cannon-canon, Hermione-Herminie, Weasley-Weasly and Sirius--serious-serous-series. These are all little things that I've seen or done myself in a rush. Because wordplay is such an important part of the HP series, there is quite a bit of room for a typo here or there. It is easy to make a mistake, and not always so easy to see minor errors while in the midst of formulating ideas, theories and arguments.< >So thanks again for the reminder to be consistent!!< Kim here, everybody, and have your Elf shoes at the ready: I agree, though I thnik most typoos may be teh result of people not proofreading theri posts befroe sending them... I'm in the habit of proofreading on account of the work I do for a living, and I've got the lousy vision to prove it, but I'd get in trouble if my work was full of boo-boos. And yet on occasion mistakes can still get past my bespectacled eagle eyes. It tends to bother me more when the wrong words are used. Case in point, was that a typo or do missiles really know how to lobby? They should lobby for themselves instead of getting people to do their dirty work for them... ;-) Kim From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Oct 1 19:32:18 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:32:18 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114403 > SSSusan: > so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply > have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's > going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws > at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, > arrogant, strutting git." > > Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but (again, understandably, > imo) he's not learned all he could because of the "stuff" that's > gotten in the way. I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and > prove he is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his > emotions and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn. Why should Harry have to be the one to do that? Snape is the adult and the teacher in that situation. He should be the one to swallow his attitude and buckle down. Why doesn't Dumbledore sit the man down and tell him to stop acting like a whiny first year and teach Harry without the attitude or the attempts at failing him? For gods sake, Dumbledore put a man in charge of Harry's education who wants Harry to fail. Harry may need to take responsibility for his learning, and he should, but Snape needs to take his responsiblility as his teacher seriously. (hee, I actually wrote siriusly and had to go back and change it) What I want to see in the next book is Dumbledore grow a spine when it comes to Snape and make him treat Harry better. "phoenixgod2000" From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 03:16:18 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:16:18 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: <20041001172147.25371.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114404 Kim here, everybody, and have your Elf shoes at the ready: > > I agree, though I thnik most typoos may be teh result of people not proofreading theri posts befroe sending them... I'm in the habit of proofreading on account of the work I do for a living, and I've got the lousy vision to prove it, but I'd get in trouble if my work was full of boo-boos. And yet on occasion mistakes can still get past my bespectacled eagle eyes. It tends to bother me more when the wrong words are used. Case in point, was that a typo or do missiles really know how to lobby? They should lobby for themselves instead of getting people to do their dirty work for them... ;-) > > Kim Already addressed in #114388. :-) And just to clarify a bit, I was not talking about typos. EVERYONE has a typo now & again. I was really referring to folks who consistenty write "cannon," as in 3 or 4 times in the same post. So we're actually talking about the same thing--the wrong word being used, not a typo. But I'd best end this before I screw up again. SSSusan From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Fri Oct 1 20:19:35 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:19:35 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114405 > SSSusan: > I know that I likely was doing some projecting when I suggested > Lucius would've been inclined to blurt out, "But, Master, I DID > try to help you!" Because, monologue or no monologue, wise or > not wise, that's what I would've done if it were true. > > I like the thought that Lucius might've told his story later; > that makes a good deal of sense to me. Toto: This might be just speculation, but wouldn't Wormtail have known about that? And didn't Voldie tells Malfoy he respected tradition or something? It could have been a reference to what he did, though it does not tell if he wanted to bring Voldie back or not (I don't know)... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 03:26:04 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:26:04 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114406 SSSusan: > > so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply > > have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's > > going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws > > at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, > > arrogant, strutting git." > > > > Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but (again, understandably, > > imo) he's not learned all he could because of the "stuff" that's > > gotten in the way. I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and > > prove he is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his > > emotions and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn. phoenixgod2000: > Why should Harry have to be the one to do that? Snape is the adult > and the teacher in that situation. He should be the one to swallow > his attitude and buckle down. Why doesn't Dumbledore sit the man > down and tell him to stop acting like a whiny first year and teach > Harry without the attitude or the attempts at failing him? For gods > sake, Dumbledore put a man in charge of Harry's education who wants > Harry to fail. Harry may need to take responsibility for his > learning, and he should, but Snape needs to take his responsiblility > as his teacher seriously. (hee, I actually wrote siriusly and had to > go back and change it) What I want to see in the next book is > Dumbledore grow a spine when it comes to Snape and make him treat > Harry better. > SSSusan: Ah, Harry *shouldn't* have to, and Snape *is* the adult, it's true. But will Snape change? Do you think? I have my doubts. And if Snape isn't going to change, then I want to see Harry choose to become the mature one and to change himself so that he can get himself where he needs to be in terms of preparation to fight Voldy. Siriusly Snapey Susan From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Fri Oct 1 21:02:12 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:02:12 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114407 SSSusan: > Harry has understandably been frustrated and angered by Snape's > treatment of him, but I have my doubts that Snape will see any > reason to or show any interest in changing *his* behavior towards > Harry, so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply > have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's > going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws > at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, > arrogant, strutting git." > > Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but (again, understandably, > imo) he's not learned all he could because of the "stuff" that's gotten > in the way. I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and prove he > is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his emotions > and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn. Toto: But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. You could put even some kind of peace model prize and put them with a teacher who hates their guts and you'll get nothing, or only a minimum. It's mentally impossible, a student has to respect a teacher, and Snape is a feared teacher, not a respected one. Furthermore, there is the problem of occlumency: it's a class about the mind, and in those class, either there is a great link of mentor.favoritepupil, or nothing can be done. Harry *feel*s Snape's hate, and so on during those lessons. As Dumbledore said in the last chapter of OotP, it was a serious miscalculation on his part to put Snape with Harry. I understand he would want to give Snape a last chance before throwing him out of the order (figuratively speaking, as there are chances that the order become Harry's, if Snape doesn't change his attitude he will be come a liability, if he isn't one already), but he was waay too idealistic in this case. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 2 03:29:34 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:29:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: stopper death Message-ID: <20041001.232940.3240.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114408 SS Susan said: > Bezoar, dear. :-) Thank you, love. > SSSusan: > For what it's worth, I vote for option 2. Arg, I hope not. Harry saves the day enough. I want some on-page Hero!Snape action. Even if it's Reluctant-and-griping-hero!Snape. It's long overdue to see some unequivocal proof that Snape is a good guy. > I'm still holding out for Maturing!Harry in books 6 & 7, who will begin > to treat Snape differently even if Snape continues in his modus > operandi. It'd be nice to see Harry at least learn when to hold his tongue and control his anger. CapsLock!Harry had his use in the last book, but if he keeps that up, I'm gonna reach through the pages and smack him. > I took, from the > beginning, Snape's "stopper death" comment to mean a means of > delaying or postponing death. I've always had a nasty mental image of Snape holding someone on the brink of death, not letting him die or recover. Like, say, knowing how to bring Sirius back from the veil but not telling anyone? Yeah, I know, not likely, I'm just desperate when it comes to Sirius. I've read a million angsty fanfics and they're killing me! I need a happy ending, dammit! Aura ~*~ "Words are flowing out like rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe. Nothing's gonna change my world." Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 2 03:11:43 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 23:11:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) Message-ID: <20041001.232940.3240.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114409 SS Susan said: > Perhaps some do question; others, I think, just > take Lupin's statement "He's dead" and NHN's statement "He won't be > coming back" at face value. We adults are more inclined to question > or--esp. because she's JKR!--to look for subtleties which could > appear as one thing but actually indicate something else. > I compare this Sirius' death issue to the kids' (I know) view of > Snape. They don't see the layers of complexity most of us adults > do; they think he's just flat-out a mean bad guy who unfairly picks Which is why I think JKR saying she won't lie to kids about death doesn't really apply here. All we have is circumstantial evidence: characters have said that Sirius is dead, but no one saw a body and no one specifically said what that veil was. All other info about his fate was (deliberatly) misleading. If JKR wanted to bring him back (which I don't see as very likely, but for the sake of argument, cuz that's what we live off of on this group), all she would have to say is that Dumbledore and Lupin were wrong. It isn't lying about death to say that characters were wrong. Lying about death would be bringing back Cedric. Just sayin. I won't believe he's gone until I see his cold, dead, sexy body. :) Aura ~*~ "I'm a werewolf." "Are you fucking serious?!" "Yes. That too." - someone's lj icon Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 03:29:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:29:20 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114410 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > Why should Harry have to be the one to do that? Snape is the adult > and the teacher in that situation. He should be the one to swallow > his attitude and buckle down. Why doesn't Dumbledore sit the man > down and tell him to stop acting like a whiny first year and teach > Harry without the attitude or the attempts at failing him? For gods > sake, Dumbledore put a man in charge of Harry's education who wants > Harry to fail. Harry may need to take responsibility for his > learning, and he should, but Snape needs to take his responsiblility > as his teacher seriously. (hee, I actually wrote siriusly and had to > go back and change it) What I want to see in the next book is > Dumbledore grow a spine when it comes to Snape and make him treat > Harry better. > Alla: I agree with ... let's say 95% of your post. I also absolutely do not buy multiple excuses for Snape NOT to improve his behaviour. Poor dear, he is so damaged that he is just unable to stop his harassment of Harry and Neville. Not buying that, sorry. I mean, I am buying that Snape is very damaged, I am just not buying that he has to be excused because of that But I agree with Susan in a sense that I also want Harry to learn everything that possible from Snape and try and disregard all those insults. The thing is, I have no doubt, as I said many many times that such thing will happen in the middle of book seven or earlier - Harry will become the mature one and will learn how not to let Snape's insults get to him. If nothing else, I think it plot dictaed . Something which I am not sure will happen and which is one of my biggest desires though is to see Snape changed - not for Harry, for him. Not to become "fuzzy bunny in a pink slippers" (Sorry, I heard that expression once and I think I might have misused some words in it :o). Feel free to correct me. :)), but just let go of his hatred. I think it will benefit him. No matter how much I enjoy his character from the literary sense, I DO HOPE for Snape's achieving some final transformation at the end. I am also hoping that he will still be alive at the end. Oh, and if I were you, I would not hold my breath hoping that Dumbledore grew a spine on that issue. Remember, we still don't know why Dumbledore trusts him. From ABadgerFan2 at msn.com Sat Oct 2 01:54:26 2004 From: ABadgerFan2 at msn.com (abadgerfan2) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:54:26 -0000 Subject: What to Make of Tom Riddle's Clues? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114411 We've all been alerted to look for hints in Book Two as to what will transpire next, and why. >From that perspective, I took recent notice when I coincidentally turned to an HBO showing of Chamber of Secrets just at the point where the diary-preserved Tom Riddle was exposing and explaining himself to Harry, in the Chamber. Tom explained that his diary self had changed goals as the school year advanced, turning away from a goal of destroying school Mudbloods like Hermione to instead focus on Harry as his target based on what he was learning about Harry from Ginny's writings. While Riddle doesn't fully explain himself, I think he provides enough information that, when added to other information discussed in here, provides insight to be factored into prognostications on what JKR has in store for us! My basic burning question is why does Riddle see destroying Harry to be more important than the Salazar Slytherin inspired goal of using the Chamber's basilisk to rid the school of mudbloods? I think it is more than just that Harry was perceived to be a threat to himself, that Harry represents something far more than that. What say you? I look forward to your ponderings! Jim From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Fri Oct 1 21:42:16 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:42:16 -0300 Subject: Something about Harry (was: Snape and Harry again) References: Message-ID: <003d01c4a801$5e31c450$aef595c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114412 > HunterGreen: (jumping in) > I feel the same way about the prophecy, and was severely disappointed > when it was introduced into the text. I think I agree with both Carol > and SSSusan in that regard. I would prefer for Harry to have been > special when he was born (with the ability to do things like throw > off the imperius curse and learn difficult things like the patronus > charm very easily), because that means the prophecy is not self- > fulfilling. > > If Harry was born as an average wizard (with perhaps the capacity for > being a Quidditch prodgidy), and the prophecy came along and *caused* > him to be special (by causing Voldemort to attack him/give him some of > Voldemort's powers, and causing his mother to die to save him, which > gave him the blood protection), then I think Harry has Professor > Trelawney to blame for his life. I would prefer to think that Harry > *already* had the power to defeat the dark lord, and that she only > *predicted* it, rather than causing it (the events at the end of PoA > would have happened the same if she hadn't predicted them, for example). > However, I think this is where the story is going, so I have trouble > believing it, it's more of a lingering hope. Elanor Pam: I actually think that, if Harry had been "born" special, or had some kind of built-in ability, it'd completely destroy the whole concept of the story. Harry became the one who could destroy Voldemort because Voldemort CHOSE him. He had the bright idea of pointing his wand at Harry and that was what made all the difference. Voldemort's choices should be taken into account as well. Our choices have an impact on other people, that's the reality. And the prophecy does seem to be self-fulfilling, which just proves the future is better left unseen. Afterall, prophecy --> Voldy goes on prevention campaign --> makes the prophecy real. Yeah, it's all Trelawney's fault. We should break her glasses!! >__>d *raises pitchfork* If Harry had simply been born with the power to turn Voldy into a golden statue by touching him, what fun would it be? This is a personal opinion, but I think the best heroes are those that actually don't have anything overly special about them. Making Harry a completely normal baby that was unwillingly given powers in a situation that could just as easily have been prevented or have different outcomes makes him someone like us, that also have to deal with unexpected and unpleasant things. (Good lord, that was the longest period I've ever written without finding anywhere to stick a comma in @_@;) If he HAD been born with special powers, then I think the prophecy would be completely unnecessary from a literary point of view (I'm talking about overrall hero stories here). He'd notice he was special sooner or later, and he'd have to decide what to do with his extra powers sooner or later, and a prophecy would only cut down his choices even more - because if he ever wished he could keep himself in the sidelines, he'd feel ber-extra-guilty, as we've seen him do in other scenes in which he happens to think of something politically incorrect. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Sat Oct 2 04:34:03 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 04:34:03 -0000 Subject: What to Make of Tom Riddle's Clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114413 Jim wrote: > From that perspective, I took recent notice when I coincidentally > turned to an HBO showing of Chamber of Secrets just at the point > where the diary-preserved Tom Riddle was exposing and explaining > himself to Harry, in the Chamber. > > Tom explained that his diary self had changed goals as the school > year advanced, turning away from a goal of destroying school > Mudbloods like Hermione to instead focus on Harry as his target > based on what he was learning about Harry from Ginny's writings. > > While Riddle doesn't fully explain himself, I think he provides > enough information that, when added to other information discussed > in here, provides insight to be factored into prognostications on > what JKR has in store for us! My burning question is why does > Riddle see destroying Harry to be more important than the Salazar > Slytherin inspired goal of using the Chamber's basilisk to rid the > school of mudbloods? I think it is more than just that Harry was > perceived to be a threat to himself, that Harry represents > something far more than that. Yb: (Gasp of Shock!) THE MEDIA-THAT-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED!!! There has been some argument over this, mostly because of a little green guy with tennis-ball eyes. Dobby was worried for Harry at the beginning of CoS: why? Was Lucius after him to begin with, or did Dobby think HP was in danger because he's considered a half-blood, or something else? And TR called HP his " 'new' target". If the plan was to get HP all along, why would TR say that? Did TR had any idea who HP was until Ginny told Diary!Tom all about him? I don't think he did. He wants to know everything he can about Harry, including how he survived. And, like the "human" (if you can call him that) Voldemort, he wants to prove he is stronger than Potter, which is another (and probably the main reason) for getting Harry down in the chamber. Diary!Tom's Salazar work isn't finished, per se, but all the muggle-borns and half-bloods would be out of the school if he succeeded in killing Ginny (and probably Harry): Hogwarts would close. Thus Salazar's work /would/ be completed, just not in a direct way. ~Yb, who is impressed with the use of the word "prognostications." Sure haven't heard /that/ one on the list before. From averyhaze at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 04:38:17 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 04:38:17 -0000 Subject: Lucius - Full blood (was The [Real] Importance of being Draco Malfoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114414 kmc challenges :) give me some specific Cannon to support Draco as the HBP. Is there cannon of Lucius lying? Lucius may not tell all that he knows but I don't remember anywhere in the books when Lucius lied. I am not saying he is not evil or does things "out of the goodness of his heart" but can you show an actual lie to support your theory. Sirius is one of the characters who states that Lucius is full- blood. Please show me an occasion when Siruis believed what he was saying but was wrong. I agree it would be a great story line but it just is not supported by cannon. samnanya That's easy on both counts -- how about I am not a death eater - Lucius Malfoy even the Dark Lord knows that Lucius is slithery ... and the Dark Lord always knows Dharma replies: Lucius agrees with Dumbledore that it is very fortunate that the diary was destroyed (CoS chapter 18). We know that this is not a true sentiment because, he gave Ginny Riddle's diary and told Draco that the last time the chamber was opened, someone died. If he had really been concerned about the potential consequences for the students, would he have given Jenny the diary? Sirius and Remus admit that they each thought the other was that spy, and each asked for each other's forgiveness. Sirius also admits that he never even considered the idea that it could be Pettigrew. He was wrong on both counts. That is canon. There is plenty of canon to suggest that Wizards lie, or that they don't always know what is true. If Sirius always knew what was true, would he have ended up in Azkaban? If Malfoy never lied, how is it that he stayed out of Azkaban? Snape lies to Umbridge. Dumbledore lies to Fudge, and the list could go on. Even if Lucius never told a lie, which is not the case, there would still be canon to support the idea that he could or would. There are many instances of Witches and Wizards not telling or knowing the truth throughout the series. On the concept of canon support for Draco as the HBP There has been no canon argument made in this thread about the identity of the HBP that is completely irrefutable one way or the other. Canon can work for or against most arguments in this case. Unless we can *prove* that everyone is being truthful and is fully aware of his or her heritage, then the idea of Malfoy's pureblood status is arguable. Where is the *irrefutable* proof that the truth about all of the Malfoys' ancestries has been revealed? Until this proof is offered this tread will become completely redundant, in my opinion. In that spirit, this will be my last post on this topic until unarguable proof is offered. Perhaps someone with new information will be able to move the conversation forward? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 04:38:40 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 04:38:40 -0000 Subject: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114415 > Marla: > > >One more thing, I don't agree with the idea that Snape knew > Lupin was a werewolf before entering the tunnel. He was still > too curious to find out what was going on down there, what sane > person would take such a risk. < > Pippin: > No sane person, of course, which leads me to conclude that > Snape was tricked, jinxed or blackmailed into going down the > tunnel. Valky: We get the blow by blow account from Sirius (In GOF, I think). [Snape *wanted* to know where Lupin dissappeared to each month so Sirius *told* him just get a stick and poke the knot in the Whomping Willow and you'll find out all you need to know.] Thats the account we have and I don't question it. Sounds like an act of spite. And personally, Sirius out of the blue one day decides to tell Snape how to get in....? this account of the incedent speaks to me of a retaliation. Blackmail or jinxing, plots of murder?? now thats just gossiping Pippin! From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 05:20:11 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 05:20:11 -0000 Subject: The Prank on Snape In-Reply-To: <20041001131708.36952.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114416 Marla: > > Where this bothers me is that James didn't have anything > > to do with sending him to the Willow. So why can't Snape accept > > the fact that he really does owe him a debt of gratitude and why > > does he really hate James so much more than the others? > > > > > > Magda > Until we hear otherwise, I'm assuming that it's because Dumbledore > saw James as the big hero of the night, made him Head Boy a year > later, praised him as having (finally) matured and probably told > Snape how grateful he should be to James. Which if you're Snape and are convinced that the whole thing was a set-up from the get-go, > would be really hard to take. > Valky: Sounds like *you're* bitter *for Snapes sake*, Magda. Do people see themselves misunderstood in Snape? There always seems to be too much projecting in this debate. If Lupin and James *weren't* in on the prank, WHAT SET UP? Honestly, how much do we *need* Snape to be the poor defenseless *victim* of tyranny and conspiracy by James by Lupin by DUMBLEDORE!? Isn't it going too far? I'll be the first to say "c'mon we *have* a bad guy" I don't need to Snape bash, but I mean, Snape probably scared a lot of kids being *into Voldemorts magic* during Voldemorts reign of terror, in fact personally I would sy he was probably terrifying, horrifying for the average kid, and we *know* that was a misunderstanding and a misjudgement on their part. We know that talented, brave, defender of the light, James, was actually a big dope who embarrassed himself in front of his crush playing Superman in the playground. We know Sirius was a bitter angry young man with a lot of grey feelings about Snape for one reason or another and he didn't have nice manners towards those to whom he felt superior, so he was a hypocrite. I will concede the question mark over Lupin, but I would prefer that we just find out he is, and always was, a nice man, even either way he had *nothing* to do with the prank since he will have been too sick at the time to be involved. And as for Dumbledore, seeing James as the big hero of the night and praise the not worthy etc... What is that? Snape took it upon himself to go in there, it wasn't right or smart to do. Yeah Sirius probably *hoped* he'd get eaten alive, and then, well, Sirius gets *no* praise from Dumbledore, in fact even at the end of OotP Dumbledore attempts to make an honest point to Harry that Sirius was never yet all that great a person. I doubt that DD did so much praising of James after the prank, though he probably gave him a nod of approval for his *choice* to do the right thing when it would have been most hard to. If such a choice is not a quality that a person would approve of in a young man, so much so to have even an inclination to recommend that that person lead others...... I mean what's wrong with that. If Snape got expelled for what he did it could well have been quite fitting. So why didn't he? Because he was innocent! He followed innocent curiosity into the shack and almost lost his life for it, DD doesn't punish innocence (Lupin and Snape), he doesn't punish selflessness (James), and Sirius gets out on a technicality he only *talked* to Snape. Now Snape could put this all together couldn't he? And if he doesn't does that make it all such a great cause for him to be bitter and childish about it. Valky From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 05:36:12 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:36:12 EDT Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114417 >SSSusan: > so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply >have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's >going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws >at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, >arrogant, strutting git." > >Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but (again, understandably, >imo) he's not learned all he could because of the "stuff" that's >gotten in the way. I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and >prove he is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his >emotions and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn. phoenixgod2000: > Why should Harry have to be the one to do that? Snape is the adult > and the teacher in that situation. He should be the one to swallow > his attitude and buckle down. Why doesn't Dumbledore sit the man > down and tell him to stop acting like a whiny first year and teach > Harry without the attitude or the attempts at failing him? For gods > sake, Dumbledore put a man in charge of Harry's education who wants > Harry to fail. Harry may need to take responsibility for his > learning, and he should, but Snape needs to take his responsiblility > as his teacher seriously. (hee, I actually wrote siriusly and had to > go back and change it) What I want to see in the next book is > Dumbledore grow a spine when it comes to Snape and make him treat > Harry better. > Julie: The thing is, it really isn't about Snape. The books are about Harry, thus our primary focus is on Harry. And, as the saying goes, you can't change someone else, you can only change yourself. And it really doesn't matter who is at fault, or more at fault. Harry can only change how *he* reacts to Snape's bullying. That's all. Of course, he can also keep reacting as he has been. But if he does change, that would be a sign of maturity, and of growth as a person. Whether Snape ever changes, or grows as a person...well, that's really his problem. But if Snape never gets out of his snarky rut, that doesn't mean Harry has to stay there with him. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 06:26:52 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:26:52 -0000 Subject: James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114418 Demetra: >>I've been fascinated by this thread as another example of others reading the same thing I do and coming up with a completely different conclusion. I always thought that Sirius/James using the name "Snivellus" was JKR again showing dead-on characterization of kids taunting each other. I don't think there is any great meaning or value judgment behind the use of the name Snivellus. << HunterGreen: I was starting to think I was the only one who read it that way. I know I've been called things that had nothing at all to do with any actual traits that I had, just because it was derogatory (none of them were at all clever, like Snivellus, however). When I came across "Snivellus", I didn't stop to think what about Snape made them call him that beyond James and Sirius didn't like him and it sort of rhymes with Severus (of course it rhymes with Sirius too, just not as much). From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 06:48:43 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:48:43 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: <20041001172147.25371.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds wrote: Kim: > I agree, though I thnik most typoos may be teh result of people not proofreading theri posts befroe sending them... I'm in the habit of proofreading on account of the work I do for a living, and I've got the lousy vision to prove it, but I'd get in trouble if my work was full of boo-boos. And yet on occasion mistakes can still get past my bespectacled eagle eyes. It tends to bother me more when the wrong words are used. Case in point, was that a typo or do missiles really know how to lobby? They should lobby for themselves instead of getting people to do their dirty work for them... ;-) Geoff: You always notice the typing error approximately 0.98 seconds after you press the send key! Part of the problem is that your mind sees what it expects to see... On many occasions as a teacher I would produce a poster or a blackboard summary and then have it pointed out to me that there was a glaring spelling error. One thing that I do find irritating and which I think may be laziness rather than faulty typing is a member spelling a proper name incorrectly having not bothered to check it out first, for example wrongly spelling Hagrid or Priori Incantatem or Little Whinging. Crossing my fingers that I haven't spelt anything wrong here :-) Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 07:11:39 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:11:39 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114420 Tonks here: In answer to the question What is Dark Magic? I think that Dark Magic is using the personal power of the wizard and the collected and channeled power of the universe for ones own selfish and personal aims. Shamans know not to do that. It is said that for a Shaman to go beyond the veil for himself or anyone close to him is to put himself in a position to go over to the dark side. So shamans are told never to go there for themselves or their loved ones. They must go for others in a detached manner. The "beyond the veil" of the shaman is going into the other world where the spirits are and to ask the sprits for help. Shaman were the first wizards. If we study shamanism we can learn a lot about the world of the wizards too. Nora said: There are things, I think, in JKR's world, that are *inherently* Dark Magic, no matter who uses them. Now, it's also noted that perhaps, someone who is disinclined to be a dark wizard is not going to use these things, even though he or she could, which is a valid point. I think there are classes of magic that are inherently dark because what it takes to do them is inherently dark. Now, what is Dark in JKR's world is an interesting debate, but it seems to often involve 1) force 2) the destruction of the right to be a subject (a thinking, self-controlling entity). The Unforgiveables have been endlessly discussed in the light of Numbah Two there. The other big piece of Dark Magic that we've seen, the resurrection, involves the forceable blood-letting, the misuse of human remains, etc. I can easily envision other spells that *have no other purpose* other than to overrun another person, in a particular way. Tonks responds: I agree. There are certain practices that are considered Dark Magic. Necromancy is one of them, and a very dangerous practice. This is where the wizard commands the souls of the departed to aid him. He does not go politely asking for help as a shaman would. A Dark Wizard commands the spirits or what are called demons (not the same as what the Christian church calls demons) and forces them to his aid. (I think Tom Riddle did this and got caught in a real mess.) I am aware of practices today that involve cursing others, etc. The idea of burning candles that look like someone you hate, or wishing harm to someone all involve Dark Magic. One could say that Dark Magic is the opposite of Love. It has as its aim to exploit and harm others. It is also said that the darkness come back upon the Wizard.. "what you give out comes back to your 3 fold". I think that are certain practices that open one to the forces of Darkness in the Universe and these forces are more powerful than most wizards and can take them over. Again I think that this is what happened to Tom Riddle. He was messing with something that he should not have messed around with and it came back and got him. As to what JKR puts in her books. I think that she has done a lot of research into this topic, and the topic of magic in general. I can see through out the books that she is well versed in the subject of magic and not because she practices it herself, since we know that she is a Christian. Like any good author she has done a lot of research. Distaiyi said: I suspect that JKR is using magic similarly to how they used it in the 1996 movie "The Craft". Magic/power comes from Manu and Manu is described somewhat as follows: If God and Satan were football teams, Manu would be the grass, the stadium, the sky, the sun, the stars, the air. Manu is older and superior to all later constructs. So the power comes from Manu. A witch/wizard learns to channel that power. What they do with it (intent) is what makes it "light" or "dark." Think of it this way, a gun/sword/knife is neither evil, nor good. What is done with it is. So, Dark Magic is created from intent and action, not from something inherent in the magical source. Tonks Replies: This is the classic idea in magic and certainly LV's idea is based on this except that he does not believe in the football players. ("there is no good or evil only power and those too afraid to use it"). I do not think that JRK as a Christian would agree with this interpretation either, since for a Christian God is the beginning and the highest power. I think that when she refers to the "ancient magic" she is referring to something else.. the same as C.S. Lewis. And that something else, while she will never come straight out and say so, is God and the idea of sacrificial love. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 08:29:13 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:29:13 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy's intent in COS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114421 Lucius Malfoy. Let's put ourselves in his shoes. LV has been gone for years, out of sight out of mind. The MOM is conducting raids so he says to himself, "better get rid of things of LV, so no one links me and finds out that I was a DE". So he goes to Borgin's to sell the stuff. Borgin doesn't want the diary. Lucius has to get rid of it. See kids buying their books, (maybe he was going to sell it there, but) sees Ginny Weasley and thinks, "here is a good place to dump this, they will find it at the Weasley house instead of mine". But Dobby tells Harry that he is not safe at Hogwarts, apparently from something he has overheard in the Malfoy household. If we take the Chamber and the diary out of it, what other reason might Lucius Malfoy have for killing Harry? And who was plotting with him? Dobby would have heard at least 2 people talking. Is Lucius after something else? Maybe we are lead on the wrong path by our author; it has happened before. Can anyone think of some other reason why someone would want Harry dead?? Lets say that it has nothing to do with the prophesy. After all even if Lucius knew about it, all he would know is that "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord.." and everyone thinks that is has already happened. Again assume that Lucius knows nothing about the events at the end of book 1. LV is gone. Why would Lucius want to kill a kid who is no threat to him? There must be something else. What is it? Any ideas?? What ties does Lucius have to the Potter family? If the MOM is conducting raids maybe they are investigating other things too. ?? Tonks-op From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 2 08:47:45 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 04:47:45 -0400 Subject: Why Didn't Ron Get In Trouble w/the Ford Anglia? Message-ID: <002501c4a85c$7d73b890$81c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114422 Mary "recall Harry asking Ron why he didn't get into trouble (or something to that effect) and he said he didn't do magic...the car was enchanted..Something his father had gotten from a muggle. DuffyPoo: "Ron unlocked the cavernous boot *with a series of taps from his wand.* They heaved their trunks back in, put Hedwig on the back seat and got into the front. 'Check no one's watching,' said Ron, starting the ignition *with another tap of his wand.*" I think this is passage to which people are referring when asking why Ron didn't get into trouble, yet no owls appeared to follow them to Hogwarts telling Ron that "underage wizards are not permitted to perform spells outside school, and further spellwork on your part may lead to expulsion from said school." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sat Oct 2 09:27:53 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:27:53 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114423 > >SSSusan: > > so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply > >have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's > >going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws > >at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, > >arrogant, strutting git." > > Julia: That's very interesting what you've just said... I think it might be possible. Just look at Harry's attitude towards himself. He always want to prove himself (and the others too) that he is worth calling a hero etc. Without even knowing it he is behaving in such way. And we all know that he is not unintellingent and he will soon realise that he "has to" prove to Snape that he is not like his father, that he is not like Snape thinks he is, that Snape was wrong. Without realising that, he will want to maintain this image of the young hero who is always on the good side. He wont certainly let Snape think he is right in comparing him to his father. I think it's very Harrys. He will show Snape that he was wrong even if he has to start showing him some respect... I'd really love to read about this... I think it will also give JKR some good opportunities to write funny situation etc. Julia From jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl Sat Oct 2 09:59:22 2004 From: jolka55 at poczta.onet.pl (Julia) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:59:22 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041001.232940.3240.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114424 Aura said: > All we have is circumstantial evidence: characters have said that Sirius > is dead, but no one saw a body and no one specifically said what that > veil was. All other info about his fate was (deliberatly) misleading. If > JKR wanted to bring him back (which I don't see as very likely, but for > the sake of argument, cuz that's what we live off of on this group), all > she would have to say is that Dumbledore and Lupin were wrong. It isn't > lying about death to say that characters were wrong. Lying about death > would be bringing back Cedric. > > Just sayin. I won't believe he's gone until I see his cold, dead, sexy > body. :) Julia: Yes... I would really love to believe that she will someday bring him back but I'm afraid to say that it will never gonna happen! IMO the Sirius' death represents JKR's mother's death. It's normal that the writer wrtites about things s/he knows - it's some kind of dealing with it. So if in the real life JKR's mother died and she didn't come back after a month or two we can be almost sure that Sirius won't come back either. It's that JKR know how to write about Harry's feeling after his loss because they are the same as her. She won't bring Sirius back because it's not how the world works and she knows it! And besides this loss will have a strong impact on Harry and it will help him to mature - in the same way it helped JKR... Nevertheless I'd love to see his sexy body again in the books :P Julia From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 10:45:13 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 10:45:13 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114425 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" (Bookworm) wrote: > We know that spells other than the AK are revealed, if only through > the screams they generate. What was Voldemort up to between killing Frank Bryce and the Graveyard? Also, there was apparently no spell cast between the Lily's and that of Bertha a dozen years later. > > Kneasy: > So where's the spell? Of course if it wasn't a wand spell but > something else (something I've been banging on about for a long > time) then that would explain it, wouldn't it? > > Bookworm: > This may be more likely than my original suggestion that a different wand was used - although I don't rule out a second wizard there as a witness. JKR has given us enough hints about Harry's > wandless magic. > Carolyn: FWIW (not a lot), I came across the following comment in an old post recently (21721), where the discussion was about how Harry's scar had been shown in some artwork: 'I asked him about the alignment of the scar (horizontal vs. vertical). He then relayed that he'd had a conversation with JKR about it, and that she had said that in her mind's eye, she saw baby Harry flinching away as the spell was cast, so the scar is, in fact, diagonal.' You could read this as a description of instinctive, wand-less magic on Harry's part, defending himself as he was attacked; much as years later, he didn't know how he ended up on the school roof when escaping from Dudley's gang. Carolyn From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 12:06:14 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:06:14 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Julia" wrote: > > Aura said: > > > All we have is circumstantial evidence: characters have said that Sirius is dead, but no one saw a body and no one specifically said what that veil was. All other info about his fate was (deliberatly) misleading. If JKR wanted to bring him back (which I don't see as very likely, but for the sake of argument, cuz that's what we live off of on this group), all she would have to say is that Dumbledore and Lupin were wrong. It isn't lying about death to say that characters were wrong. Lying about death> would be bringing back Cedric. > Julia: > Yes... I would really love to believe that she will someday bring him back but I'm afraid to say that it will never gonna happen! IMO the Sirius' death represents JKR's mother's death. It's normal that the writer wrtites about things s/he knows - it's some kind of dealing with it. So if in the real life JKR's mother died and she didn't come back after a month or two we can be almost sure that Sirius won't come back either. It's that JKR know how to write about Harry's feeling after his loss because they are the same as her. She won't bring Sirius back because it's not how the world works and she knows it! And besides this loss will have a strong impact on Harry and it will help him to mature - in the same way it helped JKR... mhbobbin: With the disclaimer that this discussion will never be resolved till Sirius comes back, or hasn't, by the time of the last page of the last book. We often fall back to the argument that JKR wouldn't write something because blah blah blah. We all do it related to a variety of theories. It may be a good argument, as Julia makes above, and many others have made as well, but it is not definitive. For example, in this argument --that it is important for JKR personally, that she's working through her mother's death and the process will help Harry etc.--can also be argued that she's indulging in a fantasy of what she would like to happen instead. While her experience informs her writing, it can inform it either way, IMO. I look to the primary argument for theories on Sirius being hidden in the story, not in the author's story, which I would see as a secondary argument. One that can be made, nevertheless. We know few wizards know what goes on in the Dept of Mysteries. So Lupin and DD don't necessarily have specific knowlege of the Veil. I would think, at the very least, that we will learn something about it. I don't think Nearly Headless Nick's discussion of death with Harry is necessarily informed either. His purpose is to move him to acceptance of Sirius' death. NHN is the only character outside the Order or the group of kids who went with Harry who mentions Sirius' death. (It's not written in the Daily Prophet--and as Sirius is the Most Wanted Criminal up to that point, if DD had informed Fudge, one would expect the Daily Prophet to report it.) My point here is that NHN has likely been briefed by someone, likely DD, in anticpation that Harry will seek him out for questioning. IMO, Harry is going to seek greater knowlege of the Veil, either in Book 6 or 7, and go Beyond the Veil to retrieve Sirius. As mentioned, there is no body, and the death is deliberately ambiguous. Falling back on a secondary argument, JKR had many choices of how to kill off this character and chose this way. JKR draws on Classical Mythology, and she's given us an entrance to the world beyond, a three-headed dog that Harry knows how to get by-- one from a Greek chappie, and pomengranate that is being added incorrectly to a potion. Why sow these seeds? Anyway, given the ambiguity around this particular death, I think Harry is going to make this journey. Does he return with Sirius? In Classical mythology there is usually some bargain struck, and it often goes wrong for the Mortal who tries to retreive a loved one. Not unlike the way Prophecies come back and bite the believer in the butt. So although I believe Harry is going to the Beyond with this purpose, I'm less confident that he will return with Sirius as planned. Anyway, we'll be discussing again, I'm sure. Mhbobbin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 2 13:51:22 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:51:22 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041001.232940.3240.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114427 Aura: > All we have is circumstantial evidence: characters have said that Sirius is dead, but no one saw a body and no one specifically said what that veil was. > I think JKR made Sirius's death difficult to accept in order to engage the readers in Harry's struggle to accept it. To bring Sirius back to life would make that struggle pointless, besides ruining the mystery plot -- there's got to be a reason JKR was vague about the spell that struck Sirius and where it came from. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 2 14:18:25 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:18:25 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114428 > Toto: > But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. You could put even some kind of peace model prize and put them with a teacher who hates their guts and you'll get nothing, or only a minimum. It's mentally impossible, a student has to respect a teacher, and Snape is a feared teacher, not a respected one.< We don't know that Snape hates Harry's guts. I doubt it. We only have Quirrell's word that he hates Harry, and Quirrell, sharing his soul with Voldemort, is hardly a reliable judge. Harry keeps being mistaken about who hates who: he thinks that Lily hated James and that Sirius hated Kreacher. He doesn't really understand that you can treat someone badly and not hate them. To respond to some other comments on this thread: I don't think Harry has to *show* Snape anything; it's part of the problem that Harry thinks he does. The person Harry has to *show* is himself. Once he's realized that he's never going to be able to control the way he looks to other people, he can stop being so sensitive about his reputation, and Snape's jibes will lose their power. As for Snape's duty to be mature, our society takes a different view of the teacher's role than Hogwarts does. If modelling mature adult behavior ever becomes part of the job description for Hogwarts teachers, then Snape won't be the only one who has to go. And I think Harry would rather put up with a dozen Snapes than lose Hagrid. That is one reason that Dumbledore is not going to sit Snape down -- the other reason is that as Dumbledore said in PoA, he has no power to make other men see the truth. Which is to say, that's one of the powers Dumbledore is too noble to use. If people share Dumbledore's views, it should be because they want to, not because Albus Dumbledore is good at being obeyed. Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his image than Voldemort does. Pippin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 14:19:01 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 07:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041002141901.86205.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114429 Can someone please explain why Sirius would not be dead? Either by coming back from behind the veil or Harry journeying to the underworld or whatever? What would be the point of bringing Sirius back? Because in all the hair-splitting, detailed discussions about this issue, no one has made a compelling case that Sirius' presence is somehow important to the plot of the series. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 14:33:32 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:33:32 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041002141901.86205.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Can someone please explain why Sirius would not be dead? Either by > coming back from behind the veil or Harry journeying to the > underworld or whatever? What would be the point of bringing Sirius > back? > > Because in all the hair-splitting, detailed discussions about this > issue, no one has made a compelling case that Sirius' presence is > somehow important to the plot of the series. > > Magda mhbobbin: Actually, although I believe Harry is going beyond the veil to attempt to bring Sirius back, I am NOT convinced that Sirius is important to the storyline. I'm not even convinced a "rescue" would be successful. I'm interested in what foreshadowing there is. I agree with your point -- I believe that if Harry is going to attempt a rescue it will be because of something not yet revealed about Sirius's potential contribution and NOT because the story--as written to this point--makes Sirius indispensable to the rest of the story. And that is pure pure pure speculation--I agree that it is not yet suggested by any clues. And I agree with Pippin's point (though not yet the ESE!Lupin theory that she articulates so well)that JKR has made the final curse thrown at Sirius deliberately vague for a reason. My guess is that if it happens, it'll happen near the end of story, probably not in Book Six. mhbobbin > > > > > > > _______________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 14:55:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:55:19 -0000 Subject: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary (CoS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" wrote: > > SSSusan: > > I know that I likely was doing some projecting when I suggested > > Lucius would've been inclined to blurt out, "But, Master, I DID > > try to help you!" Because, monologue or no monologue, wise or > > not wise, that's what I would've done if it were true. > > > > I like the thought that Lucius might've told his story later; > > that makes a good deal of sense to me. > > > Toto: This might be just speculation, but wouldn't Wormtail have > known about that? And didn't Voldie tells Malfoy he respected > tradition or something? It could have been a reference to what he > did, though it does not tell if he wanted to bring Voldie back or > not (I don't know)... SSSusan: That's a good question about what Wormtail would have known. I'd not thought of that. I don't recall the comment you've referenced between Voldy & Malfoy, though. Do you know in which book it occurred? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 14:59:30 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:59:30 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114432 SSusan: >> Harry has understandably been frustrated and angered by Snape's treatment of him, but I have my doubts that Snape will see any reason to or show any interest in changing *his* behavior towards Harry, so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, arrogant, strutting git." Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but (again, understandably,imo) he's not learned all he could because of the "stuff" that's gotten in the way. I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and prove he is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his emotions and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn.<< Toto: > But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. You could put even some > kind of peace model prize and put them with a teacher who hates > their guts and you'll get nothing, or only a minimum. It's > mentally impossible, a student has to respect a teacher, and Snape > is a feared teacher, not a respected one. SSSusan: Sorry, on this one I just can't agree. As one whose background is in teaching and counseling, I could never agree. It is NOT impossible. It is very difficult, but not impossible. I think of a friend of mine, whose ex-husband is the *definition* of "pr*ck," but she has managed to hold her tongue and to control her behavior for the sake of their children. Of course it IS possible to grow & mature. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 15:05:42 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:05:42 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: <20041001.232940.3240.3.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114433 SSSusan said: > > Bezoar, dear. :-) Aura: > Thank you, love. SSSusan: You're welcome, of course. :-) SSSusan: > > For what it's worth, I vote for option 2. Aura: > Arg, I hope not. Harry saves the day enough. I want some on-page > Hero!Snape action. Even if it's Reluctant-and-griping-hero!Snape. > It's long overdue to see some unequivocal proof that Snape is a > good guy. SSSusan: Now that you put it like THAT, it sounds good! I like the image of Griping-Hero!Snape, I must say. I duly change my vote. SSSusan: > > I'm still holding out for Maturing!Harry in books 6 & 7, who > > will begin to treat Snape differently even if Snape continues in > > his modus operandi. Aura: > It'd be nice to see Harry at least learn when to hold his > tongue and control his anger. CapsLock!Harry had his use in the > last book, but if he keeps that up, I'm gonna reach through the > pages and smack him. SSSusan: If *you* don't, I wouldn't put it past Ginny or Hermione to do it for you. Just a Moonstruck-esque "Snap out of it!" kind of thing, you know? SSSusan: > > I took, from the beginning, Snape's "stopper death" comment to > > mean a means of delaying or postponing death. Aura: > I've always had a nasty mental image of Snape holding someone on > the brink of death, not letting him die or recover. Like, say, > knowing how to bring Sirius back from the veil but not telling > anyone? Yeah, I know, not likely, I'm just desperate when it comes > to Sirius. I've read a million angsty fanfics and they're killing > me! I need a happy ending, dammit! SSSusan: Alas, I wonder if you won't have to find *that* particular happy ending in fanfic alone. I know I've got my favorite novel-length fic [and I don't read many, but this is awesome] ready to file on the shelf w/ canon if I'm not totally satisfied w/ the outcome. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Snarryfan at aol.com Sat Oct 2 11:50:16 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 11:50:16 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114434 >SSSusan: > so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply >have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's >going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws >at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, >arrogant, strutting git." > And we know that Harry CAN do it! In OOTP, he decide to do his best, rereading the board to not make stupid mistakes like the last time (he forgot a line) and he managed a nearly perfect potion. But this potion was in two parts, and he wasted everything in the last part because he was listening Umbridge and Snape rather to be concentrated on what he's doing. This time he deserved the punishment, and it was rather good, an essay saying where he was wrong. (Ok, Snape gave it with a sadist smile, but it's Snape! if he was suddenly nice with Harry, we'll know that it's someone with polyjuice.) Christelle From theadimail at yahoo.co.in Sat Oct 2 15:18:03 2004 From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:18:03 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114435 > cat_kind replies: > I've wondered about those Dark Artefacts too. The one that catches my > fancy is the Hand of Whateveritis. > adi here: Why would Harry need the hand of glory when he already has the invisble cloak? The hand is supposed to give light only to the man holding it. Bye Adi From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 15:26:26 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:26:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114436 Aura: > > All we have is circumstantial evidence: characters have said > that Sirius is dead, but no one saw a body and no one > specifically said what that veil was. Pippin: > I think JKR made Sirius's death difficult to accept in order to > engage the readers in Harry's struggle to accept it. To bring > Sirius back to life would make that struggle pointless, besides > ruining the mystery plot -- there's got to be a reason JKR was > vague about the spell that struck Sirius and where it came from. SSSusan: Yes! This is what I was trying to get at when I wrote, upthread, that I thought her point was that death sucks, *especially* when it happens in such a way that it isn't *easy* to grasp & accept. No body? No blood? No long illness? No advance warning? It's "not fair!" but death happens that way. For us readers to empathize with what we're likely to see of Harry's struggle to come to grips with Sirius' death, JKR painted it as frustratingly ambiguous for ALL of us. Not going to touch your dangling bait on the vague spell, though, Pippin, because I know where *that* will lead us. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 15:26:39 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:26:39 -0000 Subject: What did Scabbers know (Re: Malfoy Sr's Intent with TMR's Diary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "totorivers" > wrote: > > > SSSusan: > > > I know that I likely was doing some projecting when I suggested > > > Lucius would've been inclined to blurt out, "But, Master, I DID > > > try to help you!" Because, monologue or no monologue, wise or > > > not wise, that's what I would've done if it were true. > > > > > > I like the thought that Lucius might've told his story later; > > > that makes a good deal of sense to me. > > > > > > Toto: This might be just speculation, but wouldn't Wormtail have > > known about that? And didn't Voldie tells Malfoy he respected > > tradition or something? It could have been a reference to what he > > did, though it does not tell if he wanted to bring Voldie back or > > not (I don't know)... > > SSSusan: > That's a good question about what Wormtail would have known. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan mhbobbin: On a slightly different track: Scabbers hides out at the Weasleys for twelve years, and in a dormitory with Harry Potter for nearly three school years. I wonder what interesting information Scabbers has that he might be sharing with LV? He was particularly well positioned to learn about Harry. (Coincidence?) as he was placed in the same dorm room. Was he sleeping the whole time, or could he have been listening, and if he was listening, did he learn any potentially interesting private information? mhbobbin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 15:33:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:33:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114438 > > SSSusan: > Yes! This is what I was trying to get at when I wrote, upthread, > that I thought her point was that death sucks, *especially* when it > happens in such a way that it isn't *easy* to grasp & accept. No > body? No blood? No long illness? No advance warning? It's "not > fair!" but death happens that way. For us readers to empathize with > what we're likely to see of Harry's struggle to come to grips with > Sirius' death, JKR painted it as frustratingly ambiguous for ALL of > us. Alla: Oh, I understand what you are saying, Susan, but I think that JKR painted Sirius' death a little bit TOO ambiguous for me to be 100% sure that Sirius is not coming back. I mean, yes, if he dies suddenly in the heat of th battle, yes, the message is death is sudden and unfair and takes the best of us. But there is no body found and more abou the veil is guaranteed to be revealed in the future books. I cannot be sure that fully alive Sirius will come back, But somehow I am positive that we will meet Sirius somehow. Susan: > Not going to touch your dangling bait on the vague spell, though, > Pippin, because I know where *that* will lead us. :-) > Alla: Yes, agreed, but I agree with Pippin that spell was left vague deliberately, just for a completely different reason. :o) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 15:42:29 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:42:29 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114439 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Susan: > > > Not going to touch your dangling bait on the vague spell, though, > > Pippin, because I know where *that* will lead us. :-) > > > Alla: > > Yes, agreed, but I agree with Pippin that spell was left vague > deliberately, just for a completely different reason. :o) mhbobbin: Alla, if you're ready, if you are brave, what is your alternative theory about the vague final curse is. I want some thread to offer an alternative to Pippin's well reasoned ESE!Lupin theory. I agree that details are intentionally vague but I think that was just to contribute to the ambiguity around the Death of Sirius, not because Lupin threw the spell. And I sure would like to see an additional theory if you have one. mhbobbin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 16:03:11 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:03:11 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > Carolyn: (snip) JKR had said that in her mind's eye, she saw baby > Harry flinching away as the spell was cast, so the scar is, in fact, diagonal.' > > You could read this as a description of instinctive, wand-less magic on Harry's part, defending himself as he was attacked; much as years later, he didn't know how he ended up on the school roof when > escaping from Dudley's gang. > > Carolyn Tonks here: If I understand this, you are saying that Harry did wandless magic as a baby and that plus Lily's sacrafice saved him. If that is true than there is more to Harry than we think. Would this say that Harry can not die either, for some reason? I don't think the author is going there. Harry is totally Human and capable of death like all the rest of us. I do think that perhaps there is something of the ancient magic in him as an *accident*/condition of his birth, which gives him powers the Dark Lord knows not. Tonks_op From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 16:03:22 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:03:22 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" > > Julia: > > Yes... I would really love to believe that she will someday bring > him back but I'm afraid to say that it will never gonna happen! IMO > the Sirius' death represents JKR's mother's death. It's normal that > the writer wrtites about things s/he knows - it's some kind of > dealing with it. So if in the real life JKR's mother died and she > didn't come back after a month or two we can be almost sure that > Sirius won't come back either. mhbobbin: > We often fall back to the argument that JKR wouldn't write something > because blah blah blah. We all do it related to a variety of > theories. It may be a good argument, as Julia makes above, and many > others have made as well, but it is not definitive. For example, in > this argument --that it is important for JKR personally, that she's > working through her mother's death and the process will help Harry > etc.--can also be argued that she's indulging in a fantasy of what > she would like to happen instead. While her experience informs her > writing, it can inform it either way, IMO. One reported event from JKR's writing of OOP - that she collapsed in tears after sending him through the veil, and telling her husband that she couldn't take his suggestion to rewrite the scene, because (quoting from memory) "If you're a children's novelist, then you have to be a ruthless murderer" - indicates to me that Sirius is genuinely dead. Even if Harry somehow visits Black in Veilville, Black is still dead and will not return - and very likely does not want to return - to an earthly existence. Would JKR's emotional reaction in writing this scene have been so intense if she was planning to bring Sirius back in a later book? Then, Sirius' death becomes more like Lupin's resignation at the end of Year Three - it's sad that he's leaving, but we all knew he'd be back. - CMC From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 16:12:04 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:12:04 -0000 Subject: The second jet of light. WasRe: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114442 > mhbobbin: > > Alla, if you're ready, if you are brave, what is your alternative > theory about the vague final curse is. I want some thread to offer > an alternative to Pippin's well reasoned ESE!Lupin theory. > > I agree that details are intentionally vague but I think that was > just to contribute to the ambiguity around the Death of Sirius, not > because Lupin threw the spell. And I sure would like to see an > additional theory if you have one. > Alla: LOL! Even though I am always ready to argue with Pippin, I also always say that her ESE!Luppin is very well argued and for a while I was even ready to believe it, even now deep in my mind the shadow of the doubt is lurking. :o) Now, I don't have anything NEW to say on the alternate explanations or alternate speculations, I guess, because I think I already read them earlier, so if anybody wants to take credit for them, by all means. I do not believe that Dumbledore was planning to kill Sirius, but it is quite possible to me that Dumbledore decided to take Sirius out of the game for a while (I think actually it was discussed rather recently on the list), so the second jet of light could have been stunning curse or some other curse knocking you unconscious. In that scenario I am willing to assume that Lupin threw that curse (not being ESE!, mind you :o)) Now, Angie was saying that Lupinh never says to Harry that Sirius is dead in MOM, that he just started to saying the first letter "d", true and prior to that Lupin is saying "There is nothing you can do, Harry... nothing.... He is gone" - OOP, p.806, paperback. Of course, we can read "gone" as gone to the other side, but we can also read it at face value as "gone" somewhere, we don't know yet. Why would Dumbledore want to hide Sirius somewhere? For several reasons: he could have wanted to keep him safe. Now, I am sure Sirius would ahve lodly protested against not being allowed to fight, so maybe Dumbledore gave him some kind of secret mission, we are not privy to yet. I know, I know it is quite outlandish, but here are my thouights for now. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 16:13:34 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:13:34 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > Would JKR's emotional reaction in writing this scene have been so > intense if she was planning to bring Sirius back in a later book? > Then, Sirius' death becomes more like Lupin's resignation at the end > of Year Three - it's sad that he's leaving, but we all knew he'd be > back. > Alla: Yes, I think she could have still had such intense emotional reaction because of Harry's grief over Sirius' death . Even if she is palnning on doing it, Harry's grief should have been real. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 16:33:08 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:33:08 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" > wrote: > > Would JKR's emotional reaction in writing this scene have been so > > intense if she was planning to bring Sirius back in a later book? > >> > > > > Alla: > > Yes, I think she could have still had such intense emotional > reaction because of Harry's grief over Sirius' death . Even if she > is palnning on doing it, Harry's grief should have been real. mhbobbin: She's also brilliant at marketing. It's still a secondary argument. The best arguments--pro and con on this subject--use the clues she wrote into the books. mhbobbin From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 16:43:01 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:43:01 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > > > Toto: > > But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. You could put even some > > kind of peace model prize and put them with a teacher who hates > > their guts and you'll get nothing, or only a minimum. It's > > mentally impossible, a student has to respect a teacher, and Snape > > is a feared teacher, not a respected one. > > > SSSusan: > Sorry, on this one I just can't agree. As one whose background is > in teaching and counseling, I could never agree. It is NOT > impossible. It is very difficult, but not impossible. I think of a > friend of mine, whose ex-husband is the *definition* of "pr*ck," but > she has managed to hold her tongue and to control her behavior for > the sake of their children. Of course it IS possible to grow & > mature. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I'm sorry SSS, but your attitude on this subject approaches being reprehensible. Harry DOES NOT have to prove anything to Snape. SNAPE MUST BE THE ONE TO CHANGE. If he can't do it, then the situation will just have to stay as it is. Justice is MUCH more important than efficiency or peace. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 16:43:36 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:43:36 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > > > Toto: > > But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. You could put even some > > kind of peace model prize and put them with a teacher who hates > > their guts and you'll get nothing, or only a minimum. It's > > mentally impossible, a student has to respect a teacher, and Snape > > is a feared teacher, not a respected one. > > > SSSusan: > Sorry, on this one I just can't agree. As one whose background is > in teaching and counseling, I could never agree. It is NOT > impossible. It is very difficult, but not impossible. I think of a > friend of mine, whose ex-husband is the *definition* of "pr*ck," but > she has managed to hold her tongue and to control her behavior for > the sake of their children. Of course it IS possible to grow & > mature. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I'm sorry SSS, but your attitude on this subject approaches being reprehensible. Harry DOES NOT have to prove anything to Snape. SNAPE MUST BE THE ONE TO CHANGE. If he can't do it, then the situation will just have to stay as it is. Justice is MUCH more important than efficiency or peace. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 16:51:53 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:51:53 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114447 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > That is one reason that Dumbledore is not going to sit Snape > down -- the other reason is that as Dumbledore said in PoA, he > has no power to make other men see the truth. Which is to say, > that's one of the powers Dumbledore is too noble to use. If > people share Dumbledore's views, it should be because they > want to, not because Albus Dumbledore is good at being > obeyed. Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his > image than Voldemort does. > > Pippin That is an utterly and absolutely absurd attitude. And if Dumbledore really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 16:52:45 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:52:45 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > That is one reason that Dumbledore is not going to sit Snape > down -- the other reason is that as Dumbledore said in PoA, he > has no power to make other men see the truth. Which is to say, > that's one of the powers Dumbledore is too noble to use. If > people share Dumbledore's views, it should be because they > want to, not because Albus Dumbledore is good at being > obeyed. Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his > image than Voldemort does. > > Pippin That is an utterly and absolutely absurd attitude. And if Dumbledore really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. Dzeytoun From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 17:03:01 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:03:01 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114449 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > I'm sorry SSS, but your attitude on this subject approaches being > reprehensible. Alla: Ummm, I think that was uncalled for, Dzeytoun. But hey, that is just me. Dzeytoun: Harry DOES NOT have to prove anything to Snape. > SNAPE MUST BE THE ONE TO CHANGE. If he can't do it, then the > situation will just have to stay as it is. Justice is MUCH more > important than efficiency or peace. > Alla: OK, forget about bringing Snape to justice for one minute, please. Think about Harry and only about Harry. So, the situation stays as it is. Harry hates Snape guts with passion. Do you really think that Harry will be able to face Voldemort and survive with so much hate in his heart even if such person absolutely deserves it and I cannot concede that Snape deserves Harry's hate in ALL situations. I think that "Power Dark Lord knows not" will manifest itself towards Snape too. Dzeytoun: And if Dumbledore > really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a > lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. > Alla: Now, THAT I absolutely agree with. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 2 17:16:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:16:59 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114450 Toto: >>> But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. You could put even some kind of peace model prize and put them with a teacher who hates their guts and you'll get nothing, or only a minimum. It's mentally impossible, a student has to respect a teacher, and Snape is a feared teacher, not a respected one.<<< SSSusan: >> Sorry, on this one I just can't agree. As one whose background is in teaching and counseling, I could never agree. It is NOT impossible. It is very difficult, but not impossible. I think of a friend of mine, whose ex-husband is the *definition* of "pr*ck," but she has managed to hold her tongue and to control her behavior for the sake of their children. Of course it IS possible to grow & mature. << Dzeytoun: > I'm sorry SSS, but your attitude on this subject approaches being > reprehensible. Harry DOES NOT have to prove anything to Snape. > SNAPE MUST BE THE ONE TO CHANGE. If he can't do it, then the > situation will just have to stay as it is. Justice is MUCH more > important than efficiency or peace. SSSusan: I'm sorry, but I don't believe you have the right to say that my attitude is "reprehensible." This is my **opinion** just as you have your **opinion** that Snape should ["must," you said, actually] be the one to change. Opinions are just that--subjective opinions. In a previous post on this thread, I already stated that Snape *should* change. My point is that I don't feel it's very likely that Snape is going to change, even though he should. Given that assumption of mine, I think the only way for progress to be made is for Harry to change. I was replying to Totorivers, who claimed that this type of change is IMPOSSIBLE, that I don't believe that to be true. How is that reprehensible? Siriusly Snapey Susan From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 17:35:19 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:35:19 -0000 Subject: grimly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114451 Recently, when I was re-reading OOtP, I realized that Sirius often was saying something grimly. Such as the first time we see Sirius at Grimauld Place: "Hello Harry", he said grimly, " I've see you've met my mother." And it occurs regularly. At first I said AHA!!! JKR is using this loaded word as language foreshadowing of the fate of Sirius. I should have seen it!!! But then I found she also described Lupin speaking ***grimly***. Since many posters feel that Lupin is high on the list of characters with a low survival chance, I thought that might be telling. I've not yet found a third character. I've not done an exhaustive rereading of all the books for this but I ask the group to keep an eye out for it. And let it be known if you find another character with that adverb description. It may be nothing, of course. Just an coincidental figure of speech. mhbobbin From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 17:37:47 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:37:47 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114452 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > (snip) JKR had said that in her mind's eye, she saw baby > > Harry flinching away as the spell was cast, so the scar is, in > fact, diagonal.' > > > > You could read this as a description of instinctive, wand-less > magic on Harry's part, defending himself as he was attacked; much as years later, he didn't know how he ended up on the school roof when escaping from Dudley's gang. > > Tonks here: > > If I understand this, you are saying that Harry did wandless magic > as a baby and that plus Lily's sacrafice saved him. If that is true > than there is more to Harry than we think. Would this say that Harry can not die either, for some reason? I don't think the author is going there. Harry is totally Human and capable of death like all > the rest of us. I do think that perhaps there is something of the > ancient magic in him as an *accident*/condition of his birth, which > gives him powers the Dark Lord knows not. > Carolyn: Well, for a start, if you go back to that post/thread, it is a little doubtful exactly what JKR said to this illustrator. OTH, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that most wizards and witches can do wandless magic from a very early age, including those that are muggle-born. As Hagrid says to Harry in PS/SS: 'Not a wizard, eh? Never made things happen when you was scared or angry?' Doing wand-less magic even seems to be a sure indicator that they will go to Hogwarts (eg Neville). Certainly Harry seems to have been born with a huge amount of magical ability. I don't think it is stretching it too far to suggest that he might instinctively have shielded himself from an aggressive spell, even as a baby. But this isn't an indicator that he cannot ultimately die, but more probably connected to a series of miscalculations on Voldemort's part. Voldie not only didn't realise the effect of Lily dying for Harry, but also was apparently unaware that his own wand contained Fawkes' tail feather. I think that the result of trying to use a wand with such a core against such a target, newly charged-up with all that sacrificial love, created a type of priori incantatum effect, shooting his own spell back at him. Something that DD undoubtedly had anticipated and orchestrated from the start. You might want to take a look at post 40044, for some clever speculation on exactly how worried Voldy is about Harry's innate power, and what he thinks it might take to kill the kid. Carolyn Wondering if Voldie will have realised that there is a problem with his wand by book 6. Maybe he will donate it to the HBP, in the idle hope that another force for good (we assume) might be able to battle it out with Harry, and save him the trouble. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 17:40:34 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:40:34 -0000 Subject: FILK: Gifted Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114453 "Gifted" filked from "Twisted" by Annie Ross & Wardell Grey To Ginger (and no hidden meanings whatsoever) BTW, while searching the web for the midi I found that Annie Ross was born in Surrey! How about that for a connection? Could she be Mrs. Next Door? Anyway I didn't find a midi, but if you have the bandwidth for it you can listen to snippets from Ross' version in: http://www.artistdirect.com/store/artist/album/0,,235161,00.html (click on the little speaker in No. 9 in "track listing") http://www.jazzitalia.net/lezioni/storia/vocalese/gp_capitolo2.asp Click on "versione di Annie Ross" There's also a cool Joni Mitchell's cover with Cheech & Chong, part of it can be heard in: http://www.mainstreetmusic.com/cgi-bin/msmusic/LA0000736361.html (click on "Twisted" - Preview) "Gifted" -------- The scene: SS/PS, the Hogwarts Express. Hermione introduces herself to Harry and Ron Hermione : McGonagall wrote me That I am a talented witch Admitted to Hogwarts (school) Of Witchcraft and Wizardry I say, I was ever so surprised Of course I promptly learned all the course books by heart By the way did you know? You've got something on your nose Ron: Oh, no! Hermione: McGonagall wrote me That I am a fabulous find Admitted to Hogwarts Although I'm a year too young She said I was the type that was most inclined With a little bit of training prove a brilliant mind I expect that she's right No more stupid yellow rats! They say as a child I appeared a little bit wild With all my clever ideas But I knew what was happening Knew I was a genius... What's so strange when you know That you're a wizard at three? I knew that this was meant to be! Now I heard little witches Were supposed to sleep tight That's why I concocted me A nice Sleeping Draught My parents got frantic Didn't know what they'd do But I was just snoozing For a fortnight or two Now do you think I was crazy? I may have been only three But I - was - charming! They all laughed at Quentin Trimbell! They all laughed at Agrippa And also at Grunnion So why should I feel sorry If they just couldn't understand The idiomatic logic That went on in my head? I had a brain It was insane Oh they used to laugh at me Because I've seen around All those triple-decker buses With a Jamaican shrunken head up in the front Harry: There was a shrunken head up in the front??? Ron: Gee she's crazy, thinks she's in a movie, hope she's not in my house Hermione: McGonagall wrote me That I was exceedingly bright But I say the Professor, She can't know how much she's right Because I, I have a thing that unique and new Can't tell you exactly but remember when you Will be taking your class - - I'll take two. A-nd You know two classes are better Than o?ne... Neri, who's just finished his first and most likely last filk ever. Whew! From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 18:04:19 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:04:19 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: <902DA87A-12E3-11D9-8F21-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114454 Kneasy: Just one very, very oblique clue here; Petunia reacts to the name Voldemort and to the mention of Dementors. Where has she heard these before? Voldy possibly from DD's letter after GH, or possibly not. It could have been the reason given for an earlier bereavement.... or two. Bookworm: While Petunia recognized what the dementors are, the Dursleys didn't recognize Voldemort's name at first. At least Vernon didn't; we don't see Petunia's reaction until after Harry tells them Voldemort is back. It took Vernon a few moments to recognize the name ? <<"Lord ? hang on," said Uncle Vernon, his face screwed up, a look of dawning comprehension in his piggy eyes. "I've heard that name...that was the one who..." "Murdered my parents, yes," Harry said. "But he's gone," said Uncle Vernon impatiently, without the slightest sign that the murder of Harry's parents might be a painful topic to anybody. "That giant bloke said so. He's gone." "He's back," said Harry heavily. "Back?" whispered Aunt Petunia.>> [OOP, Ch2] Vernon doesn't get the name right; he keeps calling him Lord Voldythingy. But they did know what he had done. For a while I thought about the theory that Voldemort had killed the senior Evans, but it seems there is no connection in Vernon's mind between the deaths of his in-laws and Voldemort. If there was, I think Vernon would have said something like, "Isn't he the one who killed your parents, Petunia?" Your suggestion that they were killed in the car crash that Petunia uses as the cover for Lily's and James' deaths seems to fit this scene better. Now, what could have caused the senior Potters' deaths near the same time? Hmmm? Ravenclaw Bookworm From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 18:13:48 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:13:48 -0000 Subject: Mark Evans (Re: Harry's family (was: Petunia)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114455 > Karen L. wrote > Geoff, I am fairly new to this group, and I was wondering if you > could fill me in on JKR torpedoing Mark Evans as a relative of > Lily's? I am not up on all that JKR says, and am feeling rather > lost in some of these discussions. Sandy Here: On JKR's web site, she revealed that Mark Evans was just a name she picked out of the air for a minor character who would have no further role in story. "Evans is a common name" was one excuse.... It was an answer to one of her FAQ Polls, and I don't know if you can still find it on the site, but the answer was actually quite humorous Bookworm: It is still available on the text version of the site: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=49 From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 2 18:14:43 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:14:43 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > Justice is MUCH more important than efficiency or peace.< It may not be a question of efficiency or peace, it may be a question of handing the victory to Voldemort in order to salve Harry's pride. This argument reminds me of a 20th century epitaph: This is the grave of Mike O'Day Who died maintaining his right of way His right was clear, his will was strong, But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong. As for the wisdom of Dumbledore's tolerating people who hold moral convictions other than his own, IMO, freedom of thought is far more valuable than efficiency or peace. It is always easy to find people who will mindlessly agree in return for not having to take the responsibility themselves. But if the boss surrounds himself with such people then there will be no one to tell him when he is wrong. I think Dumbledore knows that and Harry is learning it--he'd have been far better off if he hadn't cowed Hermione into silence at the end of OOP. Pippin From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 18:29:08 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:29:08 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114457 Carolyn: Voldie not only didn't realise the effect of Lily dying for Harry, but also was apparently unaware that his own wand contained Fawkes' tail feather. Bookworm: A totally off-the-wall thought just came to mind. If the wand chooses the wizard, and the brother to Voldemort's wand chose Harry, could Voldemort's wand have recognized something in Harry and done something to mitigate the spell? Ravenclaw Bookworm (I didn't say it was a *good* thought ? just off-the-wall ) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 18:41:30 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:41:30 -0000 Subject: What must happen first (was Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041002141901.86205.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Can someone please explain why Sirius would not be dead? Either by > coming back from behind the veil or Harry journeying to the > underworld or whatever? What would be the point of bringing Sirius > back? > > Because in all the hair-splitting, detailed discussions about this > issue, no one has made a compelling case that Sirius' presence is > somehow important to the plot of the series. > > Magda > > > mhbobbin writes: Since it's a slow posting day, I'm not going to feel guilty going on a bit more about this, and replying AGAIN to the same post. This is a legitimate challenge. And as I said previously, I don't have a legitimate answer. So I have been contemplating it and instead seek to re-frame the argument into What Would Have to Happen before Harry descends like Orpheus beyond the Veil. First, I don't think Harry would take this Mission on, or be allowed to take it on, simply because of his grief. THe War is about to begin and no adult--particularly DD--would likely allow the potential Vanquisher to undertake a hazardous Quest for emotional reasons. With the series 5/7 finished, there's not much ink left for Detours not directly related to Vanquishing Evil Dark Lords. And with JKR promising more bad news for Harry in Books 6 & 7, the Beyond could be full of characters for Harry to rescue by the End. He could be completely occupied for years to come by trips to the Beyond. If you do it for one...(But then maybe those characters will die Proper Deaths.) Such a Mission is fraught with trouble. So, as I see it, before Harry would undertake such a Quest, two developments must occur: 1) Revelations about Sirius that would require him back in the storyline. 2) Revelations about the Veil that make Harry see that it's possible. Two seems more likely than One. This would require Harry to seek out an Unspeakable. He met Mr. Croaker in GoF so that's a possibility (Put Croaker on the list of those who likely will take up residence Beyond.) And then what? No idea. Can there be knowledge that ONLY Sirius has? Yes. What is it? I have no idea. But despite the thousands of pages, we sure don't know much about either Sirius or Lupin. We've been promised more revelations about The Past. I admit that there isn't much about either One or Two to go one with. But I keep coming back to the ambiguity of Sirius' death, the three headed dog and the pomegranate. The promegranate especially. It's not even supposed to be in the story--it's not an ingredient in anything. Harry adds it in error to a potion. And I can't find a legitmate reason for it to be there except to sow a particular seed in our brains. mhbobbin > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 18:42:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:42:59 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114459 Pippin: > This argument reminds me of a 20th century epitaph: > > This is the grave of Mike O'Day > Who died maintaining his right of way > His right was clear, his will was strong, > But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong. Alla: Funny, but true I guess. Pippin: > > As for the wisdom of Dumbledore's tolerating people who hold > moral convictions other than his own, IMO, freedom of thought is > far more valuable than efficiency or peace. It is always easy to > find people who will mindlessly agree in return for not having to > take the responsibility themselves. > > But if the boss surrounds himself with such people then there > will be no one to tell him when he is wrong. I think Dumbledore > knows that and Harry is learning it--he'd have been far better off if > he hadn't cowed Hermione into silence at the end of OOP. > Alla: Well, that I don't agree with. That is one of the problem with Dumbledore character that JKR makes him juggle so many things- He is a leader of anti-Voldemort resistance and Headmaster, etc. As Headmaster, IMO, he has on obligation to the children, who are placed under his care and if for the well- being of these children, Snape's freedom of thought (which manifests itself in his disgusting attitude toward Harry and Neville- Snape is a fictional character, so I think I can call his attitude as I see it :o)) should be sacrificed, so be it. But I concede that the reason why Dumbledore does not tell Snape to stop it could totally change the picture as I see it. I also don't think, Pippin that "potterverse" moral standards are so different from others, but those discussions had been held so many times that i don't want to go in depth right now. Yes, they are at war, yes wisarding children can handle more than "muggle" ones, but how much more it is very unclear, IMO. Yes, one should have people around, who can tell him when they are wrong, but Hermione's "saving people thing" was not the wisest cause of action, IMO From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 18:47:47 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:47:47 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114460 Pippin: Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his image than Voldemort does. Dzeytoun: And if Dumbledore really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. Alla: Now, THAT I absolutely agree with. Bookworm: And I absolutely DISagree with both Dzeytoun and Alla. Why is it alright for one person to "remake others" but not another ? just because you agree with him? That's called tyranny. Which is exactly why Dumbledore won't do it. Ravenclaw Bookworm From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 18:50:38 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:50:38 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114461 > Pippin: > > > > As for the wisdom of Dumbledore's tolerating people who hold > > moral convictions other than his own, IMO, freedom of thought is > > far more valuable than efficiency or peace. It is always easy to > > find people who will mindlessly agree in return for not having to > > take the responsibility themselves. > > > > But if the boss surrounds himself with such people then there > > will be no one to tell him when he is wrong. I think Dumbledore > > knows that and Harry is learning it--he'd have been far better off > if > > he hadn't cowed Hermione into silence at the end of OOP. > > > > > > Alla: > > Well, that I don't agree with. That is one of the problem with > Dumbledore character that JKR makes him juggle so many things- He > is a leader of anti-Voldemort resistance and Headmaster, etc. > > As Headmaster, IMO, he has on obligation to the children, who are > placed under his care and if for the well- being of these children, > Snape's freedom of thought (which manifests itself in his disgusting > attitude toward Harry and Neville- Snape is a fictional character, > so I think I can call his attitude as I see it :o)) should be > sacrificed, so be it. > > But I concede that the reason why Dumbledore does not tell Snape to > stop it could totally change the picture as I see it. > > I also don't think, Pippin that "potterverse" moral standards are so > different from others, but those discussions had been held so many > times that i don't want to go in depth right now. > > Yes, they are at war, yes wisarding children can handle more > than "muggle" ones, but how much more it is very unclear, IMO. > > Yes, one should have people around, who can tell him when they are > wrong, but Hermione's "saving people thing" was not the wisest cause > of action, IMO Exactly. The question is NOT allowing different opinions. The question is about sitting back while a bully emotionally abuses students. That is UTTERLY indefensible and smacks of spinelessness. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 18:52:24 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:52:24 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114462 > Pippin: > > > > As for the wisdom of Dumbledore's tolerating people who hold > > moral convictions other than his own, IMO, freedom of thought is > > far more valuable than efficiency or peace. It is always easy to > > find people who will mindlessly agree in return for not having to > > take the responsibility themselves. > > > > But if the boss surrounds himself with such people then there > > will be no one to tell him when he is wrong. I think Dumbledore > > knows that and Harry is learning it--he'd have been far better off > if > > he hadn't cowed Hermione into silence at the end of OOP. > > > > > > Alla: > > Well, that I don't agree with. That is one of the problem with > Dumbledore character that JKR makes him juggle so many things- He > is a leader of anti-Voldemort resistance and Headmaster, etc. > > As Headmaster, IMO, he has on obligation to the children, who are > placed under his care and if for the well- being of these children, > Snape's freedom of thought (which manifests itself in his disgusting > attitude toward Harry and Neville- Snape is a fictional character, > so I think I can call his attitude as I see it :o)) should be > sacrificed, so be it. > > But I concede that the reason why Dumbledore does not tell Snape to > stop it could totally change the picture as I see it. > > I also don't think, Pippin that "potterverse" moral standards are so > different from others, but those discussions had been held so many > times that i don't want to go in depth right now. > > Yes, they are at war, yes wisarding children can handle more > than "muggle" ones, but how much more it is very unclear, IMO. > > Yes, one should have people around, who can tell him when they are > wrong, but Hermione's "saving people thing" was not the wisest cause > of action, IMO Exactly. The question is NOT allowing different opinions. The question is about sitting back while a bully emotionally abuses students. That is UTTERLY indefensible and smacks of spinelessness. Dzeytoun From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 18:54:18 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:54:18 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114463 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Carolyn: > Voldie not only didn't realise the effect of Lily dying for Harry, > but also was apparently unaware that his own wand contained Fawkes' > tail feather. > > Bookworm: > A totally off-the-wall thought just came to mind. If the wand > chooses the wizard, and the brother to Voldemort's wand chose > Harry, could Voldemort's wand have recognized something in Harry > and done something to mitigate the spell? > > Ravenclaw Bookworm > (I didn't say it was a *good* thought ? just off-the-wall ) Carolyn: Never be afraid to think the unthinkable. It depends on what you mean by 'choice'. I've been banging on for some time that it was no accident that only two wands were made with Fawkes' tail feathers, and no accident that Voldie and Harry are the ones that 'chose' them. Yes, in essence, I am suggesting that the core of Voldemort's wand was not able to act against Harry, for whatever reason, and this was one of a number of protections that DD has arranged. My theory, if you haven't already been bored to death by it (aha, a new audience!), is that Tom Riddle was originally a protege of DD who went wrong, and that what DD was originally looking for was a successor, to groom to become the most powerful wizard in the WW. He made the first Fawkes' wand available at Ollivanders as a kind of litmus test, to tell him when that person came forward. Unfortunately, Tom was unable to overcome his background and upbringing ('it's our choices'..etc), and went the old Sally route. DD has been picking up the pieces ever since, hence weapon!Harry. The entertainment will be whether he can keep the dratted boy focused on his allotted task. Carolyn From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 18:55:09 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:55:09 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114464 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > > It may not be a question of efficiency or peace, it may be a > question of handing the victory to Voldemort in order to salve > Harry's pride. > Actually, it's mainly a question of Dumbledore himself maturing and facing his responsibility to bring Snape into line before the abusive Potions Master creates a greater disaster than he's already managed to create. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 18:57:27 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:57:27 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > > This is the grave of Mike O'Day > Who died maintaining his right of way > His right was clear, his will was strong, > But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong. > Good rhyme, but silly sentiment. Everyone dies pippin. It's inevitable. To die in the right is the best death possible. I will drink a toast to the honor of Mike O'Day this evening. Dzeytoun From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 19:01:45 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:01:45 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114466 Carolyn: My theory, if you haven't already been bored to death by it (aha, a new audience!), is that Tom Riddle was originally a protege of DD who went wrong, and that what DD was originally looking for was a successor, to groom to become the most powerful wizard in the WW. He made the first Fawkes' wand available at Ollivanders as a kind of litmus test, to tell him when that person came forward. Bookworm: Interesting. Do you think Harry's wand was another litmus test or made to counter Tom's wand? If the latter, was it made before or after Godric's Hollow? Ravenclaw Bookworm From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 19:03:23 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:03:23 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114467 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" > Bookworm: > And I absolutely DISagree with both Dzeytoun and Alla. Why is it > alright for one person to "remake others" but not another > ? just because you agree with him? That's called tyranny. > Which is exactly why Dumbledore won't do it. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm Sigh. Because that's the way life works, Bookworm. You don't lead by respecting other's right to act any way they want. If you are a manager, a general, or any other person in charge of a large scale and important task you squash disruptive behavior forthwith. Harsh, but truth almost always is. Snape has every right to think whatever he wants. He DOES NOT have every right to behave any way he wants. And his behavior has already resulted in one utter and absolute disaster. Dzeytoun From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 19:03:44 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:03:44 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > > > This is the grave of Mike O'Day > > Who died maintaining his right of way > > His right was clear, his will was strong, > > But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong. > > > > Good rhyme, but silly sentiment. Everyone dies pippin. It's > inevitable. To die in the right is the best death possible. I will > drink a toast to the honor of Mike O'Day this evening. > Alla: So, wait, Dzeytoun. Am I correct that if one of the choices which Harry will have to face will be to learn to disregard Snape's abuse of him or die, because without that he won't be able to prevail int eh final battle, you would rather see him die? I am with you that what Snape does to Harry cannot be justified by ANY standards, but if Snape has ANYTHING to give to harry, which will help him survive, I would really rather let him learn that. By the way, you do know that you can delete one of the messages when you posted the same thing, right? :o) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 19:22:34 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:22:34 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Carolyn: > My theory, if you haven't already been bored to death by it (aha, a > new audience!), is that Tom Riddle was originally a protege of DD > who went wrong, and that what DD was originally looking for was a > successor, to groom to become the most powerful wizard in the WW. He > made the first Fawkes' wand available at Ollivanders as a kind of > litmus test, to tell him when that person came forward. > > Bookworm: > Interesting. Do you think Harry's wand was another litmus test > or made to counter Tom's wand? If the latter, was it made before > or after Godric's Hollow? > > Ravenclaw Bookworm Carolyn: I think Harry's wand was another litmus test certainly, but as to when it was made, difficult to say. There have been a couple of long threads debating this over the last couple of weeks. I think it has to have been after DD heard the prophecy at the Hog's Head. I think that was his signal that there might be solution on the way to his Riddle problem. He asked Fawkes' to provide a second feather, briefed Ollivander, and waited... (although he had a good idea that it must be Harry, the wand was the final proof). One interesting point is that Neville was never given a chance to choose that wand, as he was given his father's. Carolyn Wondering how and when you grow out of wands (if their length is related to your height, as is widely speculated). Surely all 11-year old children must need new wands by the time they are grown up? So what is Voldie doing with his old schoolboy wand anyway? From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 19:47:26 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:47:26 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114470 > > Alla: > > So, wait, Dzeytoun. Am I correct that if one of the choices which > Harry will have to face will be to learn to disregard Snape's abuse > of him or die, because without that he won't be able to prevail int > eh final battle, you would rather see him die? > > I am with you that what Snape does to Harry cannot be justified by > ANY standards, but if Snape has ANYTHING to give to harry, which > will help him survive, I would really rather let him learn that. > > By the way, you do know that you can delete one of the messages when > you posted the same thing, right? :o) A) Just responding to the general sentiment of the rhyme. B) Actually, I don't think the question of "learning from Snape" is one that needs to be put in stark terms of "defiance" or "ignoring Snape's insults." That is a false dichotomy, and implies that either Harry must defy Snape and learn nothing or else adopt some reprehensible policy that injustice doesn't matter as long as it serves some greater good. So, actually the best response to Snape, in terms of Harry's options, would be "defiance while learning." That is, Harry should listen to whatever worthwhile information Snape imparts while at the same time maintaining a clear posture of cold contempt for Snape's attitude and behavior. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD HE RESPOND TO SNAPE WITH RESPECT UNLESS THE RESPECT HAS BEEN EARNED. I've dealt with many Snapes over a long period in both academics and government, and the only way to permanently address the issue, if higher authority is unwilling to get involved (which, incidentally, I've found isn't the case most of the time if you scream loud enough) is to out-Snape them. Snape can off course respond with detentions and taking points, but if Harry continues his attitude of contempt and makes it clear that he will not be cowed, what's Snape going to do? Throw him out of class? After the Occlumency debacle I think even Dumbledore will find it impossible to allow that. Refuse to teach him? Ditto. To get away from morals and practical politics, this would also allow for some hilarious scenes. Can you imagine Snape working himself into impotent fury, literally shaking with rage as he realizes that nothing he does will break the icy contempt from Potter? That would be worth more than a few chuckles. On a related issue, much has been made in some forums of Harry needing to learn leadership skills. A very important leadership skill is how to put people like Snape in their place when necessary. It is true leadership involves swallowing insults in some very specific and isolated instances. It is also true, however, that leaders cannot tolerate such behavior over the long run. I'll give two examples (rather standard ones in leadership studies). Eisenhower had to put up with a lot from both DeGaulle and Montgomery. He accepted insults from both of them on some occasions. However, in the long run, he found it necessary to place both of them firmly in their place, making it clear that there were boundaries that he would not tolerate them breaking. In the case of Montgomery it was bluntly informing him that Eisenhower was more important to the War than Montgomery, and Montgomery would shut up or be replaced. In the case of DeGaulle it was stating that Eisenhower WOULD cooperate with the Vichy garrison of Orlan to smooth the invasion of North Africa, and if DeGaulle could not stomach that he had best put his dreams of liberating Paris with his French troops on the back burner. Lincoln took a lot from his generals. He even remained silent when McClellan flagrantly snubbed him in one specific instance. But when McClellan's behavior endangered the war effort, Lincoln made it clear that McClellan would obey or turn in his resignation. When McClellan "called his bluff," he was stunned to discover that Lincoln had no trouble accepting his resignation (and enduring the arguments from McClellan's political allies). Harry is not, of course, a president or a general (although he shows signs of developing into the latter). However, if he truly wants to take command of his destiny, he must be proactive in all areas. Of course he shouldn't kick Snape into the cauldron in every specific confrontation. However, he MUST make clear to Snape what he will not tolerate or accept. A good starting point would be for him to tell Snape, politely but coldly "Professor, I WILL NOT tolerate any comments from you about my father or about Sirius Black. If you care about defeating Voldemort, you are simply going to have to adjust your attitude." Another excellent technique (it has worked for me on multiple occasions) is to treat Snape like an errant child and refuse to acknowledge that he is speaking unless he uses at least minimally polite language. Dzeytoun From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 19:48:58 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:48:58 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114471 Having read a number of very strong posts from Snape/Sirius ?philes/?phobes, I would like to ask one question ? has anyone else noticed that many of the characters are really caricatures? The Dursleys made Harry sleep in a closet; they send him a tissue for Christmas; a teacher is repeatedly "sadistic" toward particular students without comment from school authorities; Gilderoy Lockhart (need I say more?). These are just a few examples, but IMO the characterizations are a little over-the-top. JKR has taken elements from fantasy, mythology, legends, and classical literature to create a story about a boy growing up, good fighting evil, friendship, love, and who we are as individuals, among other themes. In doing so, she has exaggerated some of the personality traits to make her point. Petunia hates Harry but took him in because he is family. Snape is a horrible person who appears evil but is helping Dumbledore. Lockhart's smile hides an amoral soul. Appearances can deceive. Am I saying there aren't people like this in real life? Of course not. There are sadistic teachers. There are unloving, uncaring parents. There are people who will steal credit for the work of others. There are people who will destroy others to get ahead themselves. Most of what I've read, however, doesn't have so many of them all in the same story. And while I've met people that fit some of the characterizations, they haven't all been in my life at the same time. The magic of JKR's storytelling is that we have all come to love these characters (good and bad) and think of them as real. For us to tell her what her characters must do is like telling her how to write her story. To write the characters any differently would change the dynamics of the story. Ravenclaw Bookworm From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 19:58:40 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:58:40 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114472 Carolyn: Wondering how and when you grow out of wands (if their length is related to your height, as is widely speculated). Surely all 11-year old children must need new wands by the time they are grown up? So what is Voldie doing with his old schoolboy wand anyway? Bookworm: Well, Harry's wand is the same length as his father's (11 inches) so either they don't need to change, or James was still using his school wand. Can you imagine wizards running around waving wands 15 or 20 inches long? From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 20:08:36 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:08:36 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114473 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" > > Snape can off course respond with detentions and taking points, but > if Harry continues his attitude of contempt and makes it clear that > he will not be cowed, what's Snape going to do? Throw him out of > class? After the Occlumency debacle I think even Dumbledore will > find it impossible to allow that. Refuse to teach him? Ditto. > > To get away from morals and practical politics, this would also allow > for some hilarious scenes. Can you imagine Snape working himself > into impotent fury, literally shaking with rage as he realizes that > nothing he does will break the icy contempt from Potter? That would > be worth more than a few chuckles. > Replying to my own post (how's that for being egocentric) I would also add that Harry seems to be developing just this sort of attitude in his final confrontation with Snape at the end of OOTP. To wit: "Potter, what are you doing?" "Trying to decide which hex to use of Malfoy, sir," Harry replied coldly. To which Snape is momentarily at a loss for words. Dzeytoun From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 2 20:17:49 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:17:49 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114474 Ravenclaw Bookworm wrote: > > And I absolutely DISagree with both Dzeytoun and Alla. Why is it > > alright for one person to "remake others" but not another > > ? just because you agree with him? That's called tyranny. > > Which is exactly why Dumbledore won't do it. > Dzeytoun replied: > Sigh. Because that's the way life works, Bookworm. You don't lead by respecting other's right to act any way they want. If you are a manager, a general, or any other person in charge of a large scale and important task you squash disruptive behavior forthwith. Harsh, but truth almost always is. Snape has every right to think whatever he wants. He DOES NOT have every right to behave any way he wants. > And his behavior has already resulted in one utter and absolute > disaster. Hannah now: When has Snape's behaviour resulted in an utter and absolute disaster? If you mean the occlumency failure, I don't think it can be entirely blamed on Snape; Harry doesn't try, he is very stupid when he looks in the pensieve, he never even tries to resume lessons. I would also say that Snape does a lot of things he doesn't really want to solely because Dumbledore wants him to. Such as teaching Harry occlumency in the first place, making the polyjuice potion for Lupin, shaking Black's hand, keeping quiet about Lupin being a werewolf when he found out as a teenager... We don't know what goes on between DD and Snape behind closed doors, but when we see them together, Snape always ultimately does what DD says, even when he's plainly not happy about it. People follow DD because they love him and believe in what he is fighting for. I don't think that DD is particularly lenient on his followers either; he makes Sirius stay in Grimmauld Place for example. But one of the strengths of the Order is its diversity. The members are very diverse, having one thing in common - wanting to defeat LV. I don't see any evidence of DD trying to force them all into his own mold, but they are still a force to be reckoned with. With the DA, we see people beginning to behave in the same way towards Harry, particularly the five loyal but wildly different friends who risk their lives to help him in the DoM. Hannah From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 20:19:43 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:19:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Having read a number of very strong posts from Snape/Sirius > ?philes/?phobes, I would like to ask one question ? has > anyone else noticed that many of the characters are really > caricatures? > True, which is what many people find wrong with OOTP. When the series had the tone of a fairy tale such caricatures were all well and good. In OOTP, however, JKR seemed to want to be more "realistic." Therein lies the origin of such extreme opinions. What one can except from a fairy tale character without blinking one cannot accept from a character that is supposed to be "real" in some sense. > > The magic of JKR's storytelling is that we have all come to love > these characters (good and bad) and think of them as real. For us > to tell her what her characters must do is like telling her how to > write her story. To write the characters any differently would > change the dynamics of the story. You are correct, but I'm afraid I don't see the point. Of course it would change the dynamics of the story. Many people think the dynamics of the story need to be changed. That isn't to say that they don't like the story as a whole, just that they find problems with this, that, or the other thing. In particular, by taking a more "realistic" tone in OOTP, JKR lays herself open to criticism as to what fits in a more realistic universe. Of course no fiction is totally realistic. But once you take that turn, it's hard to draw your boundaries. Trying to make a realistic turn and then say "I want to only go this far, no farther," is kind of like throwing somebody out a window and yelling at him to stop half way down. It may be something you'd like to see but it isn't likely to be very effective. JKR can, of course, do whatever she wants and will do whatever she wants. That's her right and power as a writer. However, readers can and will say whatever they want about what she's written. That's our right and power as readers. And the "realistic" turn, in practical effect, invites an enormous amount of virulent criticism. People take real life very seriously, unlike fairy tales, and tend to have very, very strong opinions on important issues such as how teachers should behave toward their students, what schools should do to punish bullies, what constitutes child abuse, and what is the correct response to an abusive teacher. It's just the way people are. Dzeytoun From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 20:27:21 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:27:21 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114476 Dzeytoun: Snape can off course respond with detentions and taking points, but if Harry continues his attitude of contempt and makes it clear that he will not be cowed, what's Snape going to do? Another excellent technique (it has worked for me on multiple occasions) is to treat Snape like an errant child and refuse to acknowledge that he is speaking unless he uses at least minimally polite language. Bookworm: Your suggestions are appropriate for two adults. For a child/student to *show* contempt for a teacher or to ignore him is disrespectful and the teacher would be within his rights to discipline him. A better approach, IMO, would be for Harry to be *very* respectfully polite no matter what Snape says or does. If he can maintain that attitude, then he would have truly developed some maturity in dealing with Snape. Dzeytoun: I would also add that Harry seems to be developing just this sort of attitude in his final confrontation with Snape at the end of OOTP. To wit: "Potter, what are you doing?" "Trying to decide which hex to use of Malfoy, sir," Harry replied coldly. To which Snape is momentarily at a loss for words. Bookworm: I did not read that as contempt toward Snape. The cold attitude was directed at Malfoy. Harry was very matter-of-fact with Snape which is why Snape was at a loss. Also, he is used to seeing Harry hotly angry instead of coldly furious. The whole tenor of Harry's and Draco's attitudes toward each other shifted in this scene. Ravenclaw Bookworm From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 2 09:51:38 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:51:38 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114477 SSSusan: > Harry has understandably been frustrated and angered by Snape's > treatment of him, but I have my doubts that Snape will see any > reason to or show any interest in changing *his* behavior towards > Harry, so if things are going to change, I think Harry will simply > have to decide, "Hey, we're supposedly on the same side. It's > going to kill me, but I'm going to SHUT OUT all the crap he throws > at me, and just work. I'm going to SHOW HIM that I'm not a stupid, > arrogant, strutting git." > > Harry has learned *some* from Snape, but he's not learned all > he could because of the "stuff" that's gotten in the way. I want to > see Harry work around the "stuff" and prove he is becoming a mature > man who knows that he MUST master his emotions and take responsibility > for learning what he needs to learn. Jennifer: Although I don't think there is any justification for the way Snape treats Harry (no matter what went on in his childhood), I don't think he'll be particularly moved to change the way he is and view Harry in a kinder light. He doesn't act like a professional and as the adult he has that responsibility. I guess it's a good job he's not the DADA teacher because where would Harry be then...! I actually agree that it's important for Harry to change, if Harry changes his reactions to Snape's behaviour towards him Snape will be forced, no matter how much he hates it, to change as well. That's not to say he'll be any nicer to Harry but he will have to come up with something different that fits Harry's new set of reactions. From red_rider4 at lycos.com Sat Oct 2 15:45:09 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (hester_griffith) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:45:09 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114478 > phoenixgod2000: Dumbledore put a man in charge of Harry's education who wants Harry to fail. Harry may need to take responsibility for his learning, and he should, but Snape needs to take his responsiblility as his teacher seriously. What I want to see in the next book is Dumbledore grow a spine when it comes to Snape and make him treat Harry better. Hester: Yes, Snape does want Harry to fail. He sees much of James in Harry, and frankly Harry does have a bit of an attitude. He definitely has a tendency to blithely break rules. Granted he has "good" reasons for the most part, but Snape doesn't know this. Fortunately Harry's future cannot be decided by Snape. He doesn't have the power to expell Harry nor the power to fail Harry, or prevent him from becoming an auror. Harry has complete control over that through his personal study and his ability to perform during his OWLs and NEWTs. DD is a very wise man. Thus he recognizes that learning to deal with unfairness and cruelty will help Harry be stronger and more independent. Harry is forced to take more initiative in his education, and thus his goals are defined and strengthened. If Snape really could prevent Harry from learning what he needs to, or did anything worse than deduct points and assign detentions, DD would certainly get involved in some way. DD also recognised and apologised for his error in judgement in assigning Snape as Harry's occlumency teacher. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. DD is doing Harry a favor by alowing him to learn how to live in an unfair world, while he is still young and pretty sheltered at school. Harry doesn't really learn anything about dealing with this at the Dursleys, but his education and success in the WW is so important to him that he does learn this at Hogwarts. Hester From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 19:28:50 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:28:50 -0000 Subject: DD letting Snape abuse students (Re: Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114479 > Dzeytoun: > Exactly. The question is NOT allowing different opinions. The > question is about sitting back while a bully emotionally abuses > students. That is UTTERLY indefensible and smacks of > spinelessness. I could not have put it anymore succinctly than that. Sometimes I do not understand the lengths that people go to in order to forgive Snape for his actions. In many ways Snape is every bit the villain of the HP books that Voldemort is, he just happens to be on the same side as Harry. And Dumbledore remains almost totally understandable when it comes to Snape. I even have trouble writing him sometimes because I don't get his motivations. Someone as wise and knowledgable as DD should not allow what Snape does to occur. He just shouldn't. When that happens, I read Daddy's Favorite and for a little while I like Dumbledore again. Good job on that fic by the way. "phoenixgod2000" From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 20:36:35 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:36:35 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114480 > Hannah now: When has Snape's behaviour resulted in an utter and > absolute disaster? If you mean the occlumency failure, I don't think > it can be entirely blamed on Snape; Harry doesn't try, he is very > stupid when he looks in the pensieve, he never even tries to resume > lessons. > > I would also say that Snape does a lot of things he doesn't really > want to solely because Dumbledore wants him to. Such as teaching > Harry occlumency in the first place, making the polyjuice potion for > Lupin, shaking Black's hand, keeping quiet about Lupin being a > werewolf when he found out as a teenager... We don't know what goes > on between DD and Snape behind closed doors, but when we see them > together, Snape always ultimately does what DD says, even when he's > plainly not happy about it. > > People follow DD because they love him and believe in what he is > fighting for. I don't think that DD is particularly lenient on his > followers either; he makes Sirius stay in Grimmauld Place for > example. But one of the strengths of the Order is its diversity. > The members are very diverse, having one thing in common - wanting > to defeat LV. I don't see any evidence of DD trying to force them > all into his own mold, but they are still a force to be reckoned > with. With the DA, we see people beginning to behave in the same > way towards Harry, particularly the five loyal but wildly different > friends who risk their lives to help him in the DoM. > > Hannah Very good points. Yes, I do mean Occlumency, which I lay almost solely at the door of Severus and his utterly idiotic teaching "methods" and his attitude. But that is a different argument. I agree that perhaps much of the tension here come from restricted viewpoint. We don't know, by and large, what happens when Harry isn't around. DD might very well chew Snape up one side and down the other for his attitude toward Harry (or, I think more likely, wearily remonstrate that Snape is overstepping his bounds YET AGAIN in any particular instance). It would make sense that Harry doesn't know that, since no school administrator can let students know about his disciplinary actions toward teachers. We certainly have one incident, Harry's Potions grade in third year, where Harry at least believed that he stepped in an flatly over-ruled Snape. It is important to remember that Snape's behavior toward Harry is not typical of his behavior toward other students. With most other students (Neville being the only other exception we know of) he is cold and sharp-tongued but seems restrained and at least tolerably just. Looking at his behavior toward students in general, one can see that Dumbledore might have the attitude that "Severus isn't easy to get along with, but he knows Potions and the students need to learn how to get by with people who aren't cheerful or pleasant." However, we can't help but form our opinions and objections from the evidence we have at hand. Yes, if we saw Snape and Dumbledore from several different angles, and particularly if we saw them when Harry isn't around, we might have different attitudes and opinions might not be so strong and deeply divided. But that is not the way JKR has chosen to show us these characters, and so we have to go with what we see. Dzeytoun From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 20:38:38 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:38:38 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > Hannah now: When has Snape's behaviour resulted in an utter and > absolute disaster? If you mean the occlumency failure, I don't > think it can be entirely blamed on Snape; Harry doesn't try, he is > very stupid when he looks in the pensieve, he never even tries to > resume lessons. I ain't Dzeytoun, but I think I can come up with a line of reasoning that works here. It was stated earlier in another thread, and I do believe this myself, that Snape is a teacher who is feared, not respected. I don't think that fear and true respect, with regards to a superior, are particularly mutually compatible. I suspect the argument Dzeytoun is making, if I unpack it, is this: Dumbledore is being unduly lenient in allowing Snape to behave as Snape wishes towards the students, with some restraint, but not a particularly strong amount. (This point, minus the unduly part, has been largely confirmed in JKR interview, when she says that DD keeps Snape around in part because the kids need to learn some life lessons- -that's a rough quote, but I'm fairly sure the gist is there). This is, throughout the books, resulted in an escalation and continuation of hostility between Harry and Snape, with some culpability on both sides, but probably putting more of the blame on Snape--in part because yes, he is the teacher, and as such is in a superior position of authority, which brings certain amounts of responsibility with it. And I think it's really pretty settled that we don't see any of the other teachers behaving in truly Snape-like ways; ergo, he *is* something of an anomaly at Hogwarts. Given this situation, Harry's distrust and fear of Snape is a situation which feeds into the Occlumency mess. [Side note: I really *do* want to know how much DD knew what was going on with that, and his responses to it--that matters quite a bit to getting a more accurate interpretation of what happened and why.] Now, to jump backwards, IF the hostile situation between Harry and Snape had not been allowed to continue largely unchecked, with no necessitated examination of ideas on either side, THEN we can see the situation in book 5 with the lessons being quite a bit different. There is the question of balance, here: does DD have the right to force Snape to change his behavior, versus whether DD has the right to allow Snape to continue the exercise of his behavior on his inferiors. A difficult question. If my friend would ever return my copy of Shklar, I'd go diving to see what she thinks... Does that make any sense? -Nora recovers from the emotional wringer of Verdi From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 20:40:13 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:40:13 -0000 Subject: Survival of AK / Occam's Razor, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Carolyn: > Wondering how and when you grow out of wands (if their length is > related to your height, as is widely speculated). Surely all 11-year > old children must need new wands by the time they are grown up? So > what is Voldie doing with his old schoolboy wand anyway? > > Bookworm: > Well, Harry's wand is the same length as his father's (11 inches) so either they don't need to change, or James was still using his > school wand. Can you imagine wizards running around waving wands 15 or 20 inches long? Carolyn: I guess the explanation is that children magically choose a wand that suits their eventual adult height. Ron, for instance, had a new 14 inch wand in POA, and he is supposed to be tall and gangly, taking after his father. Harry ends up with a wand the same length as his father's because he will grow up to look very similar to him (a factor which DD and Ollivander presumably took into account when commissioning it). Now, if my theory is correct, how would DD know what length of wand to commission containing the first Fawkes' feather? Did he have inside information about Tom Riddle's parentage and potential powers? Did he know all about Tom's mother (last descendent of Slytherin) marrying a muggle in Little Hangleton? He does, after all, keep up with the muggle newspapers and a marriage between the local landowner's son and a village girl might have attracted a paragraph or two in the early 1920s. BTW, it looks as though Ron is going to be taller than Voldemort eventually, if V's old wand (13 1/2 inch) is anything to go by. Trivial fact for the evening... Carolyn From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Oct 2 20:02:03 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:02:03 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114483 > Alla: > > I agree with ... let's say 95% of your post. > > I also absolutely do not buy multiple excuses for Snape NOT to > improve his behaviour. Poor dear, he is so damaged that he is just > unable to stop his harassment of Harry and Neville. Not buying > that, sorry. I mean, I am buying that Snape is very damaged, I am > just not buying that he has to be excused because of that. > > But I agree with Susan in a sense that I also want Harry to learn > everything that's possible from Snape and try and disregard all > those insults. I agree that he should make the attempt, I just don't think it's possible. I'm a teacher and I know just how hard it is to teach something when a teacher doesn't like the student or vice versa, and that's for muggle subjects. Imagine how difficult it would be when you're trying to teach someone to protect their thoughts from mind reading. Something so personal, so intimate cannot be taught by someone with so much animosity for the student. It just can't happen. > Something which I am not sure will happen and which is one of my > biggest desires though is to see Snape changed - not for Harry, > for him. Not to become "fuzzy bunny in a pink slippers", but just > let go of his hatred. I think Snape is evil so I'm really hoping Harry gets to kick his ass. Actually, even if he's not evil I hope Harry kicks his ass. I take Snape's actions very personally because I've been in Harry's position before. I've had a teacher who actively hated me because of actions by my parents (long story). There is nothing like the helplessness that you feel when something is treating you like that and there is nothing you can do about it because they have protection. That's why I keep hoping that DD would step in, to protect Harry the way I wish someone would have protected me. > Oh, and if I were you, I would not hold my breath hoping that > Dumbledore grew a spine on that issue. Remember, we still don't > know why Dumbledore trusts him. Trust me, there is very little in Harry Potter that I hold my breath about. If I told you my shipping preferences you would understand why. Two words--Harry/Fleur :) "phoenixgod2000" From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 20:42:45 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:42:45 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > > Bookworm: > Your suggestions are appropriate for two adults. For a > child/student to *show* contempt for a teacher or to ignore him is > disrespectful and the teacher would be within his rights to > discipline him. So? Snape will discipline Harry in any case. Snape has not earned respect and HARRY MUST NOT SHOW IT TO HIM. > > A better approach, IMO, would be for Harry to be *very* respectfully > polite no matter what Snape says or does. If he can maintain that > attitude, then he would have truly developed some maturity in > dealing with Snape. > You are totally and completely incorrect. All that will show is that he has developed a poor sense of self-worth and a completely inappropriate habit of giving respect to people who have not earned it. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 20:54:35 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:54:35 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114485 > > DD is a very wise man. Thus he recognizes that learning to deal with > unfairness and cruelty will help Harry be stronger and more > independent. Harry is forced to take more initiative in his > education, and thus his goals are defined and strengthened. ERR, that's wisdom? Forgive a poor, stupid former teacher, but it sounds like sheer idiocy to me. > > LIFE IS NOT FAIR. DD is doing Harry a favor by alowing him to learn > how to live in an unfair world, while he is still young and pretty > sheltered at school. Harry doesn't really learn anything about > dealing with this at the Dursleys, but his education and success in > the WW is so important to him that he does learn this at Hogwarts. Not learned that life isn't fair while living with the Dursleys? Once again, forgive a poor, stupid man who works with abused kids from time to time, but just how in the name of God's green goodness to you justify THAT statement? Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 21:02:53 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:02:53 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" > wrote: > > Hannah now: When has Snape's behaviour resulted in an utter and > > absolute disaster? If you mean the occlumency failure, I don't > > think it can be entirely blamed on Snape; Harry doesn't try, he is > > very stupid when he looks in the pensieve, he never even tries to > > resume lessons. > > I ain't Dzeytoun, but I think I can come up with a line of reasoning > that works here. > > It was stated earlier in another thread, and I do believe this > myself, that Snape is a teacher who is feared, not respected. I > don't think that fear and true respect, with regards to a superior, > are particularly mutually compatible. > > I suspect the argument Dzeytoun is making, if I unpack it, is this: > Dumbledore is being unduly lenient in allowing Snape to behave as > Snape wishes towards the students, with some restraint, but not a > particularly strong amount. (This point, minus the unduly part, has > been largely confirmed in JKR interview, when she says that DD keeps > Snape around in part because the kids need to learn some life lessons- > -that's a rough quote, but I'm fairly sure the gist is there). > > This is, throughout the books, resulted in an escalation and > continuation of hostility between Harry and Snape, with some > culpability on both sides, but probably putting more of the blame on > Snape--in part because yes, he is the teacher, and as such is in a > superior position of authority, which brings certain amounts of > responsibility with it. And I think it's really pretty settled that > we don't see any of the other teachers behaving in truly Snape-like > ways; ergo, he *is* something of an anomaly at Hogwarts. > > Given this situation, Harry's distrust and fear of Snape is a > situation which feeds into the Occlumency mess. [Side note: I really > *do* want to know how much DD knew what was going on with that, and > his responses to it--that matters quite a bit to getting a more > accurate interpretation of what happened and why.] Now, to jump > backwards, IF the hostile situation between Harry and Snape had not > been allowed to continue largely unchecked, with no necessitated > examination of ideas on either side, THEN we can see the situation in > book 5 with the lessons being quite a bit different. I absolutely agree and could not have put it better myself. > > There is the question of balance, here: does DD have the right to > force Snape to change his behavior, versus whether DD has the right > to allow Snape to continue the exercise of his behavior on his > inferiors. A difficult question. I think you are absolutely correct that this is the central moral issue. At what point does respect for freedom of opinion become spineless acceptance of abuse? Dzeytoun From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 21:03:52 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041002210352.74370.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114487 dzeytoun wrote: > Justice is MUCH more important than efficiency or peace.< Well, there's "justice" and then there's "pig-headed obstinancy". Harry can stand in one spot banging his head against the wall that's Snape until hell freezes over or Harry can wise up and out-smart him so that Snape has to recognize that he was wrong about Harry in the first place. It's not a matter of what a teacher should do or what is fair or just at this point - there's an evil overlord who keeps trying to kill Harry and his friends and I think that adjusting his attitude so that he can get the most out of the people who are his allies would be a really good strategic move until the big issue is dealt with. THEN Harry can get around to telling off Snape and hexing him halfway through next August if he feels like it. But he's got to keep his priorities straight until then. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 21:05:05 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:05:05 -0000 Subject: DD letting Snape abuse students (Re: Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: When that happens, I read Daddy's Favorite and for a > little while I like Dumbledore again. > > Good job on that fic by the way. > > "phoenixgod2000" Chuckle. Thank you very much. You might try reading the "Here be Monsters" cycle. Hopefully that will also help you like old Dumbly (or think he needs to be committed, one of the two). Dzeytoun From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 2 21:09:05 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:09:05 -0000 Subject: grimly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: mhbobbin: > I've not done an exhaustive rereading of all the books for this but > I ask the group to keep an eye out for it. And let it be known if > you find another character with that adverb description. > > It may be nothing, of course. Just an coincidental figure of speech. Geoff: But don't forget of course that Sirius often transfroms into a large black dog Grim-ly. :-) Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Geoff Enjoy Exmoor and the heritage West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 21:20:13 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:20:13 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: <20041002210352.74370.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114490 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > dzeytoun wrote: > > Justice is MUCH more important than efficiency or peace.< > > > Well, there's "justice" and then there's "pig-headed obstinancy". > Harry can stand in one spot banging his head against the wall that's > Snape until hell freezes over or Harry can wise up and out-smart him > so that Snape has to recognize that he was wrong about Harry in the > first place. The problem is that I seriously doubt Snape will EVER recognize that. He simply has too much invested, emotionally, in his view of Harry to rethink it because Harry is "respectful" or whatever. I'm sure he would just say "That blasted Potter is obviously up to something and thinks he can throw me off the scent." If Harry wants to achieve a new relationship with Severus, I really don't think it can be on the basis on mutual respect, largely because I don't think Snape is *capable*, psychologically speaking, of respecting Harry. To respect Harry would mean, on some deep level, that Snape would have to come to some sort of peace with his past and the specter of the Marauders and whatever else was between him and James. If he *could* do that I suppose he would, because he would be able to release his own pain. But all the evidence we have is that he just simply cannot. And indeed, Dumbledore seems to have reached this conclusion as well with his "Some wounds run too deep for the healing" remark. > It's not a matter of what a teacher should do or what is fair or just > at this point - there's an evil overlord who keeps trying to kill > Harry and his friends and I think that adjusting his attitude so that > he can get the most out of the people who are his allies would be a > really good strategic move until the big issue is dealt with. Sigh. But is a wizarding world where Snape is allowed to do whatever he pleases really worth saving? That's a rhetorical question, but you have to admit that neither Dumbledore nor the Order has done very well in giving Harry appropriate emotional support. Harry is fifteen years old. People don't seem able to forgive him for that. He's supposed to act, I suppose, as if he's thirty-six? Then I suppose he would have license to act like Snape? Harry should mature and use the resources around him and get his priorities straight? Give me a break! He's already decided that Snape is to blame for the death of Sirius, and JKR went to a great deal of trouble to set up that "I'll never forgive him" scene at the end of OOTP. People are waiting to see respect between Snape and Harry? Lotsa luck. Authors don't use valuable space at the end of a book to introduce plot themes that will be settled easily or quickly. I think Harry *may* respect Snape at some point in Book VII, after Snape is killed trying to save Harry or some such. Until then... lotsa luck. Dzeytoun > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 21:23:00 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:23:00 -0000 Subject: What LV did to prevent his death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114491 Has anyone explored this idea? Dumbledore was the transfiguration teacher when Hagrid and Tom Riddle were students and the COS was opened the first time. What did Dumbledore teach his students? Was Tom a gifted student and as such did DD give him special sessions like Lupin gave Harry? If so what did DD teach Tom? Aren't there some hints that what TR/LV did to prevent LV from dying has something to do with transfiguration? His appearance certainly changed quite a bit. And McGonagall tells us the transfiguration is "some of the most complex and dangerous magic you will learn at Hogwarts". It is COMPLEX and DANGEROUS. So what did Tom do? Something Tom did that DD taught and maybe Tom mixed with the Dark Arts and it all backfired on him to turn him into LV, also gave his the ability to resist death. What do you all think? Tonks_op From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 21:25:06 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The second jet of light. WasRe: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041002212506.98720.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114492 Alla: I do not believe that Dumbledore was planning to kill Sirius, but it is quite possible to me that Dumbledore decided to take Sirius out of the game for a while (I think actually it was discussed rather recently on the list), so the second jet of light could have been stunning curse or some other curse knocking you unconscious. In that scenario I am willing to assume that Lupin threw that curse (not being ESE!, mind you :o)) Now, Angie was saying that Lupinh never says to Harry that Sirius is dead in MOM, that he just started to saying the first letter "d", true and prior to that Lupin is saying "There is nothing you can do, Harry... nothing.... He is gone" - OOP, p.806, paperback. Of course, we can read "gone" as gone to the other side, but we can also read it at face value as "gone" somewhere, we don't know yet. Why would Dumbledore want to hide Sirius somewhere? For several reasons: he could have wanted to keep him safe. Now, I am sure Sirius would ahve lodly protested against not being allowed to fight, so maybe Dumbledore gave him some kind of secret mission, we are not privy to yet. I know, I know it is quite outlandish, but here are my thouights for now. I like this theory. I have always felt that Lupin was going to say something to Harry other than "dead". My question is - We all assume that Sirius is dead. I am going to check in the OoTP and see if Dumbledore spells it out in so many words that Sirius is dead (JKR has said to take what Dumbledore says as fact) but can anyone remember JKR ever saying "Sirius is dead"? I know she says that if you are dead you do not come back and we will hear more from Sirius. But does she ever come out with those 3 words? moonmyyst --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 21:33:13 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What LV did to prevent his death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041002213313.52758.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114493 Tonks wrote: Has anyone explored this idea? Dumbledore was the transfiguration teacher when Hagrid and Tom Riddle were students and the COS was opened the first time. What did Dumbledore teach his students? Was Tom a gifted student and as such did DD give him special sessions like Lupin gave Harry? If so what did DD teach Tom? Aren't there some hints that what TR/LV did to prevent LV from dying has something to do with transfiguration? His appearance certainly changed quite a bit. And McGonagall tells us the transfiguration is "some of the most complex and dangerous magic you will learn at Hogwarts". It is COMPLEX and DANGEROUS. So what did Tom do? Something Tom did that DD taught and maybe Tom mixed with the Dark Arts and it all backfired on him to turn him into LV, also gave his the ability to resist death. What do you all think? Tonks_op With the descriptions that we have of LV, I tend to lean toward Dementor. Not just any one but the ultimate one. Look at how they are in a way Legilimens. Look at the physical description. What do we know about Dementors and where they come from? How long do they live? What other powers do they have? moonmyyst __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 2 21:53:51 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:53:51 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114494 A lot has been going back and forth today about whether Harry should show Snape respect. Frankly, I think that idea is... well, I don't have a great deal of intellectual or emotional agreement with it. Nevertheless, the thrust seems to be that Harry should show Snape respect in order to prove that he is not like Snape believes and that this will lead to Snape and Harry building some kind of mutual respect, or at least lead to Snape behaving somewhat better and lessening tension. Now, the thing I don't get, I really don't, is why would anyone think Snape is *capable* of changing his opinion of Harry or even *capable* of changing his behavior? The evidence we have, from what I can see, is that he isn't. He has far too much invested emotionally in his view of Harry, and that view leads directly to the way he behaves. To change would mean, at some level, coming to some peace with his past RE the Marauders and James. I suppose he would if he could, if only to get rid of his own pain, but all the evidence is that he simply CANNOT. Now, given that, why would Harry being respectful to him make any dent at all? As far as I can see, he would just say "That blasted Potter's up to something, but he can't fool me!" Now, I think that Dumbledore, up until OOTP, really believed that Snape WAS capable of change. I think one reason he has not interfered openly in the Snape-Harry dynamic is his belief that Snape would eventually "get over" most of his animosity. And he probably saw good reason to believe that. After all, Snape and Harry are a lot alike in a lot of ways. He probably hoped that, over time, Snape would grudgingly have to acknowledge this fact. In this I think Dumbledore was blinded by several things. First of all he was misled by his own habit of trying to see the best in people and situations. Secondly, he was just too close to the situation. He has been intimately involved with Snape and Harry for years, and likely lacked the perspective to truly appreciate the depth of enmity that has been steadily growing between those two ever since Harry set foot in Hogwarts. Now comes fifth year and Occlumency. I think Dumbledore was being quite honest when he said his main concern was making sure Harry learned the skill and when he confessed his reasons for not teaching Harry himself. But I also think he really did hope that this would finally lead to a breakthrough. When it didn't, he gave up hope, leading to his "Some wounds run too deep for the healing" remark. Now, given all this, how on Earth is Snape supposed to budge? Some people see evidence of change during the Occlumency episode, but if its there its EXTREMELY subtle and not very encouraging. How, then, is anything supposed to make any difference at all? Snape seems simply too emotionally invested in his hatred of Harry to be capable of any kind of change either in his attitudes or his behaviors, barring being forced to modify his behavior unwillingly be some method or the other. Dzeytoun From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Oct 2 22:21:47 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:21:47 +0100 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? Message-ID: <001b01c4a8ce$372d46e0$022f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 114495 Oh, we're doing futurology now, are we? That is sooooo dangerous! What if one of us comes up with a better idea for the fist chapter then JKR? Won't you be disappointed? What if we come out with *the same* idea as JKR? Doesn't that qualify as a *spoiler*?!? Well, maybe, but the truth is: I couldn't stop myself from reading all the posts in this thread. And since you lot don't seem to object (searching for any ADMIN posts... nop. It seems ok), then I can't help adding my two bits: The first chapter has the purpose of the book. In PS introduces Harry, in CoS... is missing, in PoA informs about the escaped prisoner (Sirius), in GoF foresees the return of Voldemort, and in OotP establishes Harry as the target. I say it's missing in CoS because the first chapter doesn't introduce the purpose of the book; it just reintroduces Harry. That is very consistent with a whole plot being taken of CoS - and we know that plot has been 'transferred' to HBP. CoS is actually my least favourite book - I just can't see its purpose! Maybe that's why I reckon the introductory chapter is missing. If someone has any idea about the purpose of CoS in the series, do explain, please! Another hint we have is that Harry will have to learn to control his emotions in the sixth book. I thought the Dursleys would be essential to that. I was very surprised when I read JKR's statement that we'd see little of the Dursleys in the sixth book. I thought the reason Petunia had taken Harry was a subplot to be resolved before the main one(s) but reading posts here made me realize that to resolve that issue would 'give too much away'. So I reckon the chapter gives (and conceals) the main plot of the sixth book... the half blood prince. The half blood prince is someone who fits nicely in the CoS plot and has something to do with the findings in the Camber of Secrets... Godric Gryffindor? But we know the chapter was ment for PS, then PoA, then OotP... no mention of CoS! The chapter would fit in PS - introducing Harry's history - and in PoA - introducing Sirius - and in OotP - marking Harry as the target. ? Sirius arriving at GH, learning what happened, having a conversation with Hagrid, and then setting of to kill Peter who tells him Voldy will be back? ? Someone who looks like a lion and is the last heir of Gryffindor and a half blood prince (and happens to be the new DADA teacher at Hogwarts) stands in the ruins of GH - a place he owns - and explains the events of the night Voldemort was nearly defeated to a bunch of tourists? Sorry, I had a 'D' in Divination. I'll just wait for the book. Susana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 22:48:11 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:48:11 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041002141901.86205.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Can someone please explain why Sirius would not be dead? Either by > coming back from behind the veil or Harry journeying to the > underworld or whatever? What would be the point of bringing Sirius > back? > > Because in all the hair-splitting, detailed discussions about this > issue, no one has made a compelling case that Sirius' presence is > somehow important to the plot of the series. > > Magda I don't fully know why I find your post so interesting Magda (I'm NOT a Sirius hater) but yes it isn't clear what he is/was 'for' either. However, I DO think JKR has made it clear that his ABSENCE has become necessary. Sirius HAD to die - let's have a theory about WHY. From cat_kind at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 20:43:17 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:43:17 -0000 Subject: Connection between books 2 and 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114497 > cat_kind: > > I've wondered about those Dark Artefacts too. The one that catches > my > > fancy is the Hand of Whateveritis. > > adi here: > Why would Harry need the hand of glory when he already has the > invisble cloak? The hand is supposed to give light only to the man > holding it. catkind: I wasn't thinking so much of Harry needing it; though now you come to mention it it would be kind of handy in conjunction with the cloak - you can't explore a darkened room with the cloak without giving yourself away with a light source. But I'd hope Harry would be too moral to use Dark Artefacts :-> LV seems to be into chopping people's hands off though... catkind From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 23:21:28 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:21:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, (message 114429) Magda Grantwich > wrote: > > What would be the point of bringing Sirius back? Because in all the hair-splitting, detailed discussions about this issue, no one has made a compelling case that Sirius' presence is somehow important to the plot of the series. > > mhbobbin: > snip I am NOT convinced that Sirius is > important to the storyline. endsnip Mac: But why is there a whole book devoted to Sirius? (PoA) What was the purpose of this book? Was it just to acieve Pettigrew being outed as scabbers, have him escape and, moreover, in wizard's debt to HP? I don't think so. Watch out Sirius fans, maybe JKR has more to do yet than kill him. What could be more? - to reveal that actually he really was no friend of HP's after all. Nobody's commented yet on my post number 114398 which is disappointing. I for one don't think Sirius is an incomprehensible plot deviation/hole/red herring. Over-loved maybe (yes I was one too - a Sirius fan), but hardly insignificant. I guess only JKR *knows*, but she says she's laid her clues carefully, so if they are there concerning Sirius, it seems some of us have yet to find them. And, yes, that includes me. I always found the few Agatha Christie novels that I've read IMMENSELY frustrating in that her so-called obvious clues, usually early in the books, only became 'obvious' in hindsight when so much that was deliberately concealed or confused becomes apparent or clarified - usually right at the end of each book. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 23:47:08 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:47:08 -0000 Subject: grimly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" > wrote: > > mhbobbin: > > I've not done an exhaustive rereading of all the books for this but > > I ask the group to keep an eye out for it. And let it be known if > > you find another character with that adverb description. > > > > It may be nothing, of course. Just an coincidental figure of speech. > > Geoff: > But don't forget of course that Sirius often transfroms into a large > black dog Grim-ly. :-) > > Or am I barking up the wrong tree? > > Geoff Mac: While I must admit to not having made the connect between 'the grim' (PoA) and Grimmauld (Grim old) place, let alone the word 'grimly' to describe a person's demeanour, I do believe JKR like any author, has a penchant for certain words. She often uses the word 'muttered' (I'd always read muttered to mean what people do among one another, usually in hushed voices), but JKR uses it as a descriptor of a character (usually Harry) saying a spell soto voce/surreptitiosly. She likes the word tawny (hence wild speculations about H-BP since it was a word in the quote 'revealed' on her website) and there are a few more besides (sorry I can't recall more to quote them, but I'm sure you've noticed yourselves). For some reason it has stuck in mind that a few years back BBC radio 4 (British public radio channel) had a program in which it was stated that some academic had analysed famous works (Thackaray, Shakespeare, Tolkien, Dickens, Austen etc) for the occurrences of particular words to show that not only did each have their particular favourites, but that these were absolutley diagnaostic of the author (so could be used almost forensically to determine if unpblished/previously undiscovered works attributed to the particular author were, in fact, by them). Thus, JKR's key words might be tawny, mutter and grim. I'm sure you can think of others she uses that are not otherwise commonly used. It's the type of thing that makes us laugh, scream, wince at fan fiction and know, instantly, that the author, has no connect whatsoever with the 'real' JKR. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 23:47:10 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:47:10 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114500 Dzeytoun: However, he MUST make clear to Snape what he will not > tolerate or accept. A good starting point would be for him to tell > Snape, politely but coldly "Professor, I WILL NOT tolerate any > comments from you about my father or about Sirius Black. If you care > about defeating Voldemort, you are simply going to have to adjust > your attitude." Another excellent technique (it has worked for me on > multiple occasions) is to treat Snape like an errant child and refuse > to acknowledge that he is speaking unless he uses at least minimally > polite language. Alla: Oh, that I can understand and partially agree with. I also don't think that Harry should keep his head down while dealing with Snape. When Pippin keeps saying that Harry should stop his defiance , I want to say " Noooo" (Sorry, Pippin!) Unfortunately, as a student, Harry won't be able to get away with a lot of that stuff. I guess I am partially agree with Magda in a sense that Vodemort is a priority now. I perfectly understand what Harry feels toward the Snape and think that he is justified to think so, but in order to survive maybe he should accept help from Snape, if Snape ever offers him help, of course. :) Again, if WW was at peace and no Voldemort threat lurking in the shadows,I will be the first one to say that Snape should be brought to justice ASAP. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 23:50:33 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:50:33 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114501 > > Hester: snip. >> LIFE IS NOT FAIR. DD is doing Harry a favor by alowing him to learn > how to live in an unfair world, while he is still young and pretty > sheltered at school. Harry doesn't really learn anything about > dealing with this at the Dursleys, but his education and success in > the WW is so important to him that he does learn this at Hogwarts. > Alla: I actually think that Harry have learned plenty of "Life is not fair" BEFORE he came to Hogwarts. You know, sleeping in the cupboard, cooking for Dursleys, listening to their insults, not having mom and dad to care for him and love him. I don't think he needs any MORE favours like that from Dumbledore. Lesson learned, let's move on, I'd say. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 2 23:39:15 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 19:39:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) Message-ID: <20041002.195633.2716.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114502 Dzeytoun said: > I'm sorry SSS, but your attitude on this subject approaches being > reprehensible. Harry DOES NOT have to prove anything to Snape. > SNAPE MUST BE THE ONE TO CHANGE. If he can't do it, then the > situation will just have to stay as it is. Justice is MUCH more > important than efficiency or peace. Susan isn't excusing Snape's behavior and she isn't saying that Harry is the one to blame. In a perfect world, Snape would realize the errors of his ways and change. And he'd apologize to Harry and they'd skip together through a field of posies. But that's not going to happen. Snape isn't going to change. But for the sake of the Order and Harry's best interest, Harry needs to find a way to get out of the cycle of bad stuff between he and Snape. Since Snape isn't going to change, the only way Harry can improve HIS OWN situation is for his reactions to Snape to change. Part of adulthood is learning how to interact with difficult people. You can't always work with people you like. It's best if you can find a way to express to the person that their behavior sucks, but that's not always possible. (Especially between a student and teacher.) Sometimes the best way to get along with a rotton person is to not react to that person's bullshit. Just let it go. If Harry didn't feed into Snape's assholeness, Snape wouldn't have an excuse to keep doing it. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 2 23:31:43 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 19:31:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: stopper death Message-ID: <20041002.195633.2716.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114503 SS Susan said: > Alas, I wonder if you won't have to find *that* particular happy > ending in fanfic alone. "He's not dead .... he'll be back ... Remus and Sirus will live happily ever after .... Harry will have a father figure ... not dead...." I watched the X Men movie today, and when Jean died, I almost threw the remote at the tv and hollered, "If one more beloved fictional character dies and leaves another beloved fictional character heartbroken, I'm gonna kill myself!" Being a R/S shipper is heartburn, man. > I know I've got my favorite novel-length > fic [and I don't read many, but this is awesome] ready to file on > the shelf w/ canon if I'm not totally satisfied w/ the outcome. Which one? Linky? ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 23:59:36 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:59:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Gospel (?) In-Reply-To: <20041002212506.98720.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, K G wrote: JKR has said to take what Dumbledore says as fact Has she? where? Not sure Kneasy would agree (nor I). I love Dumbeldore, believe in Dumbeldore, would trust him above any other wizard, but that doesn't mean he tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (especially if one includes never 'lying by omission') - or has JKR *really* said otherwise? He's the 'greatest wizard of our (any?) time' but that doesn't mean he's perfect/infallible and I don't think JKR would ever claim this. Am happy to be disavowed of this notion. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 00:15:27 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:15:27 -0000 Subject: LV cf Dementors In-Reply-To: <20041002213313.52758.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114505 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, K G wrote: > > With the descriptions that we have of LV, I tend to lean toward Dementor. Not just any one but the ultimate one. Look at how they are in a way Legilimens. Look at the physical description. What do we know about Dementors and where they come from? How long do they live? What other powers do they have? > > moonmyyst Apologies to both Moonmyst and other longtime posters if I seem unnecessarily to be rising to the bait here, but if Voldy is chief dementor then why isn't Harry afraid of him and why doesn't he (now or ever) respond the same to LV as he does to dementors? - going weak at the knees, hearing the death of his parents, like he'd never be happy again etc. I once had (what in my mind was at the time) a great post on why Harry is *so* affected by dementors, or at least he was in PoA on the Hogwart's Express, but the inspiration went before I could get it down in type. I do recall, however, that it went along the lines of (had somethign to do with) comparing responses to that initial exposure. I found it *tremendously* significant that JKR had chosen it to be so that both Neville and Ginny stumble into Harry's compartment just before tp the dementor showing up because I felt this allowed us to see their comparative response (effect on them from dementors) and was a key clue to dementors and their special hold upon/effect on Harry. Only Harry passes out. Neville and Ginny are both very wobbly/shaking (remembering that the year before Ginny had been possessed by LV, well TMR at least) and Neville had his back story (and his prophecy significance). Neither Ron nor Hermione (exemplars of 'normal' witches - pureblood vs muggleborn, and with no horrible stuff in their background) were nearly as affected, even if Ron does report that they made him feel 'he'd never be happy again' and all the other things that 'normal' wizards experience in the dementors' presence and the reason they are generally so feared. Nope LV isn't (IMO) a dementor, though I'm really not sure exactly just what a dementor *IS* nor where they came from in the first place. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sun Oct 3 00:27:02 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:27:02 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Susan wrote: > > >I think, children just take Lupin's statement "He's dead" and > > > NHN's statement "He won't be coming back" at face value. We > > > adults are more inclined to question or--esp. because she's JKR!- > > > -to look for subtleties which could appear as one thing but > > > actually indicate something else. > > > Angie replies: > > I didn't remenber Lupin flatly stating "He's dead"? I remember > > that he began to say it, but didn't finish it. > > SSSusan: > You're right, Angie. Lupin said "There's nothing you can do", "It's > too late", "He's gone...", and "He can't come back, because he's d- - > ". So there was a little Gestalt going on there on my part, I > suppose, in completing that incomplete word. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, who still believes the word is "dead." :-) Pat here: I always finished the word the same way. And later hearing JKR say that Sirius is dead (in interviews) was enough for me. I think one of the things she has chosen to deal with is death and how it impacts our lives. I suspect that the death of her mother when she was still quite young has had a profound effect on her. Death is final, sometimes unexpected, and never easy for those who are left behind. That seems to be important in the way she handles the tragic death of Harry's parents and also of Sirius. I've never seen the veil as a cause of death. The veil is hung on an ancient archway on a dais, rather than a stage. (A dais is for public speaking or for displaying a coffin, etc., rather than performance, right?) The description of the archway seems to show that death is mysterious and ancient. The mystery is something we can't know until we "pass through the veil" ouselves. It seems to me that it is symbolic of the way death appears to us. The person we love dies, whether by accident, illness, or at the hand of someone else, and even if we see it happen, there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Nothing we do can reverse it once it happens. As for the voices that Harry and luna can hear. Well, that gets to be a very odd subject. I was quite young (8 and 10) when my grandfather and my father died. I understood it, and knew they weren't coming back. Yet I have the memory of them and the times we spent together. So in a sense, they are still living within me. The same goes for my mother, who passed away in 1996. We were so close, and I still hear her voice (not literally) when certain things happen. I can even hear what she would say in situations that she didn't live to see. I think that Harry and Luna might be feeling some of the same things. When you are very close to someone, just as DD says, they never truly leave you. For me, that is a comforting thought. And perhaps that is what JKR is trying to impart through her books. Death is one of the hardest things for us to accept. I think that's the reason so many people have such a hope that Sirius will somehow return. It just seems too cruel for Harry to have lost his parents, found Sirius, and then have him taken away. But death is like that-- there is no fairness or justice in the way someone in our life is taken from us. And I really think that's why JKR has included these deaths in the HP stories. Well, that's quite a bit more than I started to write, so I'll stop for now. Pat (who also likes it that people started adding things after their name *g*) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 00:43:06 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:43:06 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > Now, the thing I don't get, I really don't, is why would anyone think > Snape is *capable* of changing his opinion of Harry or even *capable* > of changing his behavior? The evidence we have, from what I can see, > is that he isn't. He has far too much invested emotionally in his > view of Harry, and that view leads directly to the way he behaves. > To change would mean, at some level, coming to some peace with his > past RE the Marauders and James. I suppose he would if he could, if > only to get rid of his own pain, but all the evidence is that he > simply CANNOT. Now, given that, why would Harry being respectful to > him make any dent at all? As far as I can see, he would just > say "That blasted Potter's up to something, but he can't fool me!" Alla: I agree, Dzeytoun, I agree with you - so far we see no evidence that Snape can change. But I guess in some ways I am hoping that his journey as a character is not complete yet. I am still having a little bit of hope that he will change and will have some peace at the end. I also completely agree with you that right now, if Harry changes his attitude, Snape will just find another reason to torment him for. He is a smart man, that one, he will come up with something. But it does not have to be the same way till the end, you know. Alla, who being a computer dummy she is cannot figure out how to get rid of the annoying smiley face near her email and cannot understand how it appeared there in the first place, since she does not have Yahoo! messenger installed on her computer. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 00:52:29 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:52:29 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > Of course no fiction is totally realistic. But once you take that > turn, it's hard to draw your boundaries. Trying to make a realistic > turn and then say "I want to only go this far, no farther," is kind > of like throwing somebody out a window and yelling at him to stop > half way down. It may be something you'd like to see but it isn't > likely to be very effective. > And the "realistic" turn, in practical > effect, invites an enormous amount of virulent criticism. People > take real life very seriously, unlike fairy tales, and tend to have > very, very strong opinions on important issues such as how teachers > should behave toward their students, what schools should do to punish > bullies, what constitutes child abuse, and what is the correct > response to an abusive teacher. It's just the way people are. > Now you have me trying to figure out why the characterisation in OoP does not bother me at all. First I thought of LoTR. I believe the hobbits, especially Frodo and Sam, and also Gollum/Smeagol are drawn quite realistically. Yet Galadriel (& co.), Aragorn, and Gandalf are much too good to be true. Sauron, of course, is too evil, and orcs are pure enemy with no viewpoint to be considered whatever. Yet millions of people read the trilogy without troubling about any of that. Also, we joined Harry's point of view as he was turning eleven. At that age, many people certainly do appear as characatures, and Harry's impressions are reflected in the narration. As Harry matures, he will have to modify his views, but it will take some time. I think we've seen the beginnings of it in OoP. His reassessments of Snape, Sirius, James, Dumbledore, Fudge, Percy, Mrs. Figg, Luna, and Neville come to mind. Perhaps this is JKR's groundwork for making a more mature Harry believable in HBP. The way JKR writes Harry is _perhaps_ less mature than we'd expect an author to write a teenage boy. On the other hand, I think a lot of children and teenagers in fiction are written with too much maturity for their ages, which makes Harry look "worse" in contrast. Finally, a characaturised character is a handy shorthand in a heavily populated story such as Harry's. They need to be sketched in with an economy of words, they need to be different so as to be distinguishable from one another, and they're fun. Besides, JKR herself has said she's known a Lockhart, some Skeeters, and a Snape (and no doubt can point to a few Fudges -- who can't?). Nah, they don't bother me a bit. JMHO, of course! Annemehr From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Oct 2 23:59:27 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 00:59:27 +0100 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? References: Message-ID: <014901c4a8e4$593175c0$022f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 114509 SSSusan wrote: >And just to clarify a bit, I was not talking about typos. EVERYONE has a typo now & again. I was really referring to folks who consistenty write "cannon," as in 3 or 4 times in the same post. So we're actually talking about the same thing--the wrong word being used, not a typo. But I'd best end this before I screw up again.< ------------------------ Gee, I'm getting worried. I recently wrote "hart" several times in the same post meaning "heart". My apologies! I hope you cut some slack to us non-native-English people. It's really hard to keep part of your mind in spelling and grammar when you're involved in the mind-challenging discussions we have here at HPfGU, you know? Personally, I write my posts in MS Word and use the language functions to correct my many spelling errors. But things like canon/cannon, hart/hart, hole/whole, whether/weather, etc. (the list is enormous) don't show up as errors. English doesn't have spelling rules; it has spelling exceptions (about a million of them) and then some exceptions are more recurrent then others (dammed if I know which). I have over 2000 unread messages from HPfGU in my mail box. I rather read them then to check every word in my posts on a dictionary before posting. I'd end up not having time to post! The kind list elves from helpdesk have offered me their services to proofread my posts. If someone thinks I shouldn't have turned them down, please, tell me so off list and I will contact them immediately. I won't take offence, really! But I read SSSusan's post as an attempt to help us 'confused-with-English-spelling' people, so I won't jump to helpdesk just yet. Regards, Susana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 01:22:06 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:22:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114510 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: >> Now you have me trying to figure out why the characterisation in OoP > does not bother me at all. snip. >> Also, we joined Harry's point of view as he was turning eleven. At > that age, many people certainly do appear as characatures, and Harry's > impressions are reflected in the narration. As Harry matures, he will > have to modify his views, but it will take some time. I think we've > seen the beginnings of it in OoP. His reassessments of Snape, Sirius, > James, Dumbledore, Fudge, Percy, Mrs. Figg, Luna, and Neville come to > mind. Perhaps this is JKR's groundwork for making a more mature Harry > believable in HBP. > Alla: Anne, I share Dzeytoun POV in a sense that I do expect more "realism" from the series after OOP (or as much realism as possible in a series like this), BUT I am with you in a sense that I consider JKR managing to do rather smooth transition from "fairy tale " Harry to teen Harry . As someone at "Convention alley" told me when we discussed this topic - it is just a natural process of growing up. Harry's POV changes it becomes more complex andreaders are allowed now to see characters around Harry in a more sophisticated light. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 01:31:21 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:31:21 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: <001b01c4a8ce$372d46e0$022f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114511 Susana wote: The first chapter has the purpose of the book. In PS introduces Harry, in CoS... is missing, in PoA informs about the escaped prisoner (Sirius), in GoF foresees the return of Voldemort, and in OotP establishes Harry as the target. I say it's missing in CoS because the first chapter doesn't introduce the purpose of the book; it just reintroduces Harry. That is very consistent with a whole plot being taken of CoS - and we know that plot has been 'transferred' to HBP. CoS is actually my least favourite book - I just can't see its purpose! Maybe that's why I reckon the introductory chapter is missing. If someone has any idea about the purpose of CoS in the series, do explain, please! Neri: Lets see if I can help. CoS is actually my favorite HP book (though this is liable to change with the days of the week) and its purpose is bang clear to me. This is the book that best sets the theme which is perhaps the most important theme of HP ? that good and evil are very difficult to tell apart, and that the difference between them lies only in free choice and responsibility for one's actions. It is CoS in which DD says to Harry "It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities". It is in CoS that evil comes not in the form of the demonic Voldemort, but in the form of the human boy Tom Riddle. It is in CoS that we find how very similar Tom and Harry are, so in fact the only difference between them was the road they chose. In close connection with the above, CoS is also the book that sets the proper time scale for the whole HP saga. This saga does not begin, as in SS/PS, with that fateful night at Godric's Hollow when some inexplicable evil murders Harry's parents. The roots of evil are far deeper and more complex. It was 50 years ago when Tom chose to take revenge of all humanity for his miserable childhood, and 1000 years ago when Slytherin established the pureblood dogma. The mystery of the "missing" introductory chapter of CoS is easily solved if you consider the second chapter also as part of the true introduction (these two chapters are so short that it will be reasonable to join them into one unit). Introducing Dobby's character is then a very proper way to set the tone for the book. First because he tells Harry about a mysterious danger in Hogwarts. Secondly because it is not clear if he is Harry's enemy or friend, setting the ambivalence of good an evil. Thirdly because he is struggling to maintain his free will and moral choice under an extremely powerful inhibition. In addition, Dobby's assertion in this chapter that the enemy in CoS is NOT Voldemort indeed proves true in the deeper sense: it is the human boy Tom Riddle who made The Choice to become evil. So I think JKR's decision not to complicate the plot of CoS with additional elements was very wise. Thematically it is already the deepest of the five books. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 3 01:37:21 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:37:21 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > it. > Nevertheless, the thrust seems to be that Harry should show Snape respect in order to prove that he is not like Snape believes and that this will lead to Snape and Harry building some kind of mutual respect, or at least lead to Snape behaving somewhat better and lessening tension. > Actually, that is not what I expect. Snape may develop some more respect for Harry, or not. But the reason I want Harry to ignore Snape's taunts and behave with due respect toward his teacher is that I have found it's a very effective technique to use with bullies, especially when, in fact, you don't have a better way of making them leave you alone. Snape would find no relish in taunting Harry if Harry didn't react. And if it didn't work, what would be lost? If it didn't make any difference in the way Snape treated him, Harry could go right back to acting the way he always has. Standing on his rights and *demanding* to be treated better would only aggravate the situation IMO, since as far as I can see, Harry unfortunately doesn't have any recognized right to be treated better in the wizarding world than he is. If Harry complained, he would just be told that that's the way things are at Hogwarts, and if he doesn't like it, he can go back to Privet Drive. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 01:51:12 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:51:12 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114513 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Standing on his rights and *demanding* to be treated better > would only aggravate the situation IMO, since as far as I can see, > Harry unfortunately doesn't have any recognized right to be > treated better in the wizarding world than he is. If Harry > complained, he would just be told that that's the way things are > at Hogwarts, and if he doesn't like it, he can go back to Privet > Drive. > Alla: Let me then agree with Dzeytoun, Pippin. Wizarding World, where chidren do not have a right to be treated better than what Snape does may not be worth saving by the said child. Maybe that is why WW is destined to die like Phoenix and to be reborn, because really so many things are not right there. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Oct 3 00:30:06 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 00:30:06 -0000 Subject: What to Make of Tom Riddle's Clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abadgerfan2" wrote: > We've all been alerted to look for hints in Book Two as to what will > transpire next, and why. > > From that perspective, I took recent notice when I coincidentally > turned to an HBO showing of Chamber of Secrets just at the point > where the diary-preserved Tom Riddle was exposing and explaining > himself to Harry, in the Chamber. Karen L., I am going out on a limb, but here goes. What if the connection between book 2 and book 6 is more obtuse? What if the clue to the half blood prince is that the "Prince" is the product of an ill advised marriage or unplanned pregnancy? Hang with me now, I came up with this idea as I was re-reading GoF. In the beginning JKR goes to great pains to tell us that the Riddles were very rich and very snobbish people. ( similar to another family we have grown to know and loath) What if TMR/LV 's mother was not only a witch but also from a lower social standing and therefore no longer suitable for Mr. Tom Riddle, Sr? Like I said I am going out on a limb, so bear with me. What if they (Riddle Sr & wife) were secretly married, but his dear, snobbish mother or father found out that the girl was from a lower social standing and threatened to cut him off from his inheritance if he stayed with TMR's mother? Most pampered boys of that class would most likely chose the money and leave the girl behind. (think Jane Austin, Sense and Sensibilities) TMR's mother obviously had strong feelings/love for TMR's father, else why did she name her child after him? Anyway, TMR may ASSUME (Ass out of U and Me) his father left his mother because she was a witch, but how would he really know? My idea/ theory is that the Half Blood Prince, may have had this same kind of start. But instead of going to an orphanage he is raised by his mother, a muggle. There have been theories floating around out there that Draco may be the HB prince, (none of which I agree with) but what if Lucius Malfoy or his father had an affair with a muggle and that produced a child? (stranger things have happened!) If Lucius or is father had an affair in younger days, and the parents found out, they probably would have threatened to cut him off financially if he didn't drop her...similar to what I theorize that the Riddle parents did to TMR's father. It may be more likely LM's father, and what if the child was not a wizard, but then that child had a child that was a wizard? It's something about the Riddle's and the Malfoy's that seems to be the connection IMHO. And the connection that I see is that they are both very wealthy, snobbish and not well thought of! Now how this Prince fits in with Harry, I have no idea, my theory doesn't go that far. Karen, waiting for the onslaught From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 3 02:15:18 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:15:18 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114515 > > Alla: > > Let me then agree with Dzeytoun, Pippin. Wizarding World, where chidren do not have a right to be treated better than what Snape does may not be worth saving by the said child.< > That would be an odd way for Harry to defend the rights of innocent children, handing their world over to Voldemort, or do you really not see any difference between normal WW culture, as faulty and unenlightened as it is, and Voldemort's? Pippin From khinterberg at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 02:29:54 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:29:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Gospel (?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, K G wrote: > > > > JKR has said to take what Dumbledore says as fact > > > > Has she? where? Not sure Kneasy would agree (nor I). I love > Dumbeldore, believe in Dumbeldore, would trust him above any other > wizard, but that doesn't mean he tells the truth, the whole truth > and nothing but the truth (especially if one includes never 'lying > by omission') - or has JKR *really* said otherwise? He's > the 'greatest wizard of our (any?) time' but that doesn't mean he's > perfect/infallible and I don't think JKR would ever claim this. Am > happy to be disavowed of this notion. I believe the quote that is being referred to here is this: JKR: Absolutely right, 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. and later: Does Dumbledore speak for you? JKR: Oh yes, very much so. Dumbledore often speaks for me from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets DVD February 2003 Interview with Steve Kloves and J.K. Rowling, Moderated by Lizo Mzimba khinterberg From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 3 02:44:36 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:44:36 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114517 Dzeytoun: > B) Actually, I don't think the question of "learning from Snape" > is one that needs to be put in stark terms of "defiance" > or "ignoring Snape's insults." That is a false dichotomy, and > implies that either Harry must defy Snape and learn nothing or > else adopt some reprehensible policy that injustice doesn't matter > as long as it serves some greater good. > > So, actually the best response to Snape, in terms of Harry's > options, would be "defiance while learning." That is, Harry > should listen to whatever worthwhile information Snape imparts > while at the same time maintaining a clear posture of cold > contempt for Snape's attitude and behavior. UNDER NO > CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD HE RESPOND TO SNAPE WITH RESPECT UNLESS THE > RESPECT HAS BEEN EARNED. I've dealt with many Snapes over a long > period in both academics and government, and the only way to > permanently address the issue, if higher authority is unwilling to > get involved (which, incidentally, I've found isn't the case most > of the time if you scream loud enough) is to out-Snape them. > > Snape can off course respond with detentions and taking points, > but if Harry continues his attitude of contempt and makes it clear > that he will not be cowed, what's Snape going to do? Throw him > out of class? After the Occlumency debacle I think even > Dumbledore will find it impossible to allow that. Refuse to teach > him? Ditto. > > To get away from morals and practical politics, this would also > allow for some hilarious scenes. Can you imagine Snape working > himself into impotent fury, literally shaking with rage as he > realizes that nothing he does will break the icy contempt from > Potter? That would be worth more than a few chuckles. SSSusan: I think in many situations, Dzeytoun, what you're proposing might be worth pursuing. Given the vehemence with which you've been putting it forth, clearly in your opinion it is the only position worth pursuing. I would argue, though, that in Harry's *specific* situation, it might not be so. The future of the WW is truly hanging in the balance. Harry's own life is in the utmost jeopardy. And yet he should "under no circumstances respond to Snape with respect unless the respect has been earned"? I think TOO MUCH is at stake to worry about that so much just now. I actually agree with you that one way Harry could move on is to listen & learn while still not being meek about Snape's treatment of him. But if it's not working well, why would it be so awful to just swallow some of it and NOT be defiant? **SO** much is at stake...and *we* know there are only 2 years in which Harry can prepare...so what is so morally wrong about setting aside the issue of being RIGHT, if necessary, in favor of doing what MUST be done to save his own life and potentially the entire WW? I know you've heard of turning the other cheek. Please recognize that some of us believe that is a *noble* tenet, especially when so much besides one's "rightness" is at stake. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 02:47:37 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 02:47:37 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> That would be an odd way for Harry to defend the rights of > innocent children, handing their world over to Voldemort, or do > you really not see any difference between normal WW culture, as > faulty and unenlightened as it is, and Voldemort's? > > Alla: Pippin, I think you understood what I meant - this kind of culture is not something to be proud of, IMO. I think we both know that Harry is not going to hand this world to Voldemort. Have you noticed that this "faulty and unelightened culture" produces evil lords with amazing speed , by the way? Grindewald also did his deeds in the 20 century, then now we have Voldemort. yes, I think something is VERY wrong with such world. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 03:06:16 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 03:06:16 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114519 > SSSusan: snip. >> I actually agree with you that one way Harry could move on is to > listen & learn while still not being meek about Snape's treatment of > him. But if it's not working well, why would it be so awful to just > swallow some of it and NOT be defiant? **SO** much is at > stake...and *we* know there are only 2 years in which Harry can > prepare...so what is so morally wrong about setting aside the issue > of being RIGHT, if necessary, in favor of doing what MUST be done to > save his own life and potentially the entire WW? > > I know you've heard of turning the other cheek. Please recognize > that some of us believe that is a *noble* tenet, especially when so > much besides one's "rightness" is at stake. Alla: I think I agree, Susan, to the certain extent. I think that SHOULD be the option, if nothing else will work. I would not go as far as "turning the other cheek", but I guess postponing Harry's defiance till everything will end. It would be fun to see Harry dueling with Snape AFTER the final battle (it would mean they both survived it :o)) AND Harry winning. I am torn - I definitely want to see Snape pay for what he did to Harry, but I also want him to change and have some peace at the end (me, optimist, me. :o)) From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Sun Oct 3 03:14:41 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 03:14:41 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114520 Kneasy wondered: > > Just one very, very oblique clue here; Petunia reacts to the > > name Voldemort and to the mention of Dementors. Where has she > > heard these before? To which Bookworm replied: > While Petunia recognized what the dementors are, the Dursleys > didn't recognize Voldemort's name at first. At least Vernon > didn't; we don't see Petunia's reaction until after Harry > tells them Voldemort is back. It took Vernon a few moments to > recognize the name ? > > <<"Lord ? hang on," said Uncle Vernon, his face screwed > up, a look of dawning comprehension in his piggy eyes. "I've > heard that name...that was the one who..." > > "Murdered my parents, yes," Harry said. > > "But he's gone," said Uncle Vernon impatiently, without > the slightest sign that the murder of Harry's parents might be a > painful topic to anybody. "That giant bloke said so. He's > gone." > > "He's back," said Harry heavily. > > "Back?" whispered Aunt Petunia.>> [OOP, Ch2] > > Vernon doesn't get the name right; he keeps calling him Lord > Voldythingy. But they did know what he had done. For a while I > thought about the theory that Voldemort had killed the senior > Evans, but it seems there is no connection in Vernon's mind > between the deaths of his in-laws and Voldemort. If there was, I > think Vernon would have said something like, "Isn't he the one who > killed your parents, Petunia?" Yb (cursing Yahoo, many times over) for eating her previous post: Vernon seems (IMO) to have the tendency to be as blunt as a four-by- four (not the block of wood; I mean the truck). But he doesn't know LV's name from anything except Hagrid's little talk in the island shack in PS/SS. That's where he remembers the name. If the Evans' died in suspicious circumstances, no one ever mentioned that LV had a part in it. That just means Vernon is being kept in the blind or is turning a blind eye to something. The name means nothing whatsoever to him, further illustrating the distance he has with the WW: Surely someone raising "The Boy Who Lived" would know who LV is, but he doesn't. We never see Petunia's initial reaction. There is this little rule in the Wizarding World Press, who publishes the Hints and Clues books for Harry Potter books, like Cliff's Notes. If someone gets cut off, or JKR suddenly interrupts something, so we don't see/hear all of it, /it's a clue/! Petunia's reaction would probably be very important. When Harry says "He's back," when he eventually looks at Petunia, he sees fear. Was that all that was there? I am almost CERTAIN that DD mentioned LV in the letter he left with Baby Harry. This little scene gives me more reason to think that Vernon never saw that letter. He hasn't the faintest idea who LV is, beyond what Hagrid said at the island shack, but Petunia certainly does. ~Yb From karen at dacafe.com Sun Oct 3 03:38:16 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 03:38:16 -0000 Subject: McGonagall first subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114521 In OotP, McGonagall tells Umbridge that she had been teaching for 39 years this December. Using the dates from the HP-Lexicon, McGonagall began teaching in 1956. Dumbledore did not become Headmaster until 1970. Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher when Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts in 1942. What subject did McGonagall teach when she started at Hogwarts December 1956? If she started as the Transfiguration teacher, did Dumbledore teach anther subject like DADA or Potions? - kmc From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 3 04:03:00 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:03:00 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114522 Dzeytoun: > Now, the thing I don't get, I really don't, is why would anyone think > Snape is *capable* of changing his opinion of Harry or even *capable* > of changing his behavior? The evidence we have, from what I can see, > is that he isn't. He has far too much invested emotionally in his > view of Harry, and that view leads directly to the way he behaves. > To change would mean, at some level, coming to some peace with his > past RE the Marauders and James. I suppose he would if he could, if > only to get rid of his own pain, but all the evidence is that he > simply CANNOT. Now, given that, why would Harry being respectful to > him make any dent at all? As far as I can see, he would just > say "That blasted Potter's up to something, but he can't fool me!" Jen: Just to add another thought to this debate: I hope JKR doesn't resolve the tension between Snape and Harry. Can there really be a satisfying way for them to reach detente without compromising the characters? Here are a few options, and none ring true for me: 1) Harry comes to realize that Snape (in his own way) has been trying to help him all along. Harry grudgingly starts to trust Snape and in return, Snape backs off a little. 2) Harry takes the moral high-ground, not allowing Snape's persistent heckling to affect him anymore, and resists the urge to give back what he gets. Snape is thrown off-guard but basically continues to treat Harry the same. 3) Both realize how much is at stake in the WW and decide to become friendly enemies for the greater good. 4) Snape finally acknowledges Harry is not James, buries the hatchet, and both go on to treat each other slightly better than before. 5) One or the other attempts a reconciliation, and the resulting rejection causes tensions to increase. JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape is toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of Book 6. ;) Jen Reese From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Oct 3 04:06:42 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:06:42 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <41600772.31114.16DBF18@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 114523 On 2 Oct 2004 at 21:53, dzeytoun wrote: > A lot has been going back and forth today about whether Harry should > show Snape respect. Frankly, I think that idea is... well, I don't > have a great deal of intellectual or emotional agreement with it. > Nevertheless, the thrust seems to be that Harry should show Snape > respect in order to prove that he is not like Snape believes and that > this will lead to Snape and Harry building some kind of mutual > respect, or at least lead to Snape behaving somewhat better and > lessening tension. OK - first of all let me make my positions clear. While I have - and would again - defended Snape's general practices as a teacher as valid, and as methods that work in some cases, I consider his specific treatment of Harry as an individual quite reprehensible. But, yes, i do think Harry should show Snape respect. For a few reasons. dzeytoun: > Now, the thing I don't get, I really don't, is why would anyone think > Snape is *capable* of changing his opinion of Harry or even *capable* > of changing his behavior? The evidence we have, from what I can see, > is that he isn't. He has far too much invested emotionally in his > view of Harry, and that view leads directly to the way he behaves. > To change would mean, at some level, coming to some peace with his > past RE the Marauders and James. I suppose he would if he could, if > only to get rid of his own pain, but all the evidence is that he > simply CANNOT. Now, given that, why would Harry being respectful to > him make any dent at all? As far as I can see, he would just > say "That blasted Potter's up to something, but he can't fool me!" You could be right - but I don't think this is necessarily the case. First of all, I don't believe Snape would have to come to terms with his past with regards to the Marauders. Much more simply, Snape would just have to come to terms with the fact that Harry is not his father. He could continue to hate James with an absolute passion, and still come to terms with Harry. How easy this would be is a very open question - but I don't agree that it is necessary for Snape to get rid of his pain or his feelings to come to terms with Harry. Secondly, though, I think Snape could to a great extent, come to terms with his memories of the Marauders. Consider Snape's treatment of Sirius versus his treatment of Remus. There's a lot of difference there. Snape and Lupin are certainly not friends - but Snape does seem to have a far easier time dealing with Remus Lupin than he did with Sirius Black. Now that James and Sirius are dead (and Peter is irrelevant), I think it's not impossible that Snape could come to terms with what has happened to him in the past. Remus treats Snape with respect - and this does seem to mollify Snape's behaviour a bit. And today, Remus is all that is left of the Marauders. If Snape can come to terms with him, a lot of things could change. Dezeytoun: > Now, given all this, how on Earth is Snape supposed to budge? Some > people see evidence of change during the Occlumency episode, but if > its there its EXTREMELY subtle and not very encouraging. How, then, > is anything supposed to make any difference at all? Snape seems > simply too emotionally invested in his hatred of Harry to be capable > of any kind of change either in his attitudes or his behaviors, > barring being forced to modify his behavior unwillingly be some > method or the other. Maybe - but not definitely, in my opinion. Firstly I don't think the evidence of change seen during the Occlumency episode is extremely subtle at all. I'm not sure it's there - but if it is there, it's quite profound in my view. Harry treats Snape with respect - or at least Snape takes it that way - and he responds in kind with one of the few positive statements we've ever seen him make towards Harry. "'Correct, Potter. And dim though you may be -' Harry looked back at Snape, hating him '- I would have thought that after over two months of lessons you might have made some progress. How many other dreams about the Dark Lord have you had?'.... 'That is just as well, Potter,' said Snape coldly, 'because you are neither special nor important, and 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. He had not meant to say it; it had burst out of him in temper. For a long moment they stared at each other, Harry convinced he had gone too far. But there was a curious, almost satisfied expression on Snape's face when he answered. 'Yes, Potter,' he said, his eyes glinting. That is my job. Now, if you are ready, we will start again.'.... 'Reparo,' hissed Snape, and the jar sealed itself at once. 'Well, Potter that was certainly an improvement ' Panting slightly, Snape straightened the Pensieve in which he had again stored some of his thoughts before starting the lesson, almost as though he was checking they were still there. 'I don't remember telling you to use a Shield Charm but there is no doubt that it was effective...'" (Extracts from OotP, pp521-522) Note, that at the time this happens, Snape is insulting Harry, and Harry *hates* him. Then when Harry says something that acknowledges what Snape is doing, things change a bit. The insults stop - even though Harry thinks he has goaded Snape. And at the end, Snape gives Harry as close to a compliment as he ever does. This may not mean anything at all - but if it does mean anything, it potentially means a great deal. But to me this isn't the most important thing in Order of the Phoenix to show how things could change between the two of them. That comes later. "Malfoy stowed Harry's wand inside his robes and left the room smirking, but Harry hardly noticed. He had just realised something; he could not believe he had been so stupid as to forget it. He had thought that all the members of the Order, all those who could help him save Sirius, were gone - but he had been wrong. There was still a member of the Order of the Phoenix at Hogwarts - Snape." (OotP, p655) This to me, is the most profound statement in the book about how Harry and Snape's relationship could still change. This is the moment when Harry suddenly really comes to realise what Snape is doing. There was a flash of that during the Occlumency lessons - but Harry still sees Snape then as a vicious, nasty teacher (and not without justification given Snape's treatment of him). But here, Harry sees Snape as 'a member of the Order of the Phoenix'. Harry - on at least some level - realised that Snape *is* on the side of the angels. And when he is desperate - desperate to save Sirius, a man he knows Snape *hates* with an absolute passion - he does call for Snape's help. He does think enough of Snape to ask for him to help a man that Harry knows he hates - because it's the right thing to do. And Dumbledore later tells Harry that Snape immediately went to find out if Sirius was all right. And that Snape also went into the forest to look for him when he was missing. As Order of the Phoenix ends, Harry hates Snape with a passion - but Harry is, I believe, too honest to go on hating Snape in the way he is, because his reasons stated in the text are not fair. That will retreat. I think Harry will start to treat Snape with some more respect - and I hope Snape responds. But even if he doesn't, that doesn't make it a bad thing for Harry to do. Harry may not respect Snape as an individual - he has no reason to at all. But to respect him as a member of the Order of the Phoenix, and as a foe of Voldemort, is another matter entirely. And Harry has already shown some signs that he can do this. And, regardless of whether Harry respects Snape - as a student, he only hurts himself in the long run if he fails to respect Snape as a teacher. Harry failing to learn doesn't hurt Snape in the least. It just hurts Harry. It is easier to learn from a teacher you respect. But if you don't make the effort to learn from a teacher you don't, you only hurt yourself in the long run. And often it's easier if you decide to respect the office - not the person - because it gets you past the problems you have respecting the individual. People try to get Harry to respect the office ("*Professor* Snape, Harry") I think because they understand this. Getting him to respect the person is in many ways unfair - but the adults around Harry know, I think, that if Harry doesn't find some way to listen to Snape, he'll only hurt himself. Getting him to treat the office, the position, the *teacher* with respect, gives Harry a way of learning, that doesn't force him to compromise his principles. 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 darkthirty at shaw.ca Sun Oct 3 04:16:01 2004 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (dan) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:16:01 -0000 Subject: Realism in HP - alluding to at least 3 current threads, and ESE!Grangers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114524 Several current discussions on the list bring up something that hasn't fully been discussed, I think, in these threads, and that is what kind of "realism" are we talking about in this series of books? There are a couple of peculiar, particular, singular things about Rowling's books - there is no physical "entrance" to witchwizardry, for instance. Nor is there a time-based entrance. witchwizardry exists in the same time/space as muggleness, shares the same geography and language, the same weather - and when the geography is magically altered, it is intentional, and based on the fact that the time/space IS shared. If it wasn't shared, there'd be no need for anti-muggle charms. Magic is done to the world space by space, alley by alley, castle by castle, phonebooth by phonebooth, and may be quite temporary, or may be semi-permanent - there is no generalized separate space for magic to happen. It happens in the world, and alters time/space perception. It's a state of mind, as it were, even more a state of knowledge, a slip of paper that announces acceptance to Hogwarts, for example. These things separate the inhabitants of the world, and even if a perception-of-geography spell is cast, this is no physical separation. In this, Rowing is entirely unlike Tolkien, or Lewis, or the Thomas Covenant series, where magic exists in entirely separate time/space. So, what does this imply about realism as it relates to Rowling? For one thing, the description of witches in medieval texts is somewhat similar. They ostensibly set up "charms" against their "secret places" being discovered, they ostensibly perverted youth to their cause, and they existed in the world the same as everyone else - it was only their contraband "knowledge" that separated them, a knowledge reputedly jealously guarded, but also radical, anti-clerical, and therefor dangerous to have at all, the existance of which was dangerous to even acknowledge. Some think this description of witchcraft is purely a projection of the church itself, which invented witchcraft from a collection of non- Christian practises that straddled philosophy, herblore and numerous nature/fertility/seasonal practises, but gave it a theme and structure that related purely to the churches own heirarchy and structure - so closely, in fact, that it posited black masses long before some entrepeneur/abbott decided to hold them. Whether or not this is in fact how the description came to be, one thing was always clear - it was the world, not "a" world, that was being worked upon, by magic/witchcraft, and it was the world the church wanted dominion over, wanted tithes from, not "a" world. >From this, we can see many similiarities with Rowling's HP world, but there are striking differences. Voldemort hasn't seemed bent on dominion over the world, only the parts of it related to magic folk. (We may, to our hearts content as yet, postulate the degree of relation between once-mentioned Grindelwald and his possible muggle counterparts in 1945.) My first question is, why not? Is all that is muggle truely that irrelevant? My second question is - If there were a group of people doing cool magic next door, would I; a) not want to know about it? or b) sure as hell want to know about it? or c) want a piece of it? Generally, the stance of muggles in HP is a), not wanting to know about it, or, in the case of the only muggles we've seen in Diagon Alley, that is, those sinister secret agent anti-magic parents of a Rita Skeeter-like muckraking daughter (sure it's a letter to Krum, Hermione, and not sensitive information to help your parents in their quest to pull magic from the world like a rotten tooth) ... wait... I mean those dentists, Hermione's parents, a kind of (questionable) bemused interest. So much for Rowling's muggles. But I think most of us would feel more like, well, c), wanting a piece of it. What do you think? So, there's one thing that comes across less than realistic in Rowling - that is, the muggle response to nextdoor witchwizardry. In another way, I've always thought muggleness in Rowling was hyperbolized society and culture, and that witchwizardry was the more socially and culturally sophisticated layer of the books, the layer that corresponds thematically to the so-called Real World. This is the kind of realism I think some of the current threads are addressing. Yes, evil leaders are a knut a dozen in Rowling as they are in the Real World. Yes, there are inequalities in Rowling as there are in the Real World. But recently, it has seemed to me that I was mistaken about the separation of muggleness and witchwizardry. Perhaps Rowling's realism lies as much in the relationship between the peoples stigmatized by either muggleness or witchwizardry. After all, it is the encroachment of muggleness into witchwizardry at the core of pureblood prejudice. And if that is so, then it is the very structure of the separations, their intentionality, their localness, the fact that they are discontinuous, which I referred to at the top of this post, that accounts for the virulence of the movement. And Death Eater encroachment into muggleness is viewed, as dangerous/thrilling beyond compare, in witchwizardry. My final question, then, is: what detailed information is Hermione passing to her parents? Dan From karen at dacafe.com Sun Oct 3 04:17:52 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:17:52 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114525 "pippin_999" wrote: > >> That would be an odd way for Harry to defend the rights of > > innocent children, handing their world over to Voldemort, or do > > you really not see any difference between normal WW culture, as > > faulty and unenlightened as it is, and Voldemort's? > > > > > > Alla: > > Pippin, I think you understood what I meant - this kind of culture > is not something to be proud of, IMO. I think we both know that > Harry is not going to hand this world to Voldemort. > > Have you noticed that this "faulty and unelightened culture" > produces evil lords with amazing speed , by the way? > > Grindewald also did his deeds in the 20 century, then now we have > Voldemort. > > yes, I think something is VERY wrong with such world. kmc adds: And the real world hasn't produced evil leaders/dictators with the same speed? From red_rider4 at lycos.com Sat Oct 2 22:36:19 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (hester_griffith) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:36:19 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114526 > > Hester: > > DD is a very wise man. Thus he recognizes that learning to deal > > with unfairness and cruelty will help Harry be stronger and more > > independent. Harry is forced to take more initiative in his > > education, and thus his goals are defined and strengthened. Dzeytoun: > ERR, that's wisdom? Forgive a poor, stupid former teacher, but it > sounds like sheer idiocy to me. > > > Hester: > > LIFE IS NOT FAIR. DD is doing Harry a favor by alowing him to learn > > how to live in an unfair world, while he is still young and pretty > > sheltered at school. Harry doesn't really learn anything about > > dealing with this at the Dursleys, but his education and success in > > the WW is so important to him that he does learn this at Hogwarts. Dzeytoun: > Not learned that life isn't fair while living with the Dursleys? > Once again, forgive a poor, stupid man who works with abused kids > from time to time, but just how in the name of God's green goodness > to you justify THAT statement? Hester: First, I am not saying that I agree or even prefer the way Snape treats Harry. It is despicable. I had a teacher in High School very much like Snape. She was a (justly) very proud woman who could not, for various reasons, secure a job teaching at the University level. She was very frustrated by this and took it out on us Freshmen. She despised me for my race and what seemed to her, my lack of effort. Because this was an English class, there was plenty of opportunity for her to sabotage me psychologically. She was careful to never do anything that could lose her her job. While that made English class a horrible experience for me, it forced me to be that much better than I otherwise would have been. Fortunately I had other English teachers that were more supportive that instilled a love for literature in me. But that teacher taught me the most about successfully relating with people I would rather avoid. Second, I'm not saying that Harry didn't learn "life's not fair" living with the Dursleys. Of course he did. All children pick that concept up eventually. But they also get the idea that unfairness is wrong and must be rectified in their favor. I know too many people who suffer under this ideology to their extreme detriment. The Dursleys' abuse of Harry is intolerable. What I am trying to say is that Harry doesn't do anything about it, other than whine occasionally. In fact he deliberately does things that make his situation worse (threaten Dudley...). As the books progress Harry starts to take a better approach. I believe that figuring out how to deal with a horrible teacher has taught him how to deal with the Dursleys as well. It is not enough to know that life's not fair, we also have to learn how to deal with that inequality. If we don't it impairs our ability to succeed in life. We become a drain on those around us and sometimes even society. Hester From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 04:50:30 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:50:30 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Dzeytoun: > > B) Actually, I don't think the question of "learning from Snape" > > is one that needs to be put in stark terms of "defiance" > > or "ignoring Snape's insults." That is a false dichotomy, and > > implies that either Harry must defy Snape and learn nothing or > > else adopt some reprehensible policy that injustice doesn't matter as long as it serves some greater good. > SSSusan: > > The future of the WW is truly hanging in the balance. Harry's own > life is in the utmost jeopardy. And yet he should "under no > circumstances respond to Snape with respect unless the respect has > been earned"? I think TOO MUCH is at stake to worry about that so > much just now. > > I actually agree with you that one way Harry could move on is to > listen & learn while still not being meek about Snape's treatment of him. But if it's not working well, why would it be so awful to just swallow some of it and NOT be defiant? Valky: Hi everybody, For the most part reading this thread I have agreed unequivocally with what Dzeytoun has said, that Harry deseves to retain his self worth and what Harry endures, as a relationship with Severus Snape, is far and away enough reason for him to feel something that is less than respect for the man. Here, however, I would also like to say how I entirely support what SSSusan is saying. Harry has far larger fish to fry in his young life. Although his emotional maturation and sense of inner balance are made no less important by this more major reality, they *are* made much smaller. It wouldn't hurt Harry to just bide along for the sake of ignoring the smallish bump in the road and reserve his energy for the hillclimb. Harry can use both a defiant stand and a calm rationalisation of his emotional drain to his advantage, both to me seem to be fair option. Strangely, though, I don't think Harry has been all that defiant toward Snape anyway not a pinch on his tall stand against Umbridge at the very least. In fact I think this is an indication that Harry *does* respect Snape. In all his flaws Harry has some deep and confusing feelings of understanding and admiration for Snape. Over time they have been reinforced by Snape having protected Harry, covertly, from harm, by Lupin's quiet reminders that Snape is accomplished and clever, by Dumbledores calm reinforcements to him that Snapes flaws are not enough to write him off on, by Macgonagalls quiet working camaraderie with him and not least of all by Hagrids even faith in him. These are the reasons that Harry has never stood up in Potions class and openly chewed out Snape to spite all Snape has done him harm, and he never afforded Umbridge the same level of esteem. In regard to the the question: Was Harry being disrespectful by looking into Snapes pensieve? I say that there *is* a show of respect in his curiosity. Had Harry been looking in Umbridges pensieve it would certainly have been with an intent, but for Snapes, as with Dumbledore, Harry had no intent. Just a feeling of connection that he couldn't shake. That feeling of connection is *because* he respects them, and not *because he doesnt*. It is DD who understands that Harrys desire to connect with his knowledge is a sign of his respect and not the opposite, and Snape who is without this wisdom. Not at all to say that Harrys delving into Snapes secrets is justifiable by this, it is not. However, to say that his doing so "shows a disrespect for Snape" is largely contradicted by Harrys *actual* respect for Snape, and so to me the act does not inescapably point to a lack of respect. Valky From averyhaze at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 04:57:13 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 04:57:13 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbying missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: <014901c4a8e4$593175c0$022f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114529 SSSusan wrote: And just to clarify a bit, I was not talking about typos. EVERYONE has a typo now & again. I was really referring to folks who consistenty write "cannon," as in 3 or 4 times in the same post. So we're actually talking about the same thing--the wrong word being used, not a typo. But I'd best end this before I screw up again.< ------------------------ Susana wrote: Gee, I'm getting worried. I recently wrote "hart" several times in the same post meaning "heart". My apologies! I hope you cut some slack to us non-native-English people. It's really hard to keep part of your mind in spelling and grammar when you're involved in the mind-challenging discussions we have here at HPfGU, you know? Personally, I write my posts in MS Word and use the language functions to correct my many spelling errors. But things like canon/cannon, hart/hart, hole/whole, whether/weather, etc. (the list is enormous) don't show up as errors. English doesn't have spelling rules; it has spelling exceptions (about a million of them) and then some exceptions are more recurrent then others (dammed if I know which). I have over 2000 unread messages from HPfGU in my mail box. I rather read them then to check every word in my posts on a dictionary before posting. I'd end up not having time to post! The kind list elves from helpdesk have offered me their services to proofread my posts. If someone thinks I shouldn't have turned them down, please, tell me so off list and I will contact them immediately. I won't take offence, really! But I read SSSusan's post as an attempt to help us 'confused-with-English-spelling' people, so I won't jump to helpdesk just yet. Dharma replies: Susana, I can assure that native English speakers have problems with the spelling too. I've known many people, including myself, who make the same spelling errors consistently and, for phonological or orthographic reasons, use the wrong word repeatedly. The never- ending list of spelling exceptions can be problematic for us too. We really do miss the cannon/canon thing too. Ironically, I took SSS post as a reminder to check spelling and word choice because, spelling inconsistency can be very confusing for people who might not be familiar with the many instances of homophony in English. From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 3 01:16:58 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:16:58 -0300 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) References: Message-ID: <03b801c4a8e6$caca3350$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114530 > Ravenclaw Bookworm: > And I absolutely DISagree with both Dzeytoun and Alla. Why is it > alright for one person to "remake others" but not another > - just because you agree with him? That's called tyranny. > Which is exactly why Dumbledore won't do it. > >Dzeytoun: >Sigh. Because that's the way life works, Bookworm. You don't lead >by respecting other's right to act any way they want. If you are a >manager, a general, or any other person in charge of a large scale >and important task you squash disruptive behavior forthwith. Harsh, >but truth almost always is. Snape has every right to think whatever >he wants. He DOES NOT have every right to behave any way he wants. >And his behavior has already resulted in one utter and absolute >disaster. This is a children's books, so Rowling is trying to teach the importance of respecting other people's rights. If she wasn't, then it'd be understandable for outraged teachers to burn her books, alright. And I repeat: Dumbledore is NOT a manager, or a general, or a "person in charge". As Headmaster of a school, he doesn't command the school or the teachers or anything. He's more of a counsellor than anything else. And there's a reason why he's rounded up the OotP instead of accepting the invitation to be minister - that way, he can deal with the involved on a personal level, instead of sitting on his high chair and giving orders. He won't need to squash disruptive behavior, he'll sit and talk it through. Elanor Pam From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 3 00:44:44 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 21:44:44 -0300 Subject: Dumbledore 'forcing' others (Re: Harry learning from Snape) References: Message-ID: <032101c4a8e2$39880fb0$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114531 > > Pippin: > > That is one reason that Dumbledore is not going to sit Snape > > down -- the other reason is that as Dumbledore said in PoA, he > > has no power to make other men see the truth. Which is to say, > > that's one of the powers Dumbledore is too noble to use. If > > people share Dumbledore's views, it should be because they > > want to, not because Albus Dumbledore is good at being > > obeyed. Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his > > image than Voldemort does. > Dzeytoun: > That is an utterly and absolutely absurd attitude. And if Dumbledore > really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a > lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. I'm sorry, but I think that not trying to force your view of right and wrong on other people is a very noble thing to do. It's also the right way to deal with kids, or else you'll completely smother and crush their ability of choosing for themselves and respecting other people's choices. By not trying to force his own image into other people, he's letting them exercize their own individuality, which is a right every single rational creature has. Now I don't know if Snape can be classified as rational, but Rowling herself said Dumbledore considers cruel teachers like Snape an important lesson to be learned (an interview if I remember well). So I suppose he wouldn't try to change him - people should change themselves, not be forced to. And he didn't ask to be in charge of a war, so cut him some slack. :) Elanor Pam From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 3 01:41:12 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:41:12 -0300 Subject: Harry reacting to Snape (Re: Harry learning from Snape) References: Message-ID: <045301c4a8ea$1d82c6e0$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114532 > > Bookworm: > > A better approach, IMO, would be for Harry to be *very* > > respectfully polite no matter what Snape says or does. > > If he can maintain that attitude, then he would have > > truly developed some maturity in dealing with Snape. > Dzeytoun: > You are totally and completely incorrect. All that will show is > that he has developed a poor sense of self-worth and a completely > inappropriate habit of giving respect to people who have not earned > it. Actually... I think when a person screams at you he or she is expecting you to scream back. If Harry smiled politely everytime Snape sneered, Snape'd be completely out of action, out of options and out of league. Instead of falling to his level, Harry would keep himself out of reach. Simple like that. At least it worked very well with me on elementary after I got tired of crying up to teachers: when someone threw my lunch on the ground, I'd step on it myself, and when someone sang stupid rhymes about me, I'd sing along. Laughing instead of crying, even when I felt like ripping their throats apart. Keeping your dignity. Just like a certain someone said - when someone slaps your face, offer the other side of it. Elanor Pam From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 05:13:34 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:13:34 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) long In-Reply-To: <03b801c4a8e6$caca3350$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114533 Oh I see that I am stepping into something here, and probably going to stir the waters even more, but I just can't sit by and bite my tongue a minute longer. Forgive me if I offend anyone. I hope I have at least one or two friends left at the end! 1. Snape is not *abusing* his students. Yes, by modern day U.S. standards where teachers *fear* their students, but not by the *old* ways.And the WW goes by the old ways. Snape has not physically touched (hit) a child. (I can't believe that I have gotten to an age where I am going to say this!) But *when I was a kid* a teacher could even hit you, with a ruler on the hand. It was not considered abuse. I was a goody two shoes myself, but even I once was sent to the Principal's office with other kids who did not come in from recess on time (I did not hear the bell, my first and only offense) and he took his knuckle and hit me hard on top of my head. Being a very sensitive child I did all I could to keep from crying. That is the way things were done back then. Yes we had teachers that we hated, but we SHOWED respect to them, because that is what you did. It didn't matter what you felt, it mattered what you did. (Not like today where students act like so disrespectfully towards anyone in a position of authority!!! I agree with Filch, give `um the rack!!!... ;-) ) There are always going to be people like that as teachers and in other positions of authority, you can't fire them all and put only *nice* people in charge. And it doesn't matter in the battle between good and evil, because sometimes the *nice* people are really the evil ones. Just because someone is rather curt and not sweetness and light doesn't make them evil. I think that JKR is trying to teach children that by having a teacher like Snape on the staff, because he will turn out to be a hero in the end. Dzeytoun said: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD HE RESPOND TO SNAPE WITH RESPECT UNLESS THE RESPECT HAS BEEN EARNED. Tonks replies: Snape is the adult in a position of authority in a civilized world, he is to be treated with the respect of his position, he does not have to EARN the respect of a CHILD! Harry does not have to like him, just obey him, as long as Snape does not ask Harry to violate the law or his conscience. After all Snape shows that kind of obedience to Dumbledore. 2.Dumbledore attitude is noble and the sign of a good leader, and a very holy man. DD sees everyone as equal. He give people the benefit of the doubt and a second chance. People follow DD because they want too. I have heard it said and it is true: You can only speak the truth, you have no control over what others do with it. And DD knows this. People have free will, and he does not try to take it from them. Pippin said: If people share Dumbledore's views, it should be because they want to, not because Albus Dumbledore is good at being obeyed. Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his image than Voldemort does. Dzeytoun replied to Pippin: That is an utterly and absolutely absurd attitude. And if Dumbledore really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. Tonks replies to both: I agree with Pippin. I disagree with Dzeytoun. DD has a better weapon than LV, because he does not have that attitude. There are *weapons* stronger than power and force. And JKR is going to show us what they are. Dzeytoun said: (talking about DD) If you are a manager, a general, or any other person in charge of a large scale and important task you squash disruptive behavior forthwith. Harsh, but truth almost always is. Tonks replies: And just HOW is this attitude any different than what Snape does with his students? 3. Responding to nasty people: Dzeytoun said: However, he MUST make clear to Snape what he will not tolerate or accept. A good starting point would be for him to tell Snape, politely but coldly "Professor, I WILL NOT tolerate any comments from you about my father or about Sirius Black. If you care about defeating Voldemort, you are simply going to have to adjust your attitude." Another excellent technique (it has worked for me on multiple occasions) is to treat Snape like an errant child and refuse to acknowledge that he is speaking unless he uses at least minimally polite language. Tonks replies: NO, NO, NO. Absolutely NO. Harry is the child here. A CHILD. He is to keep his mouth SHUT, and treat his elders with respect. He does not have to feel it, just DO IT!!!! And that will, as others here have said, teach and show (internally to Harry, if to no one else) that Harry is the *better man*. And a MATURE human being. And that is what we want Harry to become, a mature human being that does not change his behavior to match the poor behavior of someone else. (between two people of equal status one would tell the other what one will tolerate and not tolerate, but Snape is Harry's superior here.) SSSusan said: I want to see Harry work around the "stuff" and prove he is becoming a mature man who knows that he MUST master his emotions and take responsibility for learning what he needs to learn. and Toto replied: But that kind of maturing doesn't exist. Tonks replies to both: I agree with SSSusan. And Toto, yes that kind of maturity DOES exist. I think we will see Harry get to that point. Dzeytoun said: I've dealt with many Snapes over a long period in both academics and government, and the only way to permanently address the issue, if higher authority is unwilling to get involved (which, incidentally, I've found isn't the case most of the time if you scream loud enough) is to out-Snape them. Tonks replies: I think that this is stooping to their level and not rising above it. I hope and think that Harry will do better than that. And Harry will be an example to us all. I too have in the past had to work with people who seemed like LV himself, and I am ashamed to say that I had your attitude towards them. It did not help the situation one bit. It only served to add fuel to the fire, and raise my blood pressure. It did not change the other person; in fact I think it played into their hand. There is such a thing as *eliciting behavior*. That means that a person subconsciously act in a way that will cause most people to respond to them in a particular way. So a nasty person at some level may want people to keep their distance, for example, or to respond to them in an equally nasty way. So if you act the way they subconsciously want you to behave, then they have really won!! But if you treat a person as a human being, with the respect that every human being deserves, just because they are, or because the have a spark of the creator in them, than you are the better person for it. And it will not eat you alive. Harry has more important things to think about and better ways to use his energy than to become involved in an emotional battle with Snape. I can tell you from experience that no one wins that battle, NO ONE. Even when you win, you really lose. So the only mature, healthy response and the one I think that Harry will learn, is to see the other person as a flawed human being, have pity on them and go about your business. Don't be pulled into the *game*. After all hate and love are somewhat the same, as both imply an emotional involvement. So does *acting cold*. Whereas indifference is not an emotional involvement. And that it the mindset that Harry needs to learn from his involvement with Snape in order to keep LV out of his mind. Tonks_op From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Sun Oct 3 05:19:21 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:19:21 -0000 Subject: McGonagall first subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114534 kmc wrote: > In OotP, McGonagall tells Umbridge that she had been teaching for > 39 years this December. Using the dates from the HP-Lexicon, > McGonagall began teaching in 1956. Dumbledore did not become > Headmaster until 1970. Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher > when Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts in 1942. > > What subject did McGonagall teach when she started at Hogwarts > December 1956? > > If she started as the Transfiguration teacher, did Dumbledore > teach anther subject like DADA or Potions? Yb: What makes you say DD wasn't the headmaster in 1956? Is that on the Lexicon? (Tools around, doing some research... Drat! Timelines are down at the HPL! Drat!) Well... I'll assume you got that from the Lexicon, and they got it from Lupin's quote in the Shrieking Shack, "Then DD became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic." I always felt that DD took over after Dippet, and that said quote could be interpreted different ways... Anyway, IF DD had to teach another class (because I'm almost certain McGonagall has been teaching Transfiguration, and only Transfiguration, for four decades, she just seems so solid on it, and we never saw her substituting for Lupin in PoA, now did we?) he probably taught DADA. Just a hunch. Potions is less likely. He'd get his beard in the cauldron by accident. ~Yb, taking her new keyboard for a spin. Mmmmmm.... And thinking about DD hovering over a cauldron like the three witches in Macbeth. Hee hee. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 05:23:45 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:23:45 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: <20041002.195633.2716.3.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > > > Part of adulthood is learning how to interact with difficult people. You > can't always work with people you like. It's best if you can find a way > to express to the person that their behavior sucks, but that's not always > possible. (Especially between a student and teacher.) Sometimes the best > way to get along with a rotton person is to not react to that person's > bullshit. Just let it go. If Harry didn't feed into Snape's assholeness, > Snape wouldn't have an excuse to keep doing it. Adulthood is NOT about accepting abuse, which is what Snape is handing out. It is, in fact, all about standing up for yourself and making it VERY clear that you will NOT accept abuse under ANY circumstances NO MATTER who it is that's handing it out or what there excuse is. This is especially important in student/teacher, boss/employee, and other relationships where power is unequal. Dzeytoun From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 05:25:10 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:25:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore 'forcing' others (Re: Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: <032101c4a8e2$39880fb0$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > I'm sorry, but I think that not trying to force your view of right > and wrong on other people is a very noble thing to do. It's also > the right way to deal with kids, or else you'll completely smother > and crush their ability of choosing for themselves and respecting > other people's choices. By not trying to force his own image into > other people, he's letting them exercize their own individuality, > which is a right every single rational creature has. With Dumbledore, it seems to me, we're running into the classic problem that all liberal (small l, natch) societies face, aren't we? Individualism is the principle of the highest order, but how do we keep things in order such that *everyone* gets to freely exercise their individualism, and is not subject to indignity at the hands of others? Dumbledore lets Snape act as he wishes out of respect for Snape's individuality, but as the Headmaster of the school (who exercises CONSIDERABLE power over what goes on in it--make no mistake, this is not merely a hands-off administrative/observational job), he also has the responsibility for considering what effect this has on those subordinate to his subordinates. The children are in a rather interesting situation; pupils, and therefore subject to the whims of their teachers--but also practically wards of the Headmaster, and therefore entitled to protection. > Now I don't know if Snape can be classified as rational, but > Rowling herself said Dumbledore considers cruel teachers like Snape > an important lesson to be learned (an interview if I remember > well). So I suppose he wouldn't try to change him - people should > change themselves, not be forced to. That is indeed interview canon, and I can understand it--but you can see that it's certainly not an unproblematic vision! One cannot force another person to change, but there are situations where one should also not tolerate the behavior of someone who is unwilling to change in how he treats fellow members of society. I'm well aware that some of what I'm playing with there is rather universalized, and disregards some of the conventions of the time and place--but I don't think that's enough to shoot down the considerations at play here. > And he didn't ask to be in charge of a war, so cut him some > slack. :) He may not have asked, but he has certainly taken on that role, and thus is responsible (and I do think openly holds himself responsible) for waging this particular battle. -Nora notes that this thread can and will go on forever and ever, surging back into the light whenever fed From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 3 01:55:57 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:55:57 -0300 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry References: Message-ID: <046e01c4a8ec$2d421430$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114537 > Dzeytoun: > Now, given all this, how on Earth is Snape supposed to budge? Some > people see evidence of change during the Occlumency episode, but if > its there its EXTREMELY subtle and not very encouraging. How, then, > is anything supposed to make any difference at all? Snape seems > simply too emotionally invested in his hatred of Harry to be capable > of any kind of change either in his attitudes or his behaviors, > barring being forced to modify his behavior unwillingly be some > method or the other. Really, in my opinion, it's impossible for Snape to change opinions in all of two books, unfortunately. I wouldn't say the same if it were ten years, since I do believe people change, things change and etc., but that's not the issue - the seventh book is the last one and that's it. And Rowling did say we should not pity Snape too much yet. I do think, though, that if Harry doesn't give him the edge, Snape can't cut him. Crybaby kids are bullied because they cry - if they don't cry, it's no fun. If Harry doesn't budge, Snape'll fume all he want, but he can't give Harry a detention for nodding calmly to everything he says as if he was barely paying attention... and if he does, well, Harry can talk to Dumbley just fine, now <3 Whoa, I've been answering to a lot of your posts... is it true that you work with abused kids? (I'm sorry if it wasn't you, I've been reading through more than 100 backlogged posts ^^;;) It must be sad, but every improvement must be very rewarding. Elanor Pam From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sun Oct 3 03:08:51 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:08:51 -0400 Subject: grimly References: Message-ID: <00cf01c4a8f6$5144c8a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114538 > mhbobbin: > > And let it be known if you find another character with that > > adverb description. > > > > It may be nothing, of course. Just an coincidental figure of > > speech. > Mac: While I must admit to not having made the connect between > 'the grim' (PoA) and Grimmauld (Grim old) place, let alone the > word 'grimly' to describe a person's demeanour, I do believe > JKR like any author, has a penchant for certain words. > > Thus, JKR's key words might be tawny, mutter and grim. I'm sure > you can think of others she uses that are not otherwise commonly > used. It's the type of thing that makes us laugh, scream, wince > at fan fiction and know, instantly, that the author, has no connect > whatsoever with the 'real' JKR. Kethryn now - Speaking as a writer, sometimes it's just too much work to find the thesaurus and look up the other words that would do as well in any situation. Sometimes, you get into a rut where you use the same word 10 times on a page and never notice it until long after the proof stage. Sometimes that is the only word that you can use so that the sentence sounds right to you. Of course, she could certainly be using the words as foreshadowing but I think that is a little too non-subtle for JKR. I mean, the way she uses the word (and the derivations of the word) grim, that's kind of like taking a baseball bat, slamming it into your head and screaming, "Listen to me!" Ok, so history sometimes does that but I haven't noticed that type of behavior from JKR as much. Kethryn From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 05:26:47 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:26:47 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Actually, that is not what I expect. Snape may develop some > more respect for Harry, or not. But the reason I want Harry to > ignore Snape's taunts and behave with due respect toward his > teacher is that I have found it's a very effective technique to use > with bullies, especially when, in fact, you don't have a better way > of making them leave you alone. But respect is NOT due his teacher pippin, for ANY reason, and this is NOT the way to deal with bullies. The ONLY way to deal with bullies is to confront them constantly, comprehensively, and unyieldingly. Dzeyotun From TM.Riddle at gmail.com Sun Oct 3 03:37:35 2004 From: TM.Riddle at gmail.com (cynicalsquare) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 03:37:35 -0000 Subject: Black magic -- effigy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114540 I was just wondering whether the Muggle concept of using an effigy and personal implements (eg. hair, toenails) to harm another person, exists in the Potterverse. We have seen, in CoS, personal implements used to make the Polyjuice Potion. To me, it looks as if the effigy method is not used in the Potterverse; the Dark Arts are instead applied directly, for instance via the unforgivable curses. Any ideas? "cynicalsquare" From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 05:31:08 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:31:08 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <046e01c4a8ec$2d421430$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > I do think, though, that if Harry doesn't give him the edge, Snape > can't cut him. Crybaby kids are bullied because they cry - if they > don't cry, it's no fun. If Harry doesn't budge, Snape'll fume all > he want, but he can't give Harry a detention for nodding calmly to > everything he says as if he was barely paying attention... and if > he does, well, Harry can talk to Dumbley just fine, now <3 I'm not completely sure about this--people in this kind of thread in the past have posted amusing possible scenarios/dialogue for things like Snape taking off points for breathing. :) Seriously, though, I'm not completely convinced that the calm and nodding and submissive posture would *really* make things better--it might be more like waving a flag 'Here I am, not going to complain-- beat on me, please!' This happens with bullies; perhaps not as much as with a more open antagonism, but I've seen people do that to others trying to evade conflict by going low-key. Now, I personally have no idea whether or not Snape *would* pursue an antagonistic relationship in the face of what basically amounts to overt submission--but I wouldn't be surprised. -Nora should really go to sleep, and dream of madrigals From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 05:32:25 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:32:25 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > I think in many situations, Dzeytoun, what you're proposing might be > worth pursuing. Given the vehemence with which you've been putting > it forth, clearly in your opinion it is the only position worth > pursuing. That is certainly true. > > The future of the WW is truly hanging in the balance. Harry's own > life is in the utmost jeopardy. And yet he should "under no > circumstances respond to Snape with respect unless the respect has > been earned"? ABSOLUTELY. > > I actually agree with you that one way Harry could move on is to > listen & learn while still not being meek about Snape's treatment of > him. But if it's not working well, why would it be so awful to just > swallow some of it and NOT be defiant? Yes, it would. **SO** much is at > stake...and *we* know there are only 2 years in which Harry can > prepare...so what is so morally wrong about setting aside the issue > of being RIGHT, if necessary, in favor of doing what MUST be done to > save his own life and potentially the entire WW? > > I know you've heard of turning the other cheek. Please recognize > that some of us believe that is a *noble* tenet, especially when so > much besides one's "rightness" is at stake. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Turning the other cheek only invites more bruising, I'm afraid. I've never been in or personally known of a situation where it worked out in the long run. But you are right, we are now down to issues of basic worldview - to quote a friend of mine "throw all seven books out the window" issues. Here I stand and all that kind of stuff. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 05:40:28 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 05:40:28 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114543 > > Jen: Just to add another thought to this debate: I hope JKR doesn't > resolve the tension between Snape and Harry. Can there really be a > satisfying way for them to reach detente without compromising the > characters? Here are a few options, and none ring true for me: > > 1) Harry comes to realize that Snape (in his own way) has been > trying to help him all along. Harry grudgingly starts to trust Snape > and in return, Snape backs off a little. > 2) Harry takes the moral high-ground, not allowing Snape's > persistent heckling to affect him anymore, and resists the urge to > give back what he gets. Snape is thrown off-guard but basically > continues to treat Harry the same. > 3) Both realize how much is at stake in the WW and decide to become > friendly enemies for the greater good. > 4) Snape finally acknowledges Harry is not James, buries the > hatchet, and both go on to treat each other slightly better than > before. > 5) One or the other attempts a reconciliation, and the resulting > rejection causes tensions to increase. I agree with your list, Jen, and agree that none of them really rings true. I would not say that JKR will not use any of them, as OOTP severely weakened my respect for her commitment to realistic and believable characterizations. I will go so far as to say using most of them would constitute a "throw the book out the window" moment. the only one I *might* see is number five, if DD leans hard on Snape to make some minor concessions and Harry rebuffs them out of his belief that Snape is to blame for Sirius' death. > > JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution > scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape is > toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of Book > 6. ;) > > Jen Reese I would agree, except that I think we will see Snape go up in a pillar of flames sometime in Book VII. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 06:00:53 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 06:00:53 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Dzeytoun said: > UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD HE RESPOND TO SNAPE WITH RESPECT > UNLESS THE RESPECT HAS BEEN EARNED. > > Tonks replies: > Snape is the adult in a position of authority in a civilized world, > he is to be treated with the respect of his position, he does not > have to EARN the respect of a CHILD! Harry does not have to like > him, just obey him, as long as Snape does not ask Harry to violate > the law or his conscience. After all Snape shows that kind of > obedience to Dumbledore. > You are absolutely, totally, and completely incorrect. Snape MUST earn the respect of his students, and he MUST earn the respect of Harry. Your attitude here is absolutely not different than that of Voldemort. > > 2.Dumbledore attitude is noble and the sign of a good leader, and a > very holy man. DD sees everyone as equal. He give people the > benefit of the doubt and a second chance. People follow DD because > they want too. I have heard it said and it is true: You can only > speak the truth, you have no control over what others do with it. > And DD knows this. People have free will, and he does not try to > take it from them. > So, he sits back while Snape abuses his students. And yes, it IS abuse, spare us the squabbling about old ways versus new ways. There is NOTHING whatsoever holy about that. > Tonks replies to both: > I agree with Pippin. I disagree with Dzeytoun. DD has a better > weapon than LV, because he does not have that attitude. There are > *weapons* stronger than power and force. And JKR is going to show > us what they are. You take those weapons. I'll take a wand and wizarding powers. Don't complain about what happens. > > Dzeytoun said: > (talking about DD) If you are a manager, a general, or any other > person in charge of a large scale and important task you squash > disruptive behavior forthwith. Harsh, but truth almost always is. > > Tonks replies: > And just HOW is this attitude any different than what Snape does > with his students? > > 3. Responding to nasty people: > > Dzeytoun said: > However, he MUST make clear to Snape what he will not tolerate or > accept. A good starting point would be for him to tell Snape, > politely but coldly "Professor, I WILL NOT tolerate any comments > from you about my father or about Sirius Black. If you care about > defeating Voldemort, you are simply going to have to adjust your > attitude." Another excellent technique (it has worked for me on > multiple occasions) is to treat Snape like an errant child and > refuse to acknowledge that he is speaking unless he uses at least > minimally polite language. > > Tonks replies: > NO, NO, NO. Absolutely NO. Harry is the child here. A CHILD. He is > to keep his mouth SHUT, and treat his elders with respect. He does > not have to feel it, just DO IT!!!! And that will, as others here > have said, teach and show (internally to Harry, if to no one else) > that Harry is the *better man*. And a MATURE human being. And that > is what we want Harry to become, a mature human being that does not > change his behavior to match the poor behavior of someone else. > (between two people of equal status one would tell the other what > one will tolerate and not tolerate, but Snape is Harry's superior > here.) > YES, YES, YES. ABSOLUTELY YES. Harry is a child, true. He also deserves to be treated in a correct, supportive, and non-abusive manner. HE MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT BECAUSE OF ACCIDENTS OF AGE OF BECAUSE SOME ABUSIVE PERSON HAS A TEACHING POSITION! Snape has NO right be superior positon or anything else to be treated with respect. And SNAPE IS NOT HARRY'S SUPERIOR IN THE MOST MEANINGFUL, AND ULTIMATELY THE ONLY MEANINGFUL WAY, THE MORAL ONE. > Dzeytoun said: > I've dealt with many Snapes over a long period in both academics and > government, and the only way to permanently address the issue, if > higher authority is unwilling to get involved (which, incidentally, > I've found isn't the case most of the time if you scream loud > enough) is to out-Snape them. > > Tonks replies: > I think that this is stooping to their level and not rising above > it. I hope and think that Harry will do better than that. Incredibly naive of you. Dzeytoun From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 06:00:47 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 06:00:47 -0000 Subject: McGonagall first subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114545 > > kmc wrote: > > In OotP, McGonagall tells Umbridge that she had been teaching for 39 years this December. Using the dates from the HP-Lexicon, > > McGonagall began teaching in 1956. Dumbledore did not become > > Headmaster until 1970. Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher when Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts in 1942. > > > > What subject did McGonagall teach when she started at Hogwarts > > December 1956? > > > > If she started as the Transfiguration teacher, did Dumbledore > > teach anther subject like DADA or Potions? > > Yb: > What makes you say DD wasn't the headmaster in 1956? Is that on the Lexicon? (Tools around, doing some research... Drat! Timelines are down at the HPL! Drat!) Well... I'll assume you got that from the Lexicon, and they got it from Lupin's quote in the Shrieking > Shack, "Then DD became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic." I always felt that DD took over after Dippet, and that said quote could be interpreted different ways... Anyway, IF DD had to teach another class (because I'm almost certain McGonagall has been teaching Transfiguration, and only Transfiguration, for four decades, she just seems so solid on it, and we never saw her substituting for Lupin in PoA, now did we?) he probably taught DADA. Just a hunch. Potions is less likely. He'd get his beard in the cauldron by accident. > Valky: Another possibility is that between the time when DD was a transfiguration teacher and the time when he became Hogwarts Headmaster, which most likely includes 1956 he was doing something else entirely. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine DD holding some *other* position of importance in the WW before he was asked to Headmaster the school, as opposed to him moving directly there from a teaching role. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 06:15:13 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 06:15:13 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <046e01c4a8ec$2d421430$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114546 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > > > > Really, in my opinion, it's impossible for Snape to change opinions in all > of two books, unfortunately. I wouldn't say the same if it were ten years, > since I do believe people change, things change and etc., but that's not the > issue - the seventh book is the last one and that's it. And Rowling did say > we should not pity Snape too much yet. > > I do think, though, that if Harry doesn't give him the edge, Snape can't cut > him. Crybaby kids are bullied because they cry - if they don't cry, it's no > fun. If Harry doesn't budge, Snape'll fume all he want, but he can't give > Harry a detention for nodding calmly to everything he says as if he was > barely paying attention... and if he does, well, Harry can talk to Dumbley > just fine, now <3 > I would largely agree with this. > Whoa, I've been answering to a lot of your posts... is it true that you work > with abused kids? (I'm sorry if it wasn't you, I've been reading through > more than 100 backlogged posts ^^;;) It must be sad, but every improvement > must be very rewarding. > > Elanor Pam Yes, I do. Not as a career, but off and on in various settings, mostly the legal and social service systems. Any improvement is rewarding, because so little improvement is sometimes possible. Often all that one can do is try to restore some measure of faith in society by helping provide meaningful punishment for abusers and trying to see that the child's best interest are served in placement, etc. Unfortunately, it's not something to do if you have very high opinions of human nature. (The last case I was involved in featured a middle class couple who starved an infant to death. They said "it wouldn't shut up so we stopped feeding it."). It's also not something you should do if you have a naive or rosy view of the justice and social service systems. Often abusers get off very lightly, and social services placement tends to create as much emotional damage as it alleviates. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 07:24:28 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:24:28 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > "pippin_999" wrote: > > >> That would be an odd way for Harry to defend the rights of > > > innocent children, handing their world over to Voldemort, or do > > > you really not see any difference between normal WW culture, as > > > faulty and unenlightened as it is, and Voldemort's? Hmmm. Well, do we know what Voldemort's culture would look like? We've got some idea, I suppose. Frankly, though, Voldemort often looks like a much worthier and less evil person than Snape. And yes, I do mean that quite literally. > > Alla: > > > > Pippin, I think you understood what I meant - this kind of culture > > is not something to be proud of, IMO. I think we both know that > > Harry is not going to hand this world to Voldemort. Of course not. Although if I were him I would be MIGHTILY tempted - especially if I could arrange for my friends and I to escape to a nice unplottable island in the Caribean. > > > > Have you noticed that this "faulty and unelightened culture" > > produces evil lords with amazing speed , by the way? > > > > Grindewald also did his deeds in the 20 century, then now we have > > Voldemort. > > > > yes, I think something is VERY wrong with such world. I agree absolutely with that. > > kmc adds: > > And the real world hasn't produced evil leaders/dictators with the > same speed? Hmmm. Considering the difference in population, I would have to say that the Wizarding World has the definite edge on creating extremely dangerous (i.e. world class) threats over the span of the twentieth century. The deeper point here relates to something that I once said in relation to Dumbledore, i.e. if the wizarding world truly believes it is appropriate to condemn a child to years of abuse for the purpose of saving itself, then it has already lost. Same thing here in a different context. If the wizarding world really believes that Snape's behavior is OK, then in a very real way it has already lost. Survival in and of itself doesn't mean very much -- cockroaches manage it quite nicely. The question is what you stand for that is worthy of saving. So far some elements of the wizarding world seem worth saving. But the wizarding world in general? Frankly, if this were a "real" situation being reported on by CNN I would be watching gleefully from the sidelines hoping most of the wizarding world (including Snape, Voldemort, the Ministry, most of the pureblood families, all of Slytherin House, and probably Dumbledore) stung each other to death like so many scorpions in a bottle. And I, personally, would probably advise Harry to let most of the SOB's burn. Dzeytoun From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Oct 3 07:36:14 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:36:14 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4160388E.14177.22D9A1C@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 114548 On 3 Oct 2004 at 7:24, dzeytoun wrote: > > If the wizarding world really believes that > Snape's behavior is OK, then in a very real way it has already lost. The thing is though, there's two quite separate issues here. Firstly, there's the issue of whether Snape's behaviour is OK, but secondly, and separately is the issue of whether Harry's response to that behaviour is OK. There's a lot of people posting in this and related threads that I can see who disagree quite strongly with Snape's behaviour - but nonetheless, considers Harry's response is also not appropriate. Do bear in mind that saying Harry has some responsibilities and should behave in certain ways, doesn't mean excusing Snape. 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 dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 07:49:30 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:49:30 -0000 Subject: Tyranny (WAS Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: <03b801c4a8e6$caca3350$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > > > This is a children's books, so Rowling is trying to teach the importance of > respecting other people's rights. Unless, of course, you are an adult and the other person a child. Or you are teacher and the other person a student. If she wasn't, then it'd be understandable > for outraged teachers to burn her books, alright. > > And I repeat: Dumbledore is NOT a manager, or a general, or a "person in > charge". As Headmaster of a school, he doesn't command the school or the > teachers or anything. You are absolutely incorrect there. As Headmaster, Dumbledore is VERY MUCH the person in charge. As head of the order, he is VERY MUCH the person in charge. He's more of a counsellor than anything else. And > there's a reason why he's rounded up the OotP instead of accepting the > invitation to be minister - that way, he can deal with the involved on a > personal level, instead of sitting on his high chair and giving orders. He > won't need to squash disruptive behavior, he'll sit and talk it through. But he doesn't, does he? Has he sat and talked through Snape's disruptive behavior? Has he sat and talked through its effects on Harry and Neville? Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 07:54:58 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:54:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore 'forcing' others (Re: Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: <032101c4a8e2$39880fb0$4d8dd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > And he didn't ask to be in charge of a war, so cut him some slack. :) But he DID, Elanor. His actions since 1981 have clearly and foreseeably led to his being in charge of this war. And he deserves ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK WHATSOEVER. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 08:00:05 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 08:00:05 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <4160388E.14177.22D9A1C@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > There's a lot of people posting in this and related threads that I > can see who disagree quite strongly with Snape's behaviour - but > nonetheless, considers Harry's response is also not appropriate. > > Do bear in mind that saying Harry has some responsibilities and > should behave in certain ways, doesn't mean excusing Snape. > > But, I'm afraid in this context that is EXACTLY what it means. Since Dumbledore will not live up to his responsibilities and protect Harry, Harry must protect himself. Any opposition to that in effect excuses Snape. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 08:21:26 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 08:21:26 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114553 JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why would she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. Is all of it just because she is worried about teenagers falling for Alan Rickman, or is there something else? I honestly haven't a clue. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Oct 3 08:40:28 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:40:28 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: References: <4160388E.14177.22D9A1C@localhost> Message-ID: <4160479C.24161.2686B82@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 114554 On 3 Oct 2004 at 8:00, dzeytoun wrote: > But, I'm afraid in this context that is EXACTLY what it means. Since > Dumbledore will not live up to his responsibilities and protect > Harry, Harry must protect himself. Any opposition to that in effect > excuses Snape. Sorry, but no, it doesn't. Nothing excuses Snape. Nothing Harry does can excuse Snape. Nothing Harry doesn't do can excuse Snape. And advocating particular courses of action doesn't excuse Snape. You have a very clear idea of what you think Harry needs to do to protect himself. Fine. Other people have quite different ideas of what Harry needs to do to proect himself. That's fine as well. My view. Harry is a child. Snape has the power in their relationship. That's a reality. It's not utterly impossible that by defying Snape Harry might gain something. But it's nowhere near a certainty. I was abused as a child. Sometimes I fought it - but sometimes I made a deliberate decision that fighting it wasn't worthwhile. And when it came from a teacher, those were times that I decided it wasn't worthwhile. I'm not saying that's necessarily the right choice for Harry. But it isn't necessarily the wrong choice either. To me, the best answer to child abuse - is the one that leaves you as a healthy, happy adult. And what that is, depends on the circumstances. Just because people would make different choices from the ones you'd make, doesn't make them wrong choices - and it certainly doesn't mean they support abuse, or excuse the abuser. If I thought Snape would change by Harry defying him, I'd support that defiance. But - well, from what we know, Severus Snape is standing up to Lord Voldemort. I doubt he's going to be broken by a 15 year old childs defiance. 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 grievousangel42 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 10:24:02 2004 From: grievousangel42 at yahoo.com (that space cadet glow) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:24:02 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114555 > JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay > over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why would > she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. Is all of it > just because she is worried about teenagers falling for Alan Rickman, > or is there something else? I honestly haven't a clue. I'm not sure, but I do know she's expressed similar feelings about Draco fandom as well. I think it comes down to the fact that she knows things about Snape that we don't, and because she knows what she knows, she doesn't think that he's an attractive character. He's not mysterious to her the way he is to the rest of us. That's my theory anyway. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 11:34:29 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 11:34:29 -0000 Subject: DD letting Snape abuse students (Re: Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114556 phoenixgod2000 wrote: > Sometimes I do not understand the lengths that people go to in > order to forgive Snape for his actions. Dungrollin: It's because he's fictional. We'd be far more circumspect about it if he might *really* hurt someone. We're reading about him, not having to meet him - and as a reader one can be a bit more daring in one's reactions and sympathies towards characters than one can in real life. We also recognise that we're only human, and damn - wouldn't these books be boring if all the characters were perfect? We try to forgive others' mistakes that we can imagine ourselves making. So you're reading these books and you say 'Oh, that Sirius is *great*, I *like* him!' Then a couple of things about his recklessness come out, so you say 'well - I'm sure it comes from noble intentions'. Or there are those attracted to the idea of a kind and wise old mentor, and so when *his* actions don't seem to be perfect they come up with reasons why he's in a difficult position, and can't be expected to be flawless. Then, of course, there are a number of us that occasionally get exasperated with life. With other people. With politics, with television, with absurd fashions, with unworkable technology, with inane advertisments, with stroppy teenagers, with people who don't understand simple ideas conveyed in simple words... Occasionally we have bad days, you see. And we become grumpy and sarcastic, and annoying. But on *really* bad days we start to *revel* in it. We wish that we didn't even bother having a good time when we weren't having a bad day. We wish we could greet everything in life with sarcasm or indifference - good mood or bad mood is fine, it's all the jumping about between them that's a pain. It'd be much easier just to become a sarcastic... cynical... bastards. So we've kind of got some respect for Snape for having the guts to do what we would love to do - the difficulty for us is that we're capable of cheering up. Snape isn't. None of us would like Snape if we met him, we'd be treated with scorn and sarcasm from the second he opened his mouth. I'd hate to meet Snape - because he wouldn't like me; he doesn't like anyone. Dungrollin By *we* I don't mean *all* Snape apologists, just some of us. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 12:16:48 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041003121648.3344.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114557 --- dzeytoun wrote: > Some people see evidence of change during the Occlumency episode, > but if its there its EXTREMELY subtle and not very encouraging. > How, then, is anything supposed to make any difference at all? > Snape seems simply too emotionally invested in his hatred of Harry > to be capable of any kind of change either in his attitudes or his > behaviors, barring being forced to modify his behavior unwillingly > be some method or the other. > > Dzeytoun Well, no, it wasn't "extremely subtle", it was quite apparent to readers who were paying attention. There's been a lot of talk on this list and other boards (at least one of which you are on, Dzeytoun) about how Snape was a better teacher in occlumency than he usually is during potions. And Snape's total freak-out after finding Harry in the pensieve, as well as his leaving Harry with it in the first place as he went to rescue Montegue, struck me at the time (and still does) as two signs that he was beginning not to assume the worst about Harry - that is, that he was seeing Harry as himself without the taint of James. And his little monologue about how the Dark Lord preys on those who give into their emotions - if that wasn't an effort to make direct contact with Harry then I'll eat my copy of OOTP. The evidence is there - if you're willing to see it. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 12:46:14 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 05:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041003124614.11860.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114558 --- Jen Reese wrote: > Just to add another thought to this debate: I hope JKR doesn't > resolve the tension between Snape and Harry. Can there really be a > satisfying way for them to reach detente without compromising the > characters? Here are a few options, and none ring true for me: > > Jen Reese I think there's another option: Harry distrusts Snape's allegiance to the Order; Harry is instructed to do something for Snape or Snape demands that he do something; Harry doesn't; Snape gets whacked; Harry gets one of Dumbledore's sorrowful explanations about why he should have listened and what Snape was up to; Harry is amazed but no longer doubts Snape's loyalty, helped immeasurably by the fact that Snape is dead and therefore Harry doesn't have to deal with him anymore. It's amazing how death improves some people's characters. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 3 12:49:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:49:07 -0000 Subject: Mechanism for lobbing missiles or an author's body of work? In-Reply-To: <014901c4a8e4$593175c0$022f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114559 Susana da Cunha wrote: > Gee, I'm getting worried. > > I recently wrote "hart" several times in the same post > meaning "heart". My apologies! > > I hope you cut some slack to us non-native-English people. It's > really hard to keep part of your mind in spelling and grammar when > you're involved in the mind-challenging discussions we have here > at HPfGU, you know? > > Personally, I write my posts in MS Word and use the language > functions to correct my many spelling errors. But things like > canon/cannon, hart/hart,hole/whole, whether/weather, etc. (the > list is enormous) don't show up as errors. > > English doesn't have spelling rules; it has spelling exceptions > (about a million of them) and then some exceptions are more > recurrent then others (dammed if I know which). I have over 2000 > unread messages from HPfGU in my mail box. I rather read them then > to check every word in my posts on a dictionary before posting. > I'd end up not having time to post! > > The kind list elves from helpdesk have offered me their services to > proofread my posts. If someone thinks I shouldn't have turned them > down, please, tell me so off list and I will contact them > immediately. I won't take offence, really! > > But I read SSSusan's post as an attempt to help us > 'confused-with-English-spelling' people, so I won't jump to > helpdesk just yet. SSSusan: Yes, Susana, PLEASE do take what I wrote as just an attempt to help/remind! I wish, now, that I'd not posted. [I can sense others nodding their heads vigorously.] What I was thinking was this: "How can I point this out in such a way that people will be reminded of the difference?" I thought I'd try a little humor...but I'm not sure it was so humorous. :-| I certainly never meant to upset or offend. My husband is dyslexic, so goodness knows I should understand that some have difficulty seeing typos and spelling errors. I also was decidedly NOT intending to put non-native English speakers on the defensive. It's the kind of thing I could have *said* in one of my classes and my students would have gotten the point but also known my tone was "friendly neighborhood reminderish." That, I've learned, isn't always the case with an e-format. My apologies to any I ticked off! Siriusly Snapey Susan From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 14:35:47 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:35:47 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114560 Dzeytoun: > > JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay > > over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why would > > she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. Is all of it > > just because she is worried about teenagers falling for Alan Rickman, > > or is there something else? I honestly haven't a clue. that space cadet glow: > I'm not sure, but I do know she's expressed similar feelings about > Draco fandom as well. I think it comes down to the fact that she knows > things about Snape that we don't, and because she knows what she > knows, she doesn't think that he's an attractive character. He's not > mysterious to her the way he is to the rest of us. > > That's my theory anyway. Annemehr: Or that she's very carefully written them with the intention that they are disliked, and it's a bit daunting to find so many people feeling the opposite. That would put a ding in the old self-confidence. Annemehr have $0.02, will opine From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 14:49:42 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:49:42 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <4160479C.24161.2686B82@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 3 Oct 2004 at 8:00, dzeytoun wrote: > > > But, I'm afraid in this context that is EXACTLY what it means. Since > > Dumbledore will not live up to his responsibilities and protect > > Harry, Harry must protect himself. Any opposition to that in effect > > excuses Snape. > > Sorry, but no, it doesn't. > > Nothing excuses Snape. Nothing Harry does can excuse Snape. Nothing > Harry doesn't do can excuse Snape. > > And advocating particular courses of action doesn't excuse Snape. Yes it does, Shaun. I'm sorry, but it does. > > You have a very clear idea of what you think Harry needs to do to > protect himself. Fine. > > Other people have quite different ideas of what Harry needs to do > to proect himself. That's fine as well. > > My view. > > Harry is a child. Snape has the power in their relationship. That's > a reality. It's not utterly impossible that by defying Snape Harry > might gain something. But it's nowhere near a certainty. > > I was abused as a child. Sometimes I fought it - but sometimes I > made a deliberate decision that fighting it wasn't worthwhile. I understand. I also had to deal with abuse. I've NEVER had a situation where fighting it wasn't worthwhile. PERIOD. Different lives, I suppose. > > And when it came from a teacher, those were times that I decided it > wasn't worthwhile. > > I'm not saying that's necessarily the right choice for Harry. > > But it isn't necessarily the wrong choice either. > > To me, the best answer to child abuse - is the one that leaves you > as a healthy, happy adult. > > And what that is, depends on the circumstances. > > Just because people would make different choices from the ones > you'd make, doesn't make them wrong choices - and it certainly > doesn't mean they support abuse, or excuse the abuser. > > If I thought Snape would change by Harry defying him, I'd support > that defiance. But Snape is quite incapable of change, Shaun. I certainly agree with you there. Harry defying him, or being respectful of him, or offering to have his first child, or whatever action he takes, isn't about Snape changing his basic attitude. > > But - well, from what we know, Severus Snape is standing up to Lord > Voldemort. > > I doubt he's going to be broken by a 15 year old childs defiance. Broken? Certainly not. Frustrated to the point that he decides it isn't worth it? Quite likely. > From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 14:56:40 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:56:40 -0000 Subject: grimly In-Reply-To: <00cf01c4a8f6$5144c8a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > > > mhbobbin: /Subject: The use of the word Grimly while desribing Sirius's demeanor. > > > And let it be known if you find another character with that > > > adverb description.It may be nothing, of course. Just an coincidental figure of speech. > > > Mac: While I must admit to not having made the connect between > > 'the grim' (PoA) and Grimmauld (Grim old) place, let alone the > > word 'grimly' to describe a person's demeanour, I do believe > > JKR like any author, has a penchant for certain words. > > > > > Thus, JKR's key words might be tawny, mutter and grim. I'm sure > > you can think of others she uses that are not otherwise commonly > > used. It's the type of thing that makes us laugh, scream, wince > > at fan fiction and know, instantly, that the author, has no connect > > whatsoever with the 'real' JKR. > > > Kethryn now - > > Of course, she could certainly be using the words as foreshadowing but I think that is a little too non-subtle for JKR. I mean, the way she uses the word (and the derivations of the word) grim, that's kind of like taking a baseball bat, slamming it into your head and screaming, "Listen to me!" Ok, so history sometimes does that but I haven't noticed that type of behavior from JKR as much. > > Kethryn mhbobbin: I don't disagree with what everyone is saying. But I AM curious to what degree she is doing it, in this instance, with a word she has loaded with meaning. A Grim is a Black Dog and Sirius is a Black Dog. Sirius lived at Grim Old Place. The Grim is a Death Omen. Sirius speaks grimly. Sirius looks grim. Sirius has Grim associations and he dies. Some of us were blindsided when she chose him but there it is. I agree that JKR is very crafty and subtle with foreshadowing. But I'm wondering to what degree she's used the word "grimly" to describe anyone else's dialogue, or anyone else as looking "grim". I am curious about it. I've found that it also is used, more sparingly, with Lupin. Since this group collectively probably reads every single word of all five books in any given week , I was hoping that if I put it out to the group, as they found instances of her describing a character as grim-faced or saying something grimly, if they'd let me know. I'm wondering about it. Maybe it is a meaningless exercise but hey, no member of this Group would judge me for that, would they? mhbobbin From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 14:56:39 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:56:39 -0000 Subject: DD letting Snape abuse students (Re: Harry learning from Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > > Sometimes I do not understand the lengths that people go to in > > order to forgive Snape for his actions. > > Dungrollin: > It's because he's fictional. We'd be far more circumspect about it > if he might *really* hurt someone. We're reading about him, not > having to meet him - and as a reader one can be a bit more daring in > one's reactions and sympathies towards characters than one can in > real life. We also recognise that we're only human, and damn - > wouldn't these books be boring if all the characters were > perfect? We try to forgive others' mistakes that we can imagine > ourselves making. > > So you're reading these books and you say 'Oh, that Sirius is > *great*, I *like* him!' Then a couple of things about his > recklessness come out, so you say 'well - I'm sure it comes from > noble intentions'. Or there are those attracted to the idea of a > kind and wise old mentor, and so when *his* actions don't seem to be > perfect they come up with reasons why he's in a difficult > position, and can't be expected to be flawless. > > Then, of course, there are a number of us that occasionally get > exasperated with life. With other people. With politics, with > television, with absurd fashions, with unworkable technology, with > inane advertisments, with stroppy teenagers, with people who don't > understand simple ideas conveyed in simple words... > > Occasionally we have bad days, you see. And we become grumpy and > sarcastic, and annoying. But on *really* bad days we start to > *revel* in it. We wish that we didn't even bother having a good > time when we weren't having a bad day. We wish we could greet > everything in life with sarcasm or indifference - good mood or bad > mood is fine, it's all the jumping about between them that's a > pain. It'd be much easier just to become a sarcastic... cynical... > bastards. So we've kind of got some respect for Snape for having > the guts to do what we would love to do - the difficulty for us is > that we're capable of cheering up. Snape isn't. > > None of us would like Snape if we met him, we'd be treated with > scorn and sarcasm from the second he opened his mouth. I'd hate to > meet Snape - because he wouldn't like me; he doesn't like anyone. > > Dungrollin > By *we* I don't mean *all* Snape apologists, just some of us. Yes, we are dealing in archetypes here, aren't we? I think you are onto something very important, Dungrollin. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 15:00:37 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:00:37 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <20041003121648.3344.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: And his > little monologue about how the Dark Lord preys on those who give into > their emotions - if that wasn't an effort to make direct contact with > Harry then I'll eat my copy of OOTP. > > > Magda Try dowsing it in ketchup first. Because that wasn't anything but standard abusive snarkiness as far as I can tell. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 3 15:01:06 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:01:06 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <20041003124614.11860.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114566 Magda: > I think there's another option: Harry distrusts Snape's allegiance > to the Order; Harry is instructed to do something for Snape or Snape > demands that he do something; Harry doesn't; Snape gets whacked; > Harry gets one of Dumbledore's sorrowful explanations about why he > should have listened and what Snape was up to; Harry is amazed but no > longer doubts Snape's loyalty, helped immeasurably by the fact that > Snape is dead and therefore Harry doesn't have to deal with him > anymore. It's amazing how death improves some people's characters. Jen: Now *this* would be an interesting scenario, one that fits in with the relationship Snape and Harry have had since day 1. I suspect Harry would feel guilty though, as well as amazed. And *responsible*. For all his rationalizing and blaming of Snape for Sirius' death, Harry ultimately blames himself. Like you said though, when a character dies the door opens to learn astounding things as well as hear about their positive characteristics. Maybe through Snape's death Harry could come to some kind of resolution that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Jen said previously: > > JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution > > scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape > > is toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of > > Book 6. dzeytoun: > I would agree, except that I think we will see Snape go up in a > pillar of flames sometime in Book VII. Jen: This is all speculative, but the reason I think Snape *should* die in book 6 is because I suspect JKR is going to uncover the mystery of Godric's Hollow in this book. Snape is somehow involved with this plot, whether he was the eavesdropper, or was actually present at GH, or had some history with Lily, etc. So, once we get this crucial information and find out how Snape's past relates to his current job for the Order, well...it seems like his job is done. LV will certainly catch up with him soon, if Snape truly is the "one who has left forever." Maybe it will take two books to discover all this information, though, since JKR said books 6 & 7 are really one long book divided in two parts. Jen Reese From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 3 15:03:05 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 Oct 2004 15:03:05 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1096815785.102.45199.m20@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114567 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 3, 2004 Time: 11:00AM CDT (GMT-05:00) Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change 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 Hope to see you there! From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 15:05:34 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:05:34 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <20041003124614.11860.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > I think there's another option: Harry distrusts Snape's allegiance > to the Order; Harry is instructed to do something for Snape or Snape > demands that he do something; Harry doesn't; Snape gets whacked; > Harry gets one of Dumbledore's sorrowful explanations about why he > should have listened and what Snape was up to; Harry is amazed but no > longer doubts Snape's loyalty, helped immeasurably by the fact that > Snape is dead and therefore Harry doesn't have to deal with him > anymore. It's amazing how death improves some people's characters. > > Magda Now this is a scenario I find very likely. I can also easily see the "mirror image," especially given JKR's hints - i.e. "Snape is in a situation where his hatred of Harry flares at the wrong moment. Unable to overcome his bitterness, he does something that results in yet another debacle, perhaps his own death." Following this will be another sorrowful explanation from DD and another sad confession that he felt Snape could overcome..., yada, yada. Harry goes away pondering a philosophical lesson about how you ruin your life by holding on to hatred. Dzeytoun From djrfdh at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 15:06:07 2004 From: djrfdh at yahoo.com (djrfdh) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:06:07 -0000 Subject: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114569 Has everyone forgotten that the reason Snape hates Harry so much is because James saved Snapes' life? Some have said James did so to keep him and his "gang" from being expelled from Hogwarts; pehaps this is the case....why would anyone feel such hatred for someone who had saved their life unless there were other reasons involved? (Me thinks there are "other" factors which we do not know yet....perhaps in book six? Which I wish would be forthcoming soon!) Does anyone know any of Snape's previous history? Who were his parents? Is he a pureblood or a mudblood? How did he get the job of Potion's Instructor? Did Dumbledore give him the job because he was a brilliant student, or because he felt it would help Snape's morale, or was Snape forced into the position because DD knows something we do not? There's more to Snape than meets the eye.... Don't like Snape; had too many teachers like him....snideness; cruelty and unjust punishment does NOTHING to make a student a better person....it DOES, however, instill wicked thoughts of "pay-back"! if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! From djrfdh at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 15:12:18 2004 From: djrfdh at yahoo.com (djrfdh) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:12:18 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114570 > > Snape is dead and therefore Harry doesn't have to deal with him > > anymore. It's amazing how death improves some people's characters. > > > > Magda > I think you have been peering into the mirror of Erised too long and have fallen through! come back to reality....Snape's a jerk! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 15:15:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:15:55 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "djrfdh" wrote: snip. > if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! Alla: Really? You know I get VERY annoyed when other poster (not just you, ANYBODY) starts to make judgements about myself as REAL person, based on what I like and dislike in HP series. I would imagine quite a few Snape fans getting upset and I understand them perfectly. Snape is a VERY interesting and well developed character. I can and will go ballistic at him because of his abuse of Harry and Neville, but I am also quite fond of him in many ways. :o) So, do tell what does it say about me, please? Even if the poster admires what Snape does, it does NOT necessarily follow that such person admires abusive teachers in RL. I always take into consideration that many people argue something just for the sake of arguing , for the fun of it. I know I love doing that. Alla From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 15:15:50 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:15:50 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "djrfdh" wrote: > > Has everyone forgotten that the reason Snape hates Harry so much is > because James saved Snapes' life? Some have said James did so to keep > him and his "gang" from being expelled from Hogwarts; pehaps this is > the case....why would anyone feel such hatred for someone who had > saved their life unless there were other reasons involved? (Me thinks > there are "other" factors which we do not know yet....perhaps in book > six? Which I wish would be forthcoming soon!) Good points. Of course their is also the suspicion regarding Snape and Lily. Don't know if I buy into that one, either. Somebody a while back (wish I could remember the name) put forward an interesting theory: Snape is so irritated by James because people ASSUME he should be grateful toward him when in fact Snapes feels no obligation to be grateful at all. Also, let's remember that most of the "James saving Snape" info came from a third party. We have yet to hear Snape's take on the situation. > > Does anyone know any of Snape's previous history? Who were his > parents? Is he a pureblood or a mudblood? One would assume a pureblood, given that he was a DE and a Slytherin. I don't think it's ever been made explicit, however. How did he get the job of > Potion's Instructor? Did Dumbledore give him the job because he was a > brilliant student, or because he felt it would help Snape's morale, > or was Snape forced into the position because DD knows something we > do not? Well, the standard explanation here seems to be that he is acting as DD's spy and so DD had to find some way to keep him close at hand. > > Don't like Snape; had too many teachers like him....snideness; > cruelty and unjust punishment does NOTHING to make a student a better > person....it DOES, however, instill wicked thoughts of "pay-back"! > > if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! True. And all the excuses that he's just a fictional character aren't very convincing, either. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 15:23:42 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:23:42 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: >> True. And all the excuses that he's just a fictional character > aren't very convincing, either. Alla: What excuses, Dzeytoun? He IS a fictional character. In RL I would not let my child come close to a teacher like Snape, but I LOVE reading Snape and Harry interactions. If nothing else it gives me an excuse to rant at him. :o) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Oct 3 15:26:34 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:26:34 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Dzeytoun: > Snape can off course respond with detentions and taking points, but > if Harry continues his attitude of contempt and makes it clear that > he will not be cowed, what's Snape going to do? > > > > Another excellent technique (it has worked for me on multiple > occasions) is to treat Snape like an errant child and refuse to > acknowledge that he is speaking unless he uses at least minimally > polite language. > > Bookworm: > Your suggestions are appropriate for two adults. For a > child/student to *show* contempt for a teacher or to ignore him is > disrespectful and the teacher would be within his rights to > discipline him. > > A better approach, IMO, would be for Harry to be *very* respectfully > polite no matter what Snape says or does. If he can maintain that > attitude, then he would have truly developed some maturity in > dealing with Snape. > > Dzeytoun: > I would also add that Harry seems to be developing just this sort of > attitude in his final confrontation with Snape at the end of OOTP. > To wit: > > "Potter, what are you doing?" > > "Trying to decide which hex to use of Malfoy, sir," Harry replied > coldly. > > To which Snape is momentarily at a loss for words. > > Bookworm: > I did not read that as contempt toward Snape. The cold attitude was > directed at Malfoy. Harry was very matter-of-fact with Snape which > is why Snape was at a loss. Also, he is used to seeing Harry hotly > angry instead of coldly furious. The whole tenor of Harry's and > Draco's attitudes toward each other shifted in this scene. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm Renee: (a bit late, but it's hard to keep up with the many posts!) Eh, I don't know which edition you are reading, but mine - the UK hardback edition of 2003 - has a slightly different text: "What are you doing, Potter," said Snape, as coldly as ever. (...) "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir, said Harry fiercely." Snape stared at him. "Put that wand away at once," he said curtly. So it's Snape who speaks coldly, not Harry, who reacts more or less like he usually does. I'm not sure Snape is at a loss for words either; for all I know the staring is part of his intimidation tactics. And Dzeytoun, while Harry's answer is straightforward enough, he answers the question prompty and addresses Snape as 'sir'. So, while showing he won't be cowed, he remains polite. Regardless of what the various posters on this list think Harry *should* do regarding Snape, it's still JKR who'll decide what he *will* do. And looking at this exchange, my bet would be 'undaunted yet correct'. Renee (who thinks the OotP quote is a prime example of JKR's adverbitis) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 15:40:25 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:40:25 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, (message 114429) Magda > Grantwich > > wrote: > > > What would be the point of bringing Sirius > back? > > Because in all the hair-splitting, detailed discussions about this > issue, no one has made a compelling case that Sirius' presence is > somehow important to the plot of the series. > > > > mhbobbin: > > > > snip > > I am NOT convinced that Sirius is > > important to the storyline. > > endsnip > > Mac: But why is there a whole book devoted to Sirius? (PoA) What was > the purpose of this book? Was it just to acieve Pettigrew being > outed as scabbers, have him escape and, moreover, in wizard's debt > to HP? I don't think so. snip> > I for one don't think Sirius is an incomprehensible plot > deviation/hole/red herring. Over-loved maybe (yes I was one too - a > Sirius fan), but hardly insignificant. I guess only JKR *knows*, but > she says she's laid her clues carefully, so if they are there > concerning Sirius, it seems some of us have yet to find them. And, > yes, that includes me. > >snip mhbobbin: I believe Harry will descend like Orpheus beyond the Veil and attempt to bring Sirius back, as I've oft-posted, because I see clues which may mean, depending on a point of view, I am delusional or brilliant. My little quote above is meant to refer to Sirius' importance in the final two novels not to his overall importance to the story. When asked why is it so important for Sirius to not be dead, why is it so important that he come back--I am stymied. I cannot support a rationale because I see no clues yet. His role is diminished in Book Five. He's important to Harry and offers him a family bond with an adult missing in his life. But other adults give Harry better advice. And Hermione even doubts whether forming the DA is a good idea, once Sirius endorses it. Sirius is reckless and emotional. He may even be drinking too much. And Harry some times feels guilty about leaving Sirius to go back to school. A grim existence. Unrealized potential due to unfortunate circumstances. As written in my Post 114458, with two books left, JKR will have to lay some groundwork to justify sending Harry on a Quest beyond the Veil. I believe she doesn't have enough ink left--if she doesn't want to break our backs--to send him on a Mission that is unrelated to the larger story. Nor do I believe that DD or any one else would allow the potential Vanquisher to go on this dangerous Mission, without first having a really good reason related to vanquishing LV rather than the injustice and cruelty of this individual's death. And that would assume that Harry learns that such a Mission is possible. Grimly, mhbobbin From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 15:48:30 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:48:30 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114576 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > Renee: > (a bit late, but it's hard to keep up with the many posts!) > Eh, I don't know which edition you are reading, but mine - the UK > hardback edition of 2003 - has a slightly different text: > > "What are you doing, Potter," said Snape, as coldly as ever. (...) > "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir, said Harry > fiercely." > Snape stared at him. > "Put that wand away at once," he said curtly. Good point. I stand corrected. > > > So it's Snape who speaks coldly, not Harry, who reacts more or less > like he usually does. I'm not sure Snape is at a loss for words > either; for all I know the staring is part of his intimidation > tactics. And Dzeytoun, while Harry's answer is straightforward > enough, he answers the question prompty and addresses Snape > as 'sir'. So, while showing he won't be cowed, he remains polite. Well, defiance and rudeness are most definitely not the same thing. In fact, being strictly polite is often the best way of expressing defiance. Nor is courtesy and respect exactly the same thing. There are many ways of being courteous while making a lack of respect extremely clear. > > Regardless of what the various posters on this list think Harry > *should* do regarding Snape, it's still JKR who'll decide what he > *will* do. And looking at this exchange, my bet would be 'undaunted > yet correct'. I agree that should and will are very different things. I also agree that, in actual fact, what we are likely to see is more of the same, with Harry perhaps becoming somewhat more controlled, although also more hate-filled, and Snape growing a degree or two nastier. In other words, if I had to bet on what will *actually* appear in the next two books, I would say we will see a kind of fierce Cold War between the two of them, occasionally showing some smoldering heat as Snape pours on the nastiness and Harry can't resist taking advantage of opportunities here and there to push Snape's buttons (e.g. "Complaining again, Potter?" "Sorry,Professor, I didn't mean to snivel.") From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 3 15:58:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:58:11 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114577 Shaun: > > > > I doubt he's going to be broken by a 15 year old childs defiance. Dzeytoun: > Broken? Certainly not. Frustrated to the point that he decides it isn't worth it? Quite likely.< Pippin: If five years of Harry's defiance haven't frustrated Snape, what makes you think two years more will do the trick? Respect for the *position* of teacher is earned when one accepts the position of pupil. Regardless of whether you think Snape ought to have his job or not, as a teacher he has the right to demand that his pupils obey school rules, follow instructions, answer questions civilly and pay attention in class. He has never asked any more from Harry than this, and I fail to see how doing any of those things would be harmful to Harry. If an abusive person tells you not to jump off a cliff, would you do it just to prove they can't order you around? As for the idea that Voldemort's rule would be more benign than Snape's, last I looked Voldemort was trying to kill Harry and everybody else, and Snape and Dumbledore were trying to keep Harry and everybody else alive. That entails some suffering on Harry's part, as a treatment for cancer might require a child to be treated with poisons and irradiated. Pippin From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 16:15:37 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:15:37 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "djrfdh" wrote: > snip. if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! ---- Alla replied: > snip So, do tell what does it say about me, please? ---- Inge now: I love Snape. So count me in. I want to know what it says about me, too. I also love Sirius, Harry, Dumbledore, Lupin, Hagrid, Draco, Hagrid, Minerva (and many more)... does that say something about me? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 3 16:19:35 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:19:35 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114579 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution > scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape is > toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of Book 6. ;)< There's an old rule of story-telling: the villain dies in the last ditch. Since the conflict with Snape is the major source of dramatic tension, it can't be resolved much before the ending of Book Seven -- otherwise it would be like having Darth Vader die in the middle of Return of the Jedi or having Gollum die before Frodo gets to Mt. Doom. I figure Harry will have a choice between trusting Snape and someone who seems much more trustworthy. He will trust the wrong person, and Snape will suffer for it, but ultimately Snape will save Harry, thus paying back the debt to James. Whether Snape survives the conflict with Voldemort is irrelevant since at the end of Book Seven Harry will no longer be a Hogwarts student, and the conflict with Snape will have ended in any case. I think ol' Sevvie will still be around, though. He's tough. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 16:11:21 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:11:21 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114580 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > As for the idea that Voldemort's rule would be more benign than > Snape's, last I looked Voldemort was trying to kill Harry and > everybody else, and Snape and Dumbledore were trying to keep > Harry and everybody else alive. That entails some suffering on > Harry's part, as a treatment for cancer might require a child to be > treated with poisons and irradiated. If I may cut in...I do agree with Pippin here that we should keep the little thing, that Voldemort is trying to kill people and Snape is not an evil bigoted overlord, in mind. However...it's an interesting question as to *why* the things that Snape does that we could consider wrongdoings (I'm not saying evil, and I'm not for a reason) provoke such intense responses. I've plugged before the concept of the Ordinary Vices, and I think Snape falls into that category nicely. Voldemort is harder to comprehend in some ways--his evil is massive, and often as impersonal as it is personal. That is to say, of course he has it out for Harry personally, but he also regards people as undesirables and thus effaces their humanity into a category. I don't think he personally hates all the 'Mudbloods' he wants to exterminate--but it'd almost be more understandable if it were deeply personal. Voldemort is Radical Evil, and on a large scale. Snape's failings are more, so far as we have seen, on the personal level. Voldemort is the kind of thing that a whole society must mobilize to face as a group; Snape's wrongdoings are the kind of thing dealt with within society, within a group, a more limited situation. It's certainly more *human*, and is personal. Looking at Snape's behavior makes us ask the questions: "How should people treat each other on a daily basis? What about cruelty that doesn't involve anything so radical as torture? How do we all get along, dammit?" These are, of course, the base problems that occur *within* a liberal society, and Dumbledore, as the leader of the little society within Hogwarts, has the responsibility of trying to balance all personal claims. To sum up, because I probably wouldn't read my own writing above: Voldemort==Massive, Radical Evil--difficult to imagine, in some ways (lots of reader skepticism about the 'reality' of his actions) Snape==Everyday, Ordinary Vices--things we've all run into in some form or another, and much more difficult to figure out what to do with. As always, I think only for myself, but I hope this idea may be useful? -Nora enjoys the sun and blue sky and heads outside From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 16:34:46 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:34:46 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > There's an old rule of story-telling: the villain dies in the last > ditch. > Since the conflict with Snape is the major source of dramatic > tension, it can't be resolved much before the ending of Book > Seven -- otherwise it would be like having Darth Vader die in the > middle of Return of the Jedi or having Gollum die before Frodo > gets to Mt. Doom. Exept I'm not sure that JKR sees Snape as "the major source of dramatic tension." A major source, certainly. But I'm just not convinced she places as much weight on the Snape/Harry questions as the fandom tends to. > > I figure Harry will have a choice between trusting Snape and > someone who seems much more trustworthy. He will trust the > wrong person, and Snape will suffer for it, but ultimately Snape > will save Harry, thus paying back the debt to James. Quite possible. Whether > Snape survives the conflict with Voldemort is irrelevant since at > the end of Book Seven Harry will no longer be a Hogwarts > student, and the conflict with Snape will have ended in any case. > I think ol' Sevvie will still be around, though. He's tough. Oh god, I hope not. I want to see Snape strung up by his feet for the crows. Dzeytoun From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Oct 3 16:37:40 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:37:40 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: Renee: >> > Regardless of what the various posters on this list think Harry > > *should* do regarding Snape, it's still JKR who'll decide what he > > *will* do. And looking at this exchange, my bet would be 'undaunted > > yet correct'. Dzeytoun: > I agree that should and will are very different things. I also agree > that, in actual fact, what we are likely to see is more of the same, > with Harry perhaps becoming somewhat more controlled, although also > more hate-filled, and Snape growing a degree or two nastier. > > In other words, if I had to bet on what will *actually* appear in the > next two books, I would say we will see a kind of fierce Cold War > between the two of them, occasionally showing some smoldering heat as > Snape pours on the nastiness and Harry can't resist taking advantage > of opportunities here and there to push Snape's buttons > (e.g. "Complaining again, Potter?" "Sorry,Professor, I didn't mean > to snivel.") Renee: On the one hand, I'd love to see such a Cold War, to see Harry taunting Snape by being politely snarky. On the other hand, there's a catch to this. In the initial stages of such a conflict, Snape's reaction will probably be to punish Harry and unfortunately one of the punishments he has at his disposal isn't just personal: he can dock house points. And he will. Which means Harry will be fighting Snape at the cost of all the other Gryffindors. True, this has hardly stopped him before, but one of the aspects of growing up is getting less self-centered and taking other people's well-being into account. Engaging in a cold war with Snape while disregarding the consequences to his fellow housemates may run counter to Harry's maturing process. So I think he can only fight Snape effectively if he manages to convince the other Gryffindors that they, too, will ultimately benefit from it - which will only be the case if Harry can make Snape change his nasty ways. If he can do this, he'll also show his capacity for leadership. If he doesn't dwell on how his behaviour will affect his housemates, this strategy may only lead to the next spectacular failure. As other people have pointed out, there's more at stake than just a student's conflict with an abusive teacher. Renee From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 16:45:12 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:45:12 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > >> > Respect for the *position* of teacher is earned when one > accepts the position of pupil. But Hary didn't accept, did he? He was sort of drafted into the situation. Regardless of whether you think > Snape ought to have his job or not, as a teacher he has the right > to demand that his pupils obey school rules, follow instructions, > answer questions civilly and pay attention in classHe has never > asked any more from Harry than this, and I fail to see how doing > any of those things would be harmful to Harry. But he has asked more. He has asked to be treated with a respect that he does not extend to Harry, even though it is his duty to do so, he has asked that Harry endure years of abuse. > > > As for the idea that Voldemort's rule would be more benign than > Snape's, last I looked Voldemort was trying to kill Harry and > everybody else, and Snape and Dumbledore were trying to keep > Harry and everybody else alive. That entails some suffering on > Harry's part, as a treatment for cancer might require a child to be > treated with poisons and irradiated. Well, what has Voldemort done that we've actually SEEN? He killed Harry's parents. Bad, but they were his enemies. He tried to kill Harry. Bad, but that was self-preservation. He brought himself back to life. Can't fault him for that. He tried to get his hands on the prophecy. Self-preservation again. Snape, meanwhile, has subjected Harry to five years of non-stop abuse. Yes, in many ways, Snape is MUCH more evil than Voldemort. Granted, we keep being TOLD that Voldemort is a great and powerful evil. But we really haven't see that. On the other hand, we keep being TOLD that Snape is a good guy. But his evil is readily apparent. On balance, if I had to choose which to send to the gallows on the basis of what I've actually SEEN, I would definitely give Voldie the pass and let Snape swing. From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 16:47:07 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:47:07 -0000 Subject: FILK: Chudley Cannons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114585 Chudley Cannons (QTA, Chap. 7) To the tune of Bosom Buddies, from Jerry Herman's Mame Dedicated to all of your poor suffering Chicago Cubs fans (notice that the Cannons and Cubs have the same initials) THE SCENE: Two loyal Cannons fan celebrate(?) their team and its chronic misfortunes BOTH We root for the Chudley Cannons, To the bitter end We'll cheer on the Chudley Cannons, They're last in the league, so They don't have big egos. FIRST FAN Though their brooms are as slow as turtles SECOND FAN Though each game will be lost BOTH In spite of that, for our team, the Chudley Cannons We'll keep keeping our fingers crossed. SECOND FAN (spoken) Tho' now and again we may think that our Quidditch opponents might lose FIRST FAN (spoken) Tho' sometimes some false expectations might rise That it's going to be at last our year: "The championship will naturally be ours." SECOND FAN (spoken): Until the season actually begins, then hope dies [singing] But oh well, BOTH: We'll cheer for the Chudley Cannons SECOND FAN: Our heroes FIRST FAN: In orange BOTH: Though they have us agonizing SECOND FAN: Being the chronic dwellers BOTH: In the Quidditch cellar SECOND FAN: Though they may rarely catch the Quaffle or win it with the Snitch In spite of that, we'll root for the Chudley Cannons Our loyalties will not be switched. FIRST FAN: [speaking] Each time that their critics have written, "The Cannons can't get any worse," Right straightaway they're proved incorrect That's when we pull up our bootstraps and each man on the team grits his teeth And we say, "Let's give `em something they'll never expect!" [singing] We get worse! SECOND FAN: So be off with your Falmouth Falcons Likewise, your Magpies It's simply that we root for the Chudley Cannons Though half our players cannot fly. FIRST FAN: [speaking] I feel it's my duty to tell you it's no longer 1892 We cannot say "We Shall Conquer" when we constantly flub. Exactly whose team are we most like? Let's think! SECOND FAN: Well, what teams do you think? FIRST FAN: I'd say somewhere in between the `62 Mets and the `04 Cubs! BOTH: [singing] But really SECOND FAN: Holyhead may end up ahead The Wasps may really sting Puddlemere may stay United And the Kenmare Kestrals Fly faster than thestrals. FIRST FAN: And though they say that speed and power makes a team finish first, In spite of that, we cheer for the Chudley Cannons Although we no doubt are perverse BOTH: We cheer for the Chudley Cannons `Cause we're pessimistic And quite masochistic But we just ignore the abuse Remember that who else but the Chudley Cannons No offense or defense You know in advance they will lose! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 16:51:05 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 16:51:05 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > Renee: > On the one hand, I'd love to see such a Cold War, to see Harry > taunting Snape by being politely snarky. On the other hand, there's > a catch to this. In the initial stages of such a conflict, Snape's > reaction will probably be to punish Harry and unfortunately one of > the punishments he has at his disposal isn't just personal: he can > dock house points. And he will. Which means Harry will be fighting > Snape at the cost of all the other Gryffindors. > > True, this has hardly stopped him before, but one of the aspects of > growing up is getting less self-centered and taking other people's > well-being into account. Engaging in a cold war with Snape while > disregarding the consequences to his fellow housemates may run > counter to Harry's maturing process. So I think he can only fight > Snape effectively if he manages to convince the other Gryffindors > that they, too, will ultimately benefit from it - which will only be > the case if Harry can make Snape change his nasty ways. > > If he can do this, he'll also show his capacity for leadership. If > he doesn't dwell on how his behaviour will affect his housemates, > this strategy may only lead to the next spectacular failure. As > other people have pointed out, there's more at stake than just a > student's conflict with an abusive teacher. > > Renee Well, we are kind of back to SHOULDS again. You bring up some good points. My answers: YOU CAN'T DISMISS ABUSE. I'm sorry, it doesn't matter what's at stake. And I mean that quite literally. As for the House Point issue, don't know how I would answer that in the should realm. In the realm of what we'll see in the books - well, as you say, it hasn't made a difference up to this point and I rather think that things like House Cups aren't going to weigh very heavily on Harry's mind in the last two books. I doubt anybody else is going to worry all THAT much about them, either. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 17:32:17 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:32:17 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > > True, this has hardly stopped him before, but one of the aspects of > growing up is getting less self-centered and taking other people's > well-being into account. Engaging in a cold war with Snape while > disregarding the consequences to his fellow housemates may run > counter to Harry's maturing process. So I think he can only fight > Snape effectively if he manages to convince the other Gryffindors > that they, too, will ultimately benefit from it - which will only be > the case if Harry can make Snape change his nasty ways. > > > Renee Sorry, I meant to comment on this before. A Gryffindor Revolt against Snape would be extraordinarily amusing and certainly something the worthless, abusive git deserves. However, I doubt we'll see such. No room in the last two books for such an interesting diversion. Dzeytoun From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 3 17:44:46 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:44:46 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114588 Jen wrote: > > JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution > > scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape is > > toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of > Book 6. ;)< Pippin: > There's an old rule of story-telling: the villain dies in the last > ditch. > Since the conflict with Snape is the major source of dramatic > tension, it can't be resolved much before the ending of Book > Seven -- otherwise it would be like having Darth Vader die in the > middle of Return of the Jedi or having Gollum die before Frodo > gets to Mt. Doom. Jen: But wait! Snape is not the villain here. Voldemort will certainly be around until the bitter end, but Snape is expendable after a certain point. I don't believe JKR anticipated the vast reader interest in Snape; she certainly seems mystified by the suggestion that Snape is appealing since she considers him 'a deeply horrible person'(Family Education, 1999). Then there's this little gem of a quote: Professor Snape, she said, was based on a teacher she despised: "The great thing about becoming a writer is you can get revenge on everyone." (The Record, 1999) Not only can she get revenge by writing him a certain way, she can also plan his demise! Pippin: > I figure Harry will have a choice between trusting Snape and > someone who seems much more trustworthy. He will trust the > wrong person, and Snape will suffer for it, but ultimately Snape > will save Harry, thus paying back the debt to James. Jen: You're not referring to Lupin, are you? ;) I do think Snape might save Harry though; it's only fair that if Snape has to meet a sticky end he could at least rest in peace. Pipin: > Whether Snape survives the conflict with Voldemort is irrelevant > since at > the end of Book Seven Harry will no longer be a Hogwarts > student, and the conflict with Snape will have ended in any case. > I think ol' Sevvie will still be around, though. He's tough. Jen: If that's the case, most of the things we discuss here are irrelevant! If he's your favorite character, how JKR chooses to end his story might be more important than what happens to Harry. I'm not in that camp, but I do think whether Snape lives or dies is an important part of the story. From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 18:12:28 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:12:28 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114590 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Jen: But wait! Snape is not the villain here. Voldemort will > certainly be around until the bitter end, but Snape is expendable > after a certain point. I don't believe JKR anticipated the vast > reader interest in Snape; she certainly seems mystified by the > suggestion that Snape is appealing since she considers him 'a deeply > horrible person'(Family Education, 1999). > > Then there's this little gem of a quote: > > Professor Snape, she said, was based on a teacher she despised: "The > great thing about becoming a writer is you can get revenge on > everyone." (The Record, 1999) :). I hadn't heard that one! I agree that she has been blindsided by some of the fan's preferences, particularly with regard to Snape and Draco. Indeed, she evidently finds it a deeply unhealthy trend, something with which I agree. I have seen speculation that she may kill both of them off in the next book simply to squash what she sees as their perverse popularity. I doubt that's the case, and I could believe it more of Draco than Snape. For one thing she seemed to find the Draco/Hermione ship to be repulsive. For another Draco is probably a lot more expendable, in terms of story, than Snape. Judging by OOTP, Draco may well have served his purpose in any case. Who can take him seriously as a threat in the face of war, the prophecy, and other developments? One thing I find interesting is Movie!Snape. He is considerably less prominent (particularly in PoA) and much nicer than Canon!Snape. Indeed, in PoA he came off as kind of the crank with the heart of gold. I wonder how they are going to deal with him in later movies? My inclination is they will do much the same as in PoA -- leave a lot of stuff out. Of course, they could also go the Cujo route and just flat change the story. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 18:19:01 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:19:01 -0000 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114591 I was thinking this morning about Draco. Lot's of people have expressed dismay a the lack of development of his character. JKR has expressed dismay at his popularity among fans. Some have even speculated that JKR will kill him off in the next book just to squash what she sees as a perverse and unhealthy movement. I don't think she would kill him off just for that reason, but I do wonder if Draco's usefulness to the story has rather run its course. He was, well, pathetic in OOTP. After setting him up as a great rival with the prefect thing, he essentially disappears through most of the book and when he does appear again it's not easy to take him very seriously. He still remains the same vicious child he was in Book I. Although that served well for a villain in the first couple or three books, it's hard to see how he can figure large in a world of war and death and prophecies. Simply put, it seems that either his character needs to develop, and fast, or he will lose what little relevance he has left to the story. Dzeytoun From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 18:29:25 2004 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:29:25 -0000 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: I was thinking this morning about Draco. Lot's of people have expressed dismay a the lack of development of his character. JKR has expressed dismay at his popularity among fans. Some have even speculated that JKR will kill him off in the next book just to squash what she sees as a perverse and unhealthy movement. I don't think she would kill him off just for that reason, but I do wonder if Draco's usefulness to the story has rather run its course. He was, well, pathetic in OOTP. After setting him up as a great rival with the prefect thing, he essentially disappears through most of the book and when he does appear again it's not easy to take him very seriously. He still remains the same vicious child he was in Book I. Although that served well for a villain in the first couple or three books, it's hard to see how he can figure large in a world of war and death and prophecies. Simply put, it seems that either his character needs to develop, and fast, or he will lose what little relevance he has left to the story. Dzeytoun --- Inge now: I missed Draco in OOTP. He could've had more room. But to say that he can't figure large in a world of war - I don't agree. Hopefully his hatred for Harry will come to show more in the next book. Draco has every reason (from his own point of view, that is) to hate Harry more than ever now that his dad has ended up in Azkaban - and I can easily see Draco planning some sort of evil revenge on Harry for that. After all - some of his last words in OOTP to Harry were: "You're dead, Potter!" - and even though Harrys reply was meant to be joking - I do feel there's some promising meaning behind Dracos threat. There's more to Draco than what we saw in OOTP (hopefully). From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 18:50:54 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:50:54 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114593 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > I've plugged before the concept of the Ordinary Vices, and I think > Snape falls into that category nicely. > Snape's behavior makes us ask the questions: "How should people treat > each other on a daily basis? What about cruelty that doesn't involve > anything so radical as torture? How do we all get along, dammit?" > > These are, of course, the base problems that occur *within* a liberal > society, and Dumbledore, as the leader of the little society within > Hogwarts, has the responsibility of trying to balance all personal > claims. Which brings up the ever-nagging question why *does* Dumbledore tolerate this behavior. Does tolerating Snape's petty nastiness show us that such behavior is exceptable in the Wizarding World, or is it another example of Dumbledore's own tolerance? I've never bought the "Snape-is-TRAINING-Harry-to-function-under- stress/toughen-him-up/whatever" theories; I think Snape is just being petty and self-indulgent. But unfortunately I can see Dumbledore thinking of Snape's behavior as a way of exposing Harry to the 'nasty side of tolerance'--after all, the werewolf, half-giant, centaur, etc. have all been personable, making tolerance of them easy. I really don't think Snape's behavior is supose to be seen as good, by any means, but I do think it hasn't reached to point (in Wizarding World context) that is should no longer be tolerated. Perhaps there's a difference between tolerance and intolerance. What I mean is, it's easy for us (and Harry?) to empathize with Lupin and hate the intolerance toward werewolves. But does likeing Lupin make us (and Harry?) tolerant? Or intolerant of the intolerance-towards- werewolves? If Harry had been presented with a werewolf who acted like Snape, would he care about the prejudice werewolves face. Would he think it was justified?! And, yes, you can argue that being (for example) a werewolf and being a nasty bastard are two radically different things--Lupin didn't choose to be a werewolf while Snape's behavior is under his control. But I'm not so sure. Snape's real choice is whether or not he *indulges* himself or keeps it all inside. Basically, it's whether or not he stays in the closet about being a nasty bastard. From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 07:45:16 2004 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 07:45:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, the master of restraint Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114594 Recently a thought has occurred to me that it is certainly a good thing for myself and especially others, that the Gods did not grant me magical powers. Were it otherwise, my annoying supervisor at work would soon find himself running around as something less cuddly than a ferret, and innocent strangers who just happen to be in my way on the freeway may find themselves as fish. In other words, I know that I lack the restraint required to wield magic in an ethical fasion. Which leads me to pondering the mighty Dumbledore. Dumbledore has already defeated dark wizards. He has been around the magical ferris wheel many, many times and surely knows a great deal about how to wield and manipulate magic - yet he practices incredible restraint when displaying his powers. He doesn't appear to interfere in the lives of others unless it is absolutely necessary and he often shows up in the books at the very last minute - forcing other people to face, challenge, and even defeat the foe ahead of time. I have wondered if Dumbledore deliberately holds himself back so that others who are less experienced can find their way through serious challenges on their own... If so, I find that is the mark of a great, great wizard. To have the power - yet be able to resist using it - to be able to practice that restraint - that is ispiring to me. Also, Dumbledore seems to make baffling choices - that lie on the edge of compassion rather than common sense. For example, he had to know that conceited git, Gilderoy Lockhart was a big fat liar, yet he hired him to be a teacher anyway. Why? He keeps Trelawney as a teacher even though he knows most of her self-proclaimed ablities are a figment of her own imagination... he kept Hagrid at Hogwarts even though Hagrid had been in serious trouble and forbidden to do magic. He also had to know Hagrid would be trouble in the future for him simply because of Hagrid being Hagrid. But he shows him a great deal of loyalty. Dumbledore hired a werewolf, a centaur, a sadistic squib, an elf who had been fired from her previous post, an elf who left his master on purpose, a weird guy in a turban, a guy with a rotating eye...need I go on? And then there is Snape. He hired a bitter death eater with a disturbing personality disorder to teach potions at Hogwarts. What a CRAZY thing to do. It is all such a mystery. This eccentric group of people must give him a continual headache - and yet - he seems to be unruffled by it. Clearly Dumbledore is trying to teach the students at Hogwarts many things about the world beside how to do magic. He certainly exposes them to a wide variety of unusual people. And then there is his mysterious relationship with Harry - Dumbledore sentenced Harry to a loveless home when he lost his parents. How could he do that? Yes, it kept Harry alive - but surely Harry deserved to have some happiness too? Dumbledore keeps Harry in the dark most of the time. He keeps forcing Harry to react to circumstances without pre-conceived perceptions. Is he cruel? Or is he brilliant? And how does he know Harry won't die from one of these encounters? Does he have a way of seeing the future? Dumbledore did befriend Harry when he finally came to Hogwarts for the first couple of years. But in the last book he totally backed away from Harry and left him emotionally defenseless. Why would he do that? It has been very troubling to me. The explanation that he gave Harry about being afraid Voldemort would try to get to him through Harry just doesn't sit well with me. Dumbledore does not appear to be the kind of person who is afraid. Surely he could have made some kind of physical gesture to Harry to let him know he still cared about him - or given him some form of emotional reassurance in a letter. It makes no sense. The only logical explanation that I can come up with is that Dumbledore simply doesn't want Harry to rely on him for his own good. (And perhaps, there is some of that in reverse as well....) It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the following books. The underdogs appear to be "forced" to live out their destiny without interference. Yet I think it is possible we will find in the end Dumbledore was the master puppeteer all along. Freud From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 19:02:02 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:02:02 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Respect for the *position* of teacher is earned when one > accepts the position of pupil. Regardless of whether you think > Snape ought to have his job or not, as a teacher he has the right > to demand that his pupils obey school rules, follow instructions, > answer questions civilly and pay attention in class. He has never > asked any more from Harry than this, and I fail to see how doing > any of those things would be harmful to Harry. If an abusive > person tells you not to jump off a cliff, would you do it just to > prove they can't order you around? > Tonks here: I AGREE! That is what I have been trying to say. Snape is a bit on the nasty side, but he is not evil. And being curt and no nonsense is not the same as abuse. We can't have Neville blow up the whole castle after all. And a student's postion is to act in a respectful manner regardless of his feeling. That is just being civilized after all. I know that some of the posters here are responding from a position of having been abused themeselves in the past. I think that it is hard for them to see past that to the point that you are making, and they maybe never will. Tonks_op From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 3 19:23:42 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:23:42 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114597 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > I agree that she has been blindsided by some of the fan's > preferences, particularly with regard to Snape and Draco. Indeed, > she evidently finds it a deeply unhealthy trend, something with which > I agree. > Kneasy: Now, now - don't exaggerate. She's surprised at the popularity of Snape and Draco but puts it down to the actors playing them in the films - and she's 'shocked' (take that how you will) by the number of web site moderators who want to be sorted into Slytherin. Interesting too that the person she 'hates' most isn't Snape but Vernon Dursley. IIRC "deeply unhealthy trend" was the sort of language used by those who wished to ban - or burn - the books. >Dzeeytoun: > One thing I find interesting is Movie!Snape. He is considerably less > prominent (particularly in PoA) and much nicer than Canon!Snape. > Indeed, in PoA he came off as kind of the crank with the heart of > gold. I wonder how they are going to deal with him in later movies? > My inclination is they will do much the same as in PoA -- leave a lot > of stuff out. Of course, they could also go the Cujo route and just > flat change the story. > Kneasy: They could try it I suppose. Never get away with it though; besides it wouldn't be canon. How can you take seriously anything that isn't canon? I must admit I've been following this thread with vast amusement. Amusement because I find it difficult to believe that there can be any confusion between fantasy and reality and also because JKR deliberately set out for Harry to go through Hell, both at Privet Drive and at Hogwarts. There's an interview on Quick Quotes where she states that the WW is meant to be a parallel of the Muggle world with the same faults, vices, racism, unhappiness, corrupt politicians - it is not a haven of sweetness and light. And Harry has to learn this. In another interview she recalls that a mother asked her not to write any more bad things because she wants "the books to be a happy escape" for her children. JKR wonders if she's actually reading the same books because Harry's life is just sheer hell, getting worse book by book. So it's JKR's world - she sets the parameters. If you're not happy - well, you could always stop reading them, I suppose. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Oct 3 19:28:51 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:28:51 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114598 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > > > Renee: > > On the one hand, I'd love to see such a Cold War, to see Harry > > taunting Snape by being politely snarky. On the other hand, there's > > a catch to this. In the initial stages of such a conflict, Snape's > > reaction will probably be to punish Harry and unfortunately one of > > the punishments he has at his disposal isn't just personal: he can > > dock house points. And he will. Which means Harry will be fighting > > Snape at the cost of all the other Gryffindors. > > > > True, this has hardly stopped him before, but one of the aspects of > > growing up is getting less self-centered and taking other people's > > well-being into account. Engaging in a cold war with Snape while > > disregarding the consequences to his fellow housemates may run > > counter to Harry's maturing process. So I think he can only fight > > Snape effectively if he manages to convince the other Gryffindors > > that they, too, will ultimately benefit from it - which will only > be > > the case if Harry can make Snape change his nasty ways. > > > > If he can do this, he'll also show his capacity for leadership. If > > he doesn't dwell on how his behaviour will affect his housemates, > > this strategy may only lead to the next spectacular failure. As > > other people have pointed out, there's more at stake than just a > > student's conflict with an abusive teacher. > > > > Renee > > Well, we are kind of back to SHOULDS again. You bring up some good > points. My answers: > > YOU CAN'T DISMISS ABUSE. I'm sorry, it doesn't matter what's at > stake. And I mean that quite literally. Renee: I'm not dismissing the abuse, and in Real Life the likes of Snape ought to be brought to justice. But I do suspect JKR is not going to address this particular abuse directly - meaning that she won't have Harry (or anyone else, for that matter) give Snape his just deserts for what he does to some of his students. That abuse as such is horrible and ought to have severe consequences for the abuser doesn't mean the fictional character Severus Snape will be directly punished for his abuse of Harry, or even cured of this evil habit. JKR has a rather backhanded way of meting out justice. (The cases of Lupin and Sirius come to mind.) My guess would be that Snape will meet his fate as an ultimate consequence of his treatment of Harry, but that there won't be a straight arrow pointing from one to the other. Dzeytoun: > As for the House Point issue, don't know how I would answer that in > the should realm. In the realm of what we'll see in the books - > well, as you say, it hasn't made a difference up to this point and I > rather think that things like House Cups aren't going to weigh very > heavily on Harry's mind in the last two books. I doubt anybody else > is going to worry all THAT much about them, either. Renee: To be honest, so do I. But given the fact that Harry is supposed to vanquish Voldemort or die, I doubt putting Snape in place is going to be foremost on his agenda, once he's gone through all the traditional stages of mourning. It's a matter of priorities. For whatever you say, Voldemort is worse than Snape. Snape treats Harry like filth. But Voldemort tried to kill Harry when he was a baby and only failed because Lily threw herself before his wand. Voldemort has caused the deaths of many and incites his servants to murder. Or so we're told. The main problem, IMO, is that while JKR is very succesful in showing us how evil Snape is, she's much less succesfull in showing us how evil Voldemort is. That's also my main gripe with the series at this moment: that the fallibity, nastiness, untrustworthiness, selfishness, aggression, stupidity, cruelty and what-have-you of the good guys is depicted so much more convincingly than the evil of Voldemort c.s. Renee From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 19:41:20 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:41:20 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114599 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > "djrfdh" wrote: > > snip. > if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! > ---------------------------- > Alla replied: > > snip > So, do tell what does it say about me, please? > ---------------------------- > Inge replied: > I love Snape. So count me in. I want to know what it says about me, > too. > I also love Sirius, Harry, Dumbledore, Lupin, Hagrid, Draco, Hagrid, > Minerva (and many more)... does that say something about me? Tonks here: Well liking Snape could say many things depending on the person. As for me there are things that I respect about Snape. And of course in the media that can't be named, I love Allen Rickman's Snape!!, but that is Hollywood for you!. As to the books, I don't agree with Snape's attitude towards some of his students, but I can see past that. I too like all of the good guys in the books. I don't understand the people on the list that don't like Hagrid, for example. I think Hagrid has a certain charm. But in RL I have many friends that are quite different from one another. Could never have a party and invite them all. I can only say that I see past the surface of a person to their their true self. I try to find something good in eveyone. I am still looking for something in Tom Riddle, but.. that one might be hopeless. I think that DD looks at people the same way. He sees the good in everyone and looks past the garbage and baggage. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 19:48:53 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:48:53 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114600 >> Kneasy: > Now, now - don't exaggerate. > She's surprised at the popularity of Snape and Draco but puts it > down to the actors playing them in the films - and she's 'shocked' > (take that how you will) by the number of web site moderators who > want to be sorted into Slytherin. Interesting too that the person she > 'hates' most isn't Snape but Vernon Dursley. > > IIRC "deeply unhealthy trend" was the sort of language used by those > who wished to ban - or burn - the books. Alla: I don't think Dzeytoun was exaggerating that much, actually. Here is the quote from Eddinburg festival : "Also, will we see more of Snape? You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape? [Laughter]. Isn't this life, though? I make this hero?Harry, obviously?and there he is on the screen, the perfect Harry, because Dan is very much as I imagine Harry, but who does every girl under the age of 15 fall in love with? Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. Girls, stop going for the bad guy. Go for a nice man in the first place. It took me 35 years to learn that, but I am giving you that nugget free, right now, at the beginning of your love lives." I don't know at least in regard to Draco it is clear to me that she calls him a BAD GUY. I am not implying that fans should stop liking him as a CHARACTER, though. If someone would tell me that he/she likes people with worldview of Draco or Snape in RL, THEN I would be worried, I suppose. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 3 20:01:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:01:21 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I don't know at least in regard to Draco it is clear to me that she > calls him a BAD GUY. > Kneasy: In the context of a romantic relationship, yes she is. But that's hardly equivalent to considering him to be the spawn of the Devil as some seem to. > I am not implying that fans should stop liking him as a CHARACTER, > though. > Kneasy: Draco I'm not impressed with; he's so ineffectual. If you're gonna be nasty, do it properly. Interesting that in an interview last year (Albert Hall? NBC?) she says that Snape has a certain 'ambiguity' - now what do you think that means? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 20:05:24 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:05:24 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114602 > > Kneasy: > Draco I'm not impressed with; he's so ineffectual. If you're gonna be > nasty, do it properly. > > Interesting that in an interview last year (Albert Hall? NBC?) she says > that Snape has a certain 'ambiguity' - now what do you think that mean. Alla: That she wants to keep her fans on their toes and keep guessing about the fate of the characters? Seriously though, you don't have to convince me that Snape has a certain ambiguity, but FOR ME this ambiguity lies in the fact that we don't know MUCH about his reasons to deflect and about his past. I see NOTHING ambiguous in the abuse he dishes out to Harry and Neville on the daily basis. From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 3 12:21:50 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:21:50 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? (Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114603 > Dzeytoun: > > JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay > > over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why > > would she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. Jennifer: Like she said- it's the bad boy syndrome. Extremely exciting and always ends in disaster and it makes no sense. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 3 20:18:00 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:18:00 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I see NOTHING ambiguous in the abuse he dishes out to Harry and > Neville on the daily basis. Kneasy: Thank heavens. I'd hate it if he was doing it by accident. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 20:18:08 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 13:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041003201808.46968.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114606 --- dzeytoun wrote: > But respect is NOT due his teacher pippin, for ANY reason, and this > is NOT the way to deal with bullies. The ONLY way to deal with > bullies is to confront them constantly, comprehensively, and > unyieldingly. > > Dzeyotun That is not true. You're starting to sound like a crank, Dzeytoun, and doing a pretty good Snape impersonation yourself. You're entitled to your opinions, the rest of us are entitled to ours and this constant bludgeoning is going nowhere. Definition of a bore: someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Magda (who doesn't know why that definition flitted into her head - really) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 20:19:04 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:19:04 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > So it's JKR's world - she sets the parameters. > If you're not happy - well, you could always stop reading them, I suppose. True, but meaningless. Of course JKR will do whatever she wants. That is her power and right as a writer. And of course we will continue to say absolutely whatever we want about what she does. That is our power and privilege as readers. If we don't like what she writes, as you say, we can stop reading the books. If she doesn't like what we say, she can stop writing them. Somehow, I doubt either party will take that course of action, however. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 20:21:50 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:21:50 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > I see NOTHING ambiguous in the abuse he dishes out to Harry and > > Neville on the daily basis. > > Kneasy: > Thank heavens. > I'd hate it if he was doing it by accident. To use your own vernacular, now, now, don't be sarcastic. It only makes you look arrogant. From s_ings at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 20:22:54 2004 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ADMIN: Rudeness and Insults Message-ID: <20041003202254.54355.qmail@web41121.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114609 Hello, everyone. >From the HBF: "We welcome debate, but do not attack or insult other list members." Interpretations and opinions of canon are as varied as our membership; debating and discussing these interpretations and sharing opinions are the reasons for this group's existence. As adults, we expect everyone here to accept that we are all entitled to our opinions, and we expect that people should be able to disagree with one another without being snide or insulting. Please keep your comments and critiques focused to the merits of the argument. Do not attack or insult other list members. If you find yourself losing your temper, don't hit 'Send'. Read your response later and find a way to make your point without attacking others. Please keep it civil. We reserve the right to pull offending threads. Sheryll aka Rylly Elf, for the Admin Team ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 20:24:48 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:24:48 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <20041003201808.46968.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > Definition of a bore: someone who can't change his mind and won't > change the subject. > > Magda (who doesn't know why that definition flitted into her head - really) Chuckle. Pretty good definition. :) I'll admit to it, as well. But, being a bore in a good cause is not a bad thing. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 3 20:27:09 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:27:09 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > > > wrote: > > > > > > I see NOTHING ambiguous in the abuse he dishes out to Harry and > > > Neville on the daily basis. > > > > Kneasy: > > Thank heavens. > > I'd hate it if he was doing it by accident. > > To use your own vernacular, now, now, don't be sarcastic. It only > makes you look arrogant. Kneasy: Arrogant: Unduly appropriating authority or importance; aggressively conceited or presumptious; haughty; overbearing. (OED) Care to re-read your posts over the past couple of days? From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 20:32:37 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:32:37 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I see NOTHING ambiguous in the abuse he dishes out to Harry and > > > > Neville on the daily basis. > > > > > > Kneasy: > > > Thank heavens. > > > I'd hate it if he was doing it by accident. > > > > To use your own vernacular, now, now, don't be sarcastic. It only > > makes you look arrogant. > > Kneasy: > > Arrogant: Unduly appropriating authority or importance; aggressively > conceited or presumptious; haughty; overbearing. (OED) > > Care to re-read your posts over the past couple of days? Temper, temper From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 20:41:17 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:41:17 -0000 Subject: Occlumency questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114613 I've been reading a load of backposts (though Yahoo!Mort may have stubbornly not revealed the most pertinent amongst them) and wondering about Snape's Worst Memory and the things he put in the pensieve. The assumption that (after my grossly inadequate search) appears to have been made, is that Snape hid those memories because he didn't want Harry to see them. But could it not also/rather be because they were memories he found so emotion-provoking that he would not be in a fit state to teach Occlumency with them in his head? This would work with the idea that `The Pantsing' is not actually Snape's worst memory - there must be plenty of worse things that have happened to him - the title of that chapter came from Harry's assumptions. `The Pantsing' is then downgraded to the status of a rage-provoking memory that Snape finds difficult to supress, particularly in Harry's presence. I then wondered whether having some thoughts removed to the pensieve may have changed some of Snape's answers to Harry during the lessons. These memories are in the pensieve when he tells Harry `Yes, that is my job', though not throughout the first speech of the first lesson. Could there have been a memory that he didn't have that would have changed that answer? Others have noted that it wouldn't make sense for Snape to imply so directly that he was spying if he were afraid that You Know Who might be hacking Harry's brain (figuratively speaking). But something else jumped out at me, and I've not found any discussion of it ? perhaps because everyone was so delighted to have so much else to analyse in the few pages dedicated to the Occlumency lessons ? is that Snape glosses over *how* they know that You Know Who knows that Harry's seeing into his mind. OotP: Chapter 24, Occlumency. UKHB: 470-471 `How do you know?' said Harry urgently. `Is this just Professor Dumbledore guessing, or -?' `I told you,' said Snape, rigid in his chair, his eyes slits, `to call me "Sir".' `Yes, sir,' said Harry impatiently, `but how do you know-?' `It is enough that we know,' said Snape repressively. `The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings...' So how *did* they know? Snape (over the course of half a page because of Harry's constant interruptions) basically says that it was during the snake vs Mr. Weasly vision that You Know Who realised that Harry was seeing what was going on. How did LV know? And how do Snape and the Order know that he knows? Is it significant that they know that, but not that Harry's already dreaming about the corridor? Is Harry's dreaming about the corridor *up until* snake.vs.Weasly because You Know Who is dreaming of getting his hands on the prophecy, but *after* snake.vs.Weasly Harry's dreaming because You Know Who is feeding him misinformation? Have I just repeated what a load of other people have already said? Dungrollin, pondering half-formed thoughts... From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 20:57:25 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:57:25 -0000 Subject: Occlumency questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > I've been reading a load of backposts (though Yahoo!Mort may have > stubbornly not revealed the most pertinent amongst them) and > wondering about Snape's Worst Memory and the things he put in the > pensieve. > > The assumption that (after my grossly inadequate search) appears to > have been made, is that Snape hid those memories because he > didn't want Harry to see them. But could it not also/rather be > because they were memories he found so emotion-provoking that he > would not be in a fit state to teach Occlumency with them in his > head? > Good question. It's interesting, isn't it, that Snape has so many problems with the very things he scolds Harry about? If ever there was a man who wears his emtions on his sleeve, it would be Snape. > This would work with the idea that `The Pantsing' is not > actually Snape's worst memory - there must be plenty of worse > things that have happened to him - the title of that chapter came > from Harry's assumptions. `The Pantsing' is then > downgraded to the status of a rage-provoking memory that Snape finds > difficult to supress, particularly in Harry's presence. Yes, it does seem odd that that would be a former DE's worst memory. But on second thought, what makes a memory bad? Fear? Anger? Horror? Sadness? Embarassment? Or are all these things weighed differently for different people? Maybe from Snape's perspective a memory of murder isn't as bad as this memory. > > I then wondered whether having some thoughts removed to the pensieve > may have changed some of Snape's answers to Harry during the > lessons. These memories are in the pensieve when he tells > Harry `Yes, that is my job', though not throughout the first > speech of the first lesson. Could there have been a memory that he > didn't have that would have changed that answer? Others have > noted that it wouldn't make sense for Snape to imply so directly > that he was spying if he were afraid that You Know Who might be > hacking Harry's brain (figuratively speaking). Very good point. It also makes you wonder what You-Know-Who's reaction would be if he popped in and found Snape teaching Harry Occlumency. One possibility is that Voldie thinks that Snape is a double-agent. Therefore, he would put down the remarks about spying to part of Snape's cover. > > But something else jumped out at me, and I've not found any > discussion of it ? perhaps because everyone was so delighted to > have so much else to analyse in the few pages dedicated to the > Occlumency lessons ? is that Snape glosses over *how* they know > that You Know Who knows that Harry's seeing into his mind. > > OotP: Chapter 24, Occlumency. UKHB: 470-471 > `How do you know?' said Harry urgently. `Is this just > Professor Dumbledore guessing, or -?' > `I told you,' said Snape, rigid in his chair, his eyes slits, > `to call me "Sir".' > `Yes, sir,' said Harry impatiently, `but how do you > know-?' > `It is enough that we know,' said Snape repressively. > `The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you > are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings...' > > So how *did* they know? Snape (over the course of half a page > because of Harry's constant interruptions) basically says that it > was during the snake vs Mr. Weasly vision that You Know Who realised > that Harry was seeing what was going on. How did LV know? And how > do Snape and the Order know that he knows? > > Is it significant that they know that, but not that Harry's > already dreaming about the corridor? Is Harry's dreaming about > the corridor *up until* snake.vs.Weasly because You Know Who is > dreaming of getting his hands on the prophecy, but *after* > snake.vs.Weasly Harry's dreaming because You Know Who is feeding > him misinformation? > This is an interesting set of questions. Barring further revelations, I suppose from Voldemort himself, I don't suppose we can know. > Have I just repeated what a load of other people have already said? > > Dungrollin, pondering half-formed thoughts... From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Sun Oct 3 21:17:26 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:17:26 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114615 > And, yes, you can argue that being (for example) a werewolf and being > a nasty bastard are two radically different things--Lupin didn't > choose to be a werewolf while Snape's behavior is under his control. > But I'm not so sure. Snape's real choice is whether or not he > *indulges* himself or keeps it all inside. Basically, it's whether or > not he stays in the closet about being a nasty bastard. I don't think Snape is that bad "for the wizarding world". These are people that allow their children to play games that are potentially lethal. A bludger to the head sent Oliver Wood to the hospital wing for a long time. Yet his parents allowed to play it again after that. That kind of disregard for someone's health and well being would look at a teacher such as Snape as something not worth thinking about. I can imagine Neville's grandmother telling him to buck up and take it, if he complained about Snape at home. Molly always seemed more upset with Sirius' expectations about Harry than Snape's treatment of him. And she's had how many Gryffindor children going through potions? As far as the house points, I think that's a moot point. No matter how many points Snape takes away, Dumbledore allows his own prejudice to override the points system and make sure that Gryffindor wins. Casey From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 21:25:52 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:25:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, the master of restraint In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" wrote: > > > The explanation that he gave Harry about being afraid Voldemort > would try to get to him through Harry just doesn't sit well with > me. Dumbledore does not appear to be the kind of person who is > afraid. Surely he could have made some kind of physical gesture to > Harry to let him know he still cared about him - or given him some > form of emotional reassurance in a letter. It makes no sense. > > The only logical explanation that I can come up with is that > Dumbledore simply doesn't want Harry to rely on him for his own > good. (And perhaps, there is some of that in reverse as well....) > > It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the > following books. > > The underdogs appear to be "forced" to live out their destiny > without interference. Yet I think it is possible we will find in > the end Dumbledore was the master puppeteer all along. > Well, this is another subject that could go on forever. But to be brief, I agree that Dumbledore's actions are often inexplicable and his explanations lacking. However, I don't think that it is do to his being a puppetmaster. Rather, I think he's largely a victim of the plot. In order to tell the story she wants, JKR has to have mysteries and challenges that wouldn't exist if the adults around Harry behaved in common-sense ways. This means that a lot of times the characters, particularly Dumbledore, aren't very consistent in their behavior or clear in their thinking and communication. Dumbledore in particular suffers since through at least the first three books he was essentially nothing but a walking plot device. Now the plot device has become a person, and the transition isn't particularly easy. As you say, examples abound. Why leave Harry with the Dursleys? For some nefarious plot or complicated scheme? No, JKR wanted a fairy- tale bad childhood for the boy and so she cooked up a reason, protection, for Dumbledore to place Harry with his relatives. Why does Dumbledore not just sit Harry and Snape down together and straighten things out? Because it suits JKR's plot for that tension to exist. Why did Dumbledore not teach Harry Occlumency? Because JKR needed Snape to teach it in order to deepen the Harry/Snape hatred and set up that "I'll never forgive him" moment in OOTP. Why not send Harry *some* sign of affection/support in OOTP? For some deep philosophical reason? No, JKR needs Harry to be isolated and for Dumbledore to make certain mistakes so she comes up with the "fear of possession" plot thread to justify keeping them apart. JKR has said on multiple occasions that she regards DD as the epitome of goodness. It seems that she means his explanations and motives to be taken at face value, at least the vast majority of the time. And in that doing so causes problems -- well, consistency is not JKR's greatest strength. Dzeytoun > Freud From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 3 21:30:54 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:30:54 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: >> > As far as the house points, I think that's a moot point. No matter > how many points Snape takes away, Dumbledore allows his own > prejudice to override the points system and make sure that > Gryffindor wins. > > Casey Well, at least once. It's interesting we really never hear about the House Cup again. And one wonders what on Earth happened at the end of fifth year? Was there a mass rearrangement of points? Did Slytherin win due to the reign of the Inquisitorial Squad? Did they not give the cup? Dzeytoun From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 21:31:21 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:31:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, the master of restraint In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" wrote: >> Which leads me to pondering the mighty Dumbledore. > Dumbledore has already defeated dark wizards. He has been around > the magical ferris wheel many, many times and surely knows a great > deal about how to wield and manipulate magic - yet he practices > incredible restraint when displaying his powers. He doesn't appear to interfere in the lives of others unless it is absolutely necessary and he often shows up in the books at the very last > minute - forcing other people to face, challenge, and even defeat > the foe ahead of time. > > I have wondered if Dumbledore deliberately holds himself back so > that others who are less experienced can find their way through > serious challenges on their own... > > If so, I find that is the mark of a great, great wizard. To have > the power - yet be able to resist using it - to be able to practice that restraint - that is ispiring to me. > > Also, Dumbledore seems to make baffling choices - that lie on the > edge of compassion rather than common sense. (snip)> > This eccentric group of people must give him a continual headache - and yet - he seems to be unruffled by it. > > Clearly Dumbledore is trying to teach the students at Hogwarts many things about the world beside how to do magic. He certainly exposes them to a wide variety of unusual people. > (snip) Does he have a way of seeing the future? > > The explanation that he gave Harry about being afraid Voldemort > would try to get to him through Harry just doesn't sit well with > me. Dumbledore does not appear to be the kind of person who is > afraid. Tonks_op DD is the equivelant of God in the series. IMO. and JKR shows him to be a kind, loving person with the same personaliy that God has. Also DD was trying to protect Harry by not being around him much in OP because he was afaid that LV would posess Harry in an attempt to get to DD. DD is not afraid for himself, but for Harry. I don't think that DD is afraid of anything, he has seen it all. And he has a undying faith in the goodness of humankind, and all kind for that matter. Tonks_op From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 3 22:16:10 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:16:10 -0000 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114619 Inge now: I missed Draco in OOTP. He could've had more room. Bookworm: When? Where? The book is long enough as it is. I think that is part of the problem with those characters we would like to know more about - there just isn't enough page room. And as much as we might like to hear more about them, it might take away from the flow of Harry's story. Ravenclaw Bookworm (who thinks Draco will be around to harrass Harry for a while) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 22:18:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:18:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, the master of restraint In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: snip. > > DD is the equivelant of God in the series. IMO. and JKR shows him to > be a kind, loving person with the same personaliy that God has. > Alla: I do disagree with "Dumbledore is G-d" statement. Dumbledore admits at the end of OOP that he made mistakes , "Old man mistakes', he calls it. Those mistakes led to disaster. No, Dumbledore is good, but definitely not G-D, IMO. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Oct 3 22:23:14 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:23:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Message-ID: <1f7.191b56.2e91d5d2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114621 In a message dated 10/3/2004 12:16:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Elvishooked at hotmail.com writes: "djrfdh" wrote: > snip. if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! ---- Alla replied: > snip So, do tell what does it say about me, please? ---- Inge now: I love Snape. So count me in. I want to know what it says about me, too. I also love Sirius, Harry, Dumbledore, Lupin, Hagrid, Draco, Hagrid, Minerva (and many more)... does that say something about me? ======== Sherrie here: Sign me up, too - I love Snape. Toss in Hermione, Minerva, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Ginny... Sherrie (who admits she never WAS terribly fond of Sirius...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 22:47:03 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:47:03 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <1f7.191b56.2e91d5d2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114622 > "djrfdh" wrote: > > snip. > if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! > snip. > Sherrie here: > > Sign me up, too - I love Snape. Toss in Hermione, Minerva, Dumbledore, > Hagrid, Ginny... > > Sherrie > (who admits she never WAS terribly fond of Sirius...) > Alla: On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like certain characters, what does it say about us? I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about me? :o) From mnaperrone at aol.com Sun Oct 3 22:48:50 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:48:50 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? (Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114623 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" wrote: > > > > > Dzeytoun: > > > JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay > > > over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why > > > would she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. > Ally: I have to poke in here, because if you're referring to JKR's most recent book chat, I think her references to Snape and the romantic attachments many fans have are tongue in cheek responses to fan crushes. Her quotations, taken in plain print, are often misread because she uses sarcasm so much, and because the print misses inflections, etc. She also said in the same interview that he is "a gift of a character" and she has repeatedly said that she is one of her favorites. I don't think she's trying to suggest anything about the future of Snape, while on the contrary, she's been a lot more direct and clear about another bad boy, Draco, who she has specifically warned people about getting attached to. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 3 23:01:50 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:01:50 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114624 Upthread debate about whether Sirius is significant to the future plot. > Mac wrote: But why is there a whole book devoted to Sirius? (PoA) What was > the purpose of this book? Was it just to acieve Pettigrew being > outed as scabbers, have him escape and, moreover, in wizard's debt > to HP? I don't think so. Watch out Sirius fans, maybe JKR has more > to do yet than kill him. > > What could be more? - to reveal that actually he really was no > friend of HP's after all. Nobody's commented yet on my post number > 114398 which is disappointing. > > I for one don't think Sirius is an incomprehensible plot > deviation/hole/red herring. Over-loved maybe (yes I was one too - a Sirius fan), but hardly insignificant. I guess only JKR *knows*, but she says she's laid her clues carefully, so if they are there > concerning Sirius, it seems some of us have yet to find them. And, > yes, that includes me. Hannah: I never really considered that PoA is a book devoted Sirius, even though he is in the title. Like all of the books, it is about Harry. I would say PoA is more about Lupin than it is about Sirius, or about even more about Snape. Anyway, as to Sirius' 'function' in the remaining story, I think he will play a part, but not by returning to life. The backstory, the events that went on when James and co. were at school is very significant to so many of the 'mysteries' that are central to the story. Sirius will have his function in the future plot, but it will be via his actions in the past, which we're sure to see/ hear more about. Hannah, who promises to read post 114398 and comment on it if she can think of something intelligent enough! From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Oct 3 23:27:57 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:27:57 -0000 Subject: McGonagall first subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > > > kmc wrote: > > > In OotP, McGonagall tells Umbridge that she had been teaching > for 39 years this December. Using the dates from the HP-Lexicon, > > > McGonagall began teaching in 1956. Dumbledore did not become > > > Headmaster until 1970. Dumbledore was the Transfiguration > teacher when Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts in 1942. > > > > > > What subject did McGonagall teach when she started at Hogwarts > > > December 1956? > > > > > > If she started as the Transfiguration teacher, did Dumbledore > > > teach anther subject like DADA or Potions? > > > > Yb: > > What makes you say DD wasn't the headmaster in 1956? Is that on > the Lexicon? (Tools around, doing some research... Drat! Timelines > are down at the HPL! Drat!) Well... I'll assume you got that from > the Lexicon, and they got it from Lupin's quote in the Shrieking > > Shack, "Then DD became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic." I > always felt that DD took over after Dippet, and that said quote > could be interpreted different ways... Anyway, IF DD had to teach > another class (because I'm almost certain McGonagall has been > teaching Transfiguration, and only Transfiguration, for four > decades, she just seems so solid on it, and we never saw her > substituting for Lupin in PoA, now did we?) he probably taught DADA. > Just a hunch. Potions is less likely. He'd get his beard in the > cauldron by accident. > > > > Valky: > Another possibility is that between the time when DD was a > transfiguration teacher and the time when he became Hogwarts > Headmaster, which most likely includes 1956 he was doing something > else entirely. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine DD holding > some *other* position of importance in the WW before he was asked to > Headmaster the school, as opposed to him moving directly there from > a teaching role. Mac: I agree with Valky. That is, it was my own first explanation that DD was not always a teacher. Perhaps the time when TMR was at school was particularly trying and a promising wizard (DD) was recruited for just that period, much as DD has had several 'fixed term' DADA teachers (though his choices seem especially suspect in retrospect - we may one day find out what this means). As for DD not being up to potions (Yb), as someone else (sorry not to be able to recall who) pointed out (much better) a few weeks back DD was, according to the chocolate frog card, the discoverer of 12 uses of dragon's blood and helped Flamel (himself perhaps the best alchemist ever) as well as defeating Grindenwald by means unknown. I doubt there is much he isn't good at, including potions. From alexpie at aol.com Sun Oct 3 23:54:02 2004 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:54:02 EDT Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry Message-ID: <128.4c521b11.2e91eb1a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114626 Arrowsmith wrote: > In another interview > she recalls that a mother asked her not to write any more bad things > because she wants "the books to be a happy escape" for her children. > JKR wonders if she's actually reading the same books because Harry's > life is just sheer hell, getting worse book by book. > Well, yes and no. What the mother in question actually objected to was sex rearing its ugly head. She was upset that Harry (and the rest) might grow into normal adolescents, with the attendant crushes and fumbling. JKR's amusement arose from the fact that Harry, and the Wizarding World, are dealing with dark times and murder, and that this mother of HP readers was deeply concerned about Harry's crush on Cho. (I believe that this came up before the dreaded, child-corrupting, kiss in the Room of Requirement). What asses parents can be! Barb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 00:01:22 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:01:22 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114627 I keep wondering why DD had the SS moved. I realize the whole plot revolves around the capture of the thing, but I mean, why, all of a sudden, was Gringott's no longer the best place for it? (I also wonder how long the SS had been at Gringotts.) Of course, it seems no coincidence that DD moved the SS at the same time Harry started Hogwarts. The simplest answer seems to be that DD may have assumed that LV would attempt to get the SS because Harry was finally learning to be a wizard, so the stakes were higher. If I remember correctly, no one knew where LV was at the beginning of SS, but maybe DD decided to take no chances. But if was such an all- fired secret, he shouldn't have had Hagrid get the stone while Harry tagged along (I understand Harry had to know, as far as the plot goes). But then again, by moving the SS to HW, wasn't DD putting all the students at risk? Or maybe DD thought that DD and/or Harry would have a better chance of thwarting LV at HW? Someone please convince me this was more than a plot device! Angie (who admits that she raises more questions than possible answers, and who also wonders why Harry was able to catch a train back to the Dursleys in SS, but the Dursleys had to thereafter come to the train station to get Harry?) From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 00:15:53 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:15:53 -0000 Subject: Occlumency questions/LV 's plans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114628 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > But something else jumped out at me, and I've not found any > discussion of it ? perhaps because everyone was so delighted to > have so much else to analyse in the few pages dedicated to the > Occlumency lessons ? is that Snape glosses over *how* they know > that You Know Who knows that Harry's seeing into his mind. Annemehr: The best idea I could come up with, is that Dumbledore could tell when he looked into Harry's eyes the night of the snake attack, just as he was Portkeying Harry and the Weasleys to Grimmauld Place. At that instant, Harry felt hatred for Dumbledore and wanted to sink fangs into him. Dumbledore tells Harry his view of the incident in his office after the MoM battle: "On those rare occassions when we had close contact, I thought I saw a shadow of him stir behind your eyes..." Unfortunately for those of us with analytical turns of mind, Dumbledore only looked into Harry's eyes *after* the attack on Arthur. The only other incident of "close contact" I could find was just as Dumbledore left Hogwarts after Marietta had turned in the DA: Dumbledore grasped Harry's arm as he urged Harry to apply himself to Occlumency lessons. Again, Harry felt that urge to strike. Although Harry and Dumbledore were close to each other at the hearing, there was no eye contact or touch at all, which makes me feel unable to conclude whether or not this was close enough to be a test. Still, for what it's worth, that's my best guess. Dungrollin: > Is it significant that they know that, but not that Harry's > already dreaming about the corridor? Is Harry's dreaming about > the corridor *up until* snake.vs.Weasly because You Know Who is > dreaming of getting his hands on the prophecy, but *after* > snake.vs.Weasly Harry's dreaming because You Know Who is feeding > him misinformation? Annemehr: In order for LV to send Harry misinformation, LV has to *know* the corridor and the DoM himself. Before the snake attack, yes, I believe the corridor dreams were LV's, which Harry was seeing. Maybe even for a while after that. ~~What was the snake, and why was it there?~~ I think this is important to gauging what LV's intent was and how it changed during the year. The snake might be presumed to be Nagini possessed by Voldemort. I don't quite feel easy about believing this, because possession by Voldemort is apparently damaging, and I don't think LV would want to damage Nagini nor cause her to mistrust him. If it were possible for LV to possess an animal benignly, wouldn't he have been able to "keep" the animals in the Albanian forest for longer? The snake could have been some other snake possessed by Voldemort. This seems quite possible, and doesn't pose any problems as far as I can see. Except he has to get a really big snake... The snake could also have been LV's animagic form. Naturally, groans are arising from many people reading this, because they figure we've had enough secret animagi. I understand the sentiment, although it seems quite reasonable to think that LV may have wanted to acquire this skill, would certainly not have registered, and would indeed turn out to be a snake. Either of the possession options would, I think, have been much safer for LV as a way of "going in" to the MoM than the animagus one. After all, if the snake were discovered and *caught*, as long as it's merely a possession, LV can just withdraw himself in an instant leaving some poor old regular snake to mystify the Ministry. Yep, I'm going with the second option: LV possessed a snake (probably not Nagini). Whatever the vehicle used, what was Volde!Snake doing in the MoM that night? If it were LV in animagus form, I suppose he could have tried to find the prophecy room and get the prophecy orb. I don't think he would have risked that, though, as I said. So I suppose he was going in via the possessed snake to reconnoiter. His only (as far as we know) Unspeakable DE was Rookwood, who was still in Azkaban at the time. LV's original attempt at the prophecy, Sturgis Podmore, had been caught. The next attempt, with Bode, also failed -- though Lucius had used Imperius on him, Bode went mad when he touched the orb, and was already in St Mungo's when Harry et al went to visit Arthur there. So, I think LV was there, possessing a snake, to gather more information regarding how to get at the prophecy. While attacking Arthur (which he was not originally planning to do), it seems he felt Harry's emotions of horror and realised what was happening. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It was only just before (chapter-wise, I mean) the escape of the imprisoned DEs that Harry realised during an Occlumency lesson that the door he'd been dreaming of was the door to the DoM. It had always been closed so far, so I infer that LV had not yet seen what was behind it. After Rookwood was available to LV, I believe the dreams were more and more about making Harry actually want to see what was behind the door. I think it was after Rookwood's escape that LV formulated his plan of luring Harry to the DoM. LV soon learned all he needed to know, began sending Harry dreams on purpose, and then it was only a matter of time until LV felt Harry's horror at "seeing" Sirius being tortured, and would know Harry was coming. That's when he put the rest of the plan into action. Make sense? Time to pick holes! :)) Annemehr From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 00:17:01 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:17:01 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > Hannah: I never really considered that PoA is a book devoted Sirius, > even though he is in the title. Like all of the books, it is about > Harry. Mac: agreed. How could it not be. I would say PoA is more about Lupin than it is about Sirius, > or about even more about Snape. Mac: agreed too. I am a Lupin lover (please don't let him be evil!), but I'll go wherever JKR takes me, much as I'd follow DD (flawed though he may or may not be). And yes, Snape, we do learn a LOT about him - tough nowhere near enough. The last 100 or so posts have been dominated by him - a testament to how complex he is. > > Anyway, as to Sirius' 'function' in the remaining story, I think he > will play a part, but not by returning to life. Mac: No nor me either. I took JKR at her word, when she said (not a quote) that when someone is dead they stay dead. And yes I think he's dead because JKR said he 'had' to die and we would find out why. It's that finding out why which, in my view, contains the nub of my comment that he would return - not physically (though Harry may talk with him 'beyond the veil' somehow or even as a past 'mirror image' - memory that Sirius may have left behind, like TMR's in the diary). Who knows? I'm not even going to try to guess. However, I was trying to get across a fear/suspicion (of mine - fear because I love the Sirius character Harry loves) that we might not like what Sirius turns out to have *actually* been, once it is revealed (assuming there may be something to reveal). >The backstory, the > events that went on when James and co. were at school is very > significant to so many of the 'mysteries' that are central to the > story. Sirius will have his function in the future plot, *********but it > will be via his actions in the past, which we're sure to see/ hear > more about.***** Mac: (the above with asterisks is MY emphasis of your post Hannah). As you see above, fully agreed. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 00:23:20 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:23:20 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114630 > > > Renee: > > > On the one hand, I'd love to see such a Cold War, to see Harry > > > taunting Snape by being politely snarky. On the other hand, > there's a catch to this. Engaging in a cold war with Snape while disregarding the consequences to his fellow housemates may run > > > counter to Harry's maturing process. > > Dzeytoun: > > Well, we are kind of back to SHOULDS again. You bring up some > good points. My answers: > > YOU CAN'T DISMISS ABUSE. I'm sorry, it doesn't matter what's at > > stake. And I mean that quite literally. > > Renee: > > I'm not dismissing the abuse, and in Real Life the likes of Snape > ought to be brought to justice. But I do suspect JKR is not going to address this particular abuse directly - meaning that she won't have Harry (or anyone else, for that matter) give Snape his just deserts for what he does to some of his students. > Valky: Here is my view on how I expect the scenario will play out. The abusive behaviour that Snape has indulged himself in throughout his time teaching Harry will not be dismissed nor resolved. The problem is not between Harry and Snape, and I am sure we all realise this, the problem is within Snape. As most have pointed out Harry can't *change* Snape by manner of his response or even non response to Snape. The wisdom I believe that DD employs is that Snape is his own undoing. It is Snape's choice to distance himself from the reach of Harry for Harry has tried to reach out to him, and therefore it is Snapes loss, not Harry's. Snape has a redemptive pattern, so we always hope that in the end his heart will spill open and he will find the peace that has eluded him all his years. However, he has a lot in common with Sirius, he projects his own inner torment at others and has a childish and hypocritical manner of dealing with his pet hates. For this reason I can see the possibility that Snape will share Sirius' fate. Unless he holds tighter to that brief moment of humanity in occlumency, and begins to allow himself to recieve Harrys' Love he has thrown away his lifeline and his last true chance to redeem. >From there it's a downward spiral. Noone like Harry has ever reached out to Snape before. Snape hates Harry's innocence and natural beauty, because most people he has ever known in his life have turned that raw power that beauty against him. Snape has learned to hate what Harry represents, he can quietly respect people like DD & MacGonagall for their wisdom, coming of age and experience as far as he is concerned, the also have the beauty and raw power of Harry but he can dismiss it with them. Not so with the boy who lived and looks like his father. I'm pretty sure Dzeytoun will not instantly agree with all of this, and say that Harry need not be subject to this unfair treatment anyway. Which I see as a perfectly good response. However, it is on Snapes back to save himself, because he faces a worse fate by *his own* doing than Harry does by Snapes doing against him. Harry has true, good friends in Hermione and Ron, if in the next two years Snape goes too far with Harry, they have done it before they will do it again, half the darn classroom will stand up and jinx the silly old bugger at once. *Harry* HAS *earned* this respect from them and he has their protection and confidence. If Snape pushes the barrel too far with Harry he faces consequences that he doesn't imagine. Harry is not alone and he is very powerful he is already a leader and his following are brave and fierce. Snape losing control of his classroom is the least of what could happen but it demonstrates that it is up to Snape to put away the gauntlet and accept Harry's open heart because it is *his* undoing if he doesn't. In a lot of ways that doesn't compare to the cases of abuse that, Dzeytoun, you are familiar with. But this *is* the story that we are dealing with here and it shows that abusive people do damage to themselves by their actions which is a very good message to bring across. The way Harry *has* dealt with Snape is the best way possible. He has tried to go beyond the pettiness he has built himself *respect* beyond the respect that Snape demands from him. Now Harry *commands* respect just by being there, just by existing. Snape is privileged to be witness to what Harry has done with his lot, including the lot that Snape has dished him. It's not always possible in abusive cases that the abused be so risen above the abuser. But in Harry's case it has already happened so why do we quarrel? Valky From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 00:46:24 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:46:24 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > I keep wondering why DD had the SS moved. I realize the whole plot > revolves around the capture of the thing, but I mean, why, all of a > sudden, was Gringott's no longer the best place for it? (I also > wonder how long the SS had been at Gringotts.) Mac: what an interesting post. I guess I'd never thought of it before, so let us take it that it wasn't the obvious (but not at all interesting) reason that yes there'd be no book if they hadn't. Clearly, they had to. There was a break-in attempt at Gringott's on the very day Hagrid moved it (by Quirrel!Mort we are later told, I believe). One has to assume that while goblins are sly, secretive, devious and may even have a 'magic of their own' (as does the house elf and the centaur - interesting staue that one in the MoM), a dark and powerful wizard, which LV even as VApor!Mort *IS*, would be able sooner or later to counter their protections. The chief protection was secrecy which, once compromised (as it clearly was) meant the only place safer was Hogwarts (quote that 'reliable source' - NOT, but probably here yes - Hagrid). Given that the stone itself AND goblin business generally is SO secret, it's a surprise the story got into the Daily Prophet. Did DD leak it? > Of course, it seems no coincidence that DD moved the SS at the same > time Harry started Hogwarts. The simplest answer seems to be that DD > may have assumed that LV would attempt to get the SS because Harry > was finally learning to be a wizard, so the stakes were higher. If I > remember correctly, no one knew where LV was at the beginning of SS, > but maybe DD decided to take no chances. But if was such an all- > fired secret, he shouldn't have had Hagrid get the stone while Harry > tagged along (I understand Harry had to know, as far as the plot > goes). > > But then again, by moving the SS to HW, wasn't DD putting all the > students at risk? Or maybe DD thought that DD and/or Harry would > have a better chance of thwarting LV at HW? > > Someone please convince me this was more than a plot device! Sorry Angie - not sure I can. However, there's no place like Hogwarts, (repeat and click heels of those ruby slippers) .. there's no place like Hogwarts ... and since the stone *had* to be kept from LV it needed to be at Hogwarts once Gringott's had proven so nearly unsafe. Not proposing this as an 'original' theory, but it seems each of the books so far could be seen as (among other things) being about LV getting something he needs in order to return to fight HP at the end (some of them obtained unwittingly): SS/PS - the stone (drat - foiled!); CoS - the chamber of Secrets itself - maybe it'll figure again - and another attempt at Harry; PoA - a 'faithful servant'; GoF - blood of an (*the*) enemy; OoP - the prophecy. > Angie (who admits that she raises more questions than possible > answers, and who also wonders why Harry was able to catch a train > back to the Dursleys in SS, but the Dursleys had to thereafter come > to the train station to get Harry?) From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Oct 4 00:47:25 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:47:25 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114632 I've been wanting to respond to Susana's insightful analysis of the house elves (and comments on Demetra's and SSSusan's responses). This is a bit later than I'd planned, however. Susana: > I wish to offer an analysis of House Elves' enslavement based on Dobby's, Kretcher's and Winky's behaviour. I didn't search more than two months of posts and even so I can tell most of my theory has been hinted here and there. I hope this compilation is helpful in any way. Debbie: It has been discussed periodically over the years. In 2002 the group held structured discussions based on questions raised in Dr. Philip Nel's book on HP, which highlighted earlier threads on the same subject. One of them related to the role of house elves in the series: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39094 which sparked some discussion as well (some of which did not thread properly, so look at the indext for the next hundred or so posts). Susana: > 3 - We don't know if wizards enslaved elves or if elves enslaved themselves. > > This is an important issue but I think we'll never know. To me, the elf/wizard relation appears to be a 'before time' thing going back to cave men. A kind of symbiosis between two magical creatures: the wizards grant elves safety and food while the elves grant wizards comfort. My point bringing this up is that the magical bound between an elf and its master is not something that can be preformed on Dobby while he's shopping for socks. It's a magic binding of the species - something not comparable to anything we see wizards do in poterverse (thus my consideration that elves might have done it to themselves). > Debbie: I think we may learn more about this. Hermione states in GoF that their enslavement goes back "centuries" suggesting that it doesn't go back to the dawn of time. Like the other marginalized and/or disaffected beings in the Potterverse, I expect the elves' history will be important, especially if the fallacies of the Statue of the Magical Brethren are going to be corrected by the end of the series. Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > - JKR said "He's a house-elf, they've got powers wizards haven't got > (but wizards have also got powers that house-elves haven't) -- and > perhaps she wanted us to take that as "There are lots of things they > can't do." But perhaps that's not so true; perhaps it's actually a > very powerful form of magic that's been, in large part, kept in check > by the lives most HEs lead. Debbie: The simultaneous possession of powerful magic and an innate desire to be of service (they seem to *need* to work) made the elves very vulnerable to enslavement. And even if the enchantment that enslaved them was mutual at first, they're an easy target for exploitation. It keeps their powers in check while they are offered the right to do what they love best. I believe that the house elves' enslavement is the result of a magical "contract" symbolized by the clothes. No doubt in the beginning the elves expected that the relationship would be mutually beneficial -- the elves received protection and an outlet for their apparently innate need to provide service, and the masters received the services. And in a way it still is mutually beneficial, despite the masters' abuse of the power. We may cringe at the notion that Winky's self-worth is derived entirely from providing good service to the Crouch family, but Dobby, though free and proud of it, derives his self-worth from providing good service to others as well. Susana: My solution would be that elves can only be bought and sold in their childhood, before the magical bound is created - a terrible thought, I know. But we also don't know what type of relationship elves have with their offspring (they're not human - don't be Hermione on this). Debbie: My own take is that elves cannot be sold. Winky was dismissed, not sold, when she disobeyed. Surely Crouch would have tried to get a return for her if he could. Also, there's the House-Elf Relocation Office at the MoM, which implies that elves are not sold. I suspect it's more likely that elves are inherited by those who inherit the master's real property. Susana: > 3 - Winky disobeyed a direct order from her master (stay in the tent) but acting - she thought - in her master's best interest. > [snip] > 4 - Dobby took action against the will of a person he regarded, but acting - he thought - in that person's best interest. Dobby punished himself (ironed his hands!) for acting - he thought - in that person's best interest. > > This is the most interesting point. Kretcher felt no need to punish him for lying to Harry, yet Dobby ironed his hands for harming Harry. There could be several reasons for Dobby's behaviour: > a) He could be punishing himself for acting against his official master's interest. But it doesn't sound at all like that if we follow the sequence of the conversation: he *had* to iron his hands after he blocked the barrier but he *didn't mind* because he thought *Harry* was safe. Debbie: I think it's a). Dumbledore says that Kreacher "was bound by the enchantments of his kind, which is to say that he could not disobey a direct order from his master, Sirius." I take this to mean he was *incapable* of disobeying (otherwise the Order was doomed, as Kreacher would have liked nothing better than to reveal the location of headquarters to Narcissa). If Winky could not disobey a direct order, she must not have been ordered to keep Barty Jr. in the tent. Barty Crouch Jr states in his veritaserum confession that Winky's transgression was allowing him to obtain a wand. He obtained the wand by himself (while Winky was hiding her face in the Top Box due to her fear of heights), so Winky did not disobey a direct order. Therefore, I believe that Dobby was not violating a direct order when he took action to keep Harry away from Hogwarts. However, because his actions breached his duty of loyalty to his master, he felt compelled to punish himself. Guilt, and nothing more. He still felt punished himself for saying bad things about Lucius Malfoy even after he was freed (GoF ch. 21). Kreacher felt such contempt for Sirius, however, that he didn't find punishments necessary, ever. Susana: > Another cause of unhappiness for elves would be the death of their hart-master. Kretcher is the ultimate example: not only he lost his mistress, he came into service for a wizard he totally despises. IMO, this are the main subjects that SPEW should be dealing with. SPEW should be trying to call wizards to the responsibility of having a house elf: they take care of you and YOU TAKE CARE OF THEM! Debbie: If house-elves belong to a "family" it may be that that is where their loyalty lies. In the case of the Black family, Sirius' own family regarded him as a traitor, so Kreacher's inability to transfer his loyalty from Mrs. Black to Sirius is not surprising. In Dobby's case, I do not believe he was raised in the Malfoys' service. There is a seldom-used House-Elf Relocation Office (mentioned in FBAWTFT). Because house elves are, in Dobby's words, bound to serve one house or family forever" (Winky mentions that her mother and grandmother before her worked for the Crouches), this office seems to have no function unless the house or the family ceases to exist. It's my theory that Dobby was formerly the Potters' elf and that he was "relocated" to the Malfoys after the Potters' home at Godric's Hollow was destroyed and his masters killed. Dobby's devotion to Harry is extraordinary and doesn't seem fully explainable by the explanation Dobby gives -- that house elves were miserably treated while Voldemort was out and about, and that Harry's triumph was a "beacon of hope" for house elves. Dobby shows Harry the loyalty of a "heart master" although Harry is unrelated to Dobby's legal masters. If the Potters are *his* family, though, that would explain his loyalty to Harry, even though he is bound to obey the Malfoys and keep their secrets. I've even found some canon to support it. When Marietta rats on the DA and Dobby comes to warn everyone, he says "Dobby has come to warn you . . . but the house-elves have been warned not to tell . . ." Dobby doesn't want to provide the details -- house-elf guilt must run deep -- but he finally confirms that Umbridge is coming. This confirmation implies that either Umbridge's warning was not a direct order or that, as a free elf with an employment contract, he was free to disobey. However, he still feels guilt about disobeying anyone with authority at Hogwarts, and attempts to punish himself. The interesting thing is what happens next. As Dobby attempts to do injury to himself, Harry says "Dobby -- this is an *order* -- get back down to the kitchen with the other elves and , if she asks you whether you warned me, lie and say no! . . . And I forbid you to hurt yourself!" Dobby's reaction? A big "Thank you, Harry Potter!" It almost seems as though Dobby was waiting for Harry to order him not to obey Umbridge. As a free elf employed at Hogwarts, I don't think he was magically compelled to obey Umbridge. However, Dobby felt that he needed to punish himself *until* Harry gave him an express *order* which he hastens to obey. It may be simply the "heart-master" syndrome kicking in. But it might be more. Demetra: > I wonder if we are being lulled into a false sense of security about > the HE's. Despite Hermione's bull in a china shop approach with > SPEW, most probably believe that the HE's will naturally line up on > the side of good. But maybe it's not as clear-cut as that. Dobby > has warned Harry that Hermione has "insulted" the Hogwarts HE's. Her > actions and attitude are patronizing in the extreme. She doesn't > realize that, despite her best intentions, she is forcing her will on > them, thereby doing to them exactly what she criticizes > their "masters" of doing. Debbie: Dobby's comments in CoS ("The Rogue Bludger") that house elves were treated live vermin while Voldemort was on the loose imply that it is very unlikely that the house elves would support Voldemort. Moreover, there are a huge number of house elves at Hogwarts and their cleanliness stands in marked contrast to their appearance under the Blacks and Malfoys. I would expect them to have very strong loyalties to Dumbledore, notwithstanding Hermione's attempt to offer them their freedom. The house elves, like the goblins and giants, may have critical roles in the next books. And I think that's why Dumbledore would see socks in the Mirror of Erised. I don't think we need to fear the centaurs, either; they are too aloof to want anything to do with the squabbles of witches and wizards. The difficulty there is that they have much to lose if Voldemort and his ilk were to take over. I doubt the centaurs could be harnessed and made to serve Voldemort, and if Voldemort has no use for them, neutrality may be a perilous choice. It's the goblins, with half a foot in Voldemort's camp and a long history of repression by wizards (yes, those goblin rebellions are important!), that I'm worried about. Debbie whose thoughts about the elves as metaphor for slavery, etc. are here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39176 From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 00:48:47 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:48:47 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114633 Angie wrote: > I keep wondering why DD had the SS moved. I realize the whole plot > revolves around the capture of the thing, but I mean, why, all of a > sudden, was Gringott's no longer the best place for it? (I also > wonder how long the SS had been at Gringotts.) > > Of course, it seems no coincidence that DD moved the SS at the same > time Harry started Hogwarts. The simplest answer seems to be that DD > may have assumed that LV would attempt to get the SS because Harry > was finally learning to be a wizard, so the stakes were higher. If I > remember correctly, no one knew where LV was at the beginning of SS, > but maybe DD decided to take no chances. But if was such an all- > fired secret, he shouldn't have had Hagrid get the stone while Harry > tagged along (I understand Harry had to know, as far as the plot > goes). > > But then again, by moving the SS to HW, wasn't DD putting all the > students at risk? Or maybe DD thought that DD and/or Harry would > have a better chance of thwarting LV at HW? > > Someone please convince me this was more than a plot device! > Sophierom: I'm not sure that I can convince you that moving the stone was more than a plot device, but it does seem worth mentioning that soon after Hagrid removes the stone from Gringotts, there was an attempted break-in on that very same vault. Perhaps Dumbeldore had been tipped off (though I don't see how). More likely, Snape's dark mark became darker, indicating that LV was making moves. As for having Hagrid get the stone while Harry was present, perhaps Dumbledore was thinking: 1. I trust Hagrid to get the stone and not tell Harry what it is and 2. even if Harry somehow finds out, what's more important is making sure that LV can't get to the stone, not its secrecy. After all, if LV can't find the stone at Gringotts (though how he would know which vault the stone was in is another question), he's probably smart enough to guess that Hogwarts is the next best place. I wonder if Dumbledore is really trying to hide the stone, or if he's trying to protect the stone. Now, the fact that LV knew where in Gringotts to go ... makes me wonder if he had some help from any goblins? Or, is this also just a plot device so that when Harry reads about the break in, JKR can remind the readers not to forget about that mysterious package Hagrid took out of Gringotts? From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 00:58:49 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:58:49 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > > Angie wrote: > > I keep wondering why DD had the SS moved. I realize the whole plot > > revolves around the capture of the thing, but I mean, why, all of a > > sudden, was Gringott's no longer the best place for it? (I also > > wonder how long the SS had been at Gringotts.) > > > > Of course, it seems no coincidence that DD moved the SS at the same > > time Harry started Hogwarts. The simplest answer seems to be that > DD > > may have assumed that LV would attempt to get the SS because Harry > > was finally learning to be a wizard, so the stakes were higher. If > I > > remember correctly, no one knew where LV was at the beginning of > SS, > > but maybe DD decided to take no chances. But if was such an all- > > fired secret, he shouldn't have had Hagrid get the stone while > Harry > > tagged along (I understand Harry had to know, as far as the plot > > goes). > > > > But then again, by moving the SS to HW, wasn't DD putting all the > > students at risk? Or maybe DD thought that DD and/or Harry would > > have a better chance of thwarting LV at HW? > > > > Someone please convince me this was more than a plot device! > > > Sophierom: > > I'm not sure that I can convince you that moving the stone was more > than a plot device, but it does seem worth mentioning that soon after > Hagrid removes the stone from Gringotts, there was an attempted > break-in on that very same vault. Perhaps Dumbeldore had been tipped > off (though I don't see how). More likely, Snape's dark mark became > darker, indicating that LV was making moves. Now, the fact that LV knew where in Gringotts to go ... makes me > wonder if he had some help from any goblins? Or, is this also just a > plot device so that when Harry reads about the break in, JKR can > remind the readers not to forget about that mysterious package Hagrid > took out of Gringotts? Angie replies: I've wondered whether DD was tipped off and if it was an inside job, as well. Of course, the fact the vault was broken into after the stone was moved justifies it being moved after the fact, but sheds no light on what possessed DD to move it in the first place. It may just be a plot device, but this one bothers me for some unknown reason. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 01:02:11 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:02:11 -0000 Subject: What became of the Chamber of Secrets? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114635 Have just posted on another thread the not original idea of the CoS possibly figuring later on as a weapon for LV to fight Harry. Please someone alert me and other elative newbies to any posts there may have been in HPfGU (or other sources) about what was done with the chamber after the end of CoS. Was it sealed forever? Destroyed? or what? Is it still there? Does it still have secret(s) (I do recall this question asked in the last three months)? A great place for DD to disappear to in OoP since noone, but noone knows where it is apart from Harry, Ron and, arguably, Myrtle. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 01:07:15 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:07:15 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114636 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" > wrote: > > > > I keep wondering why DD had the SS moved. I realize the whole > plot > > revolves around the capture of the thing, but I mean, why, all of > a > > sudden, was Gringott's no longer the best place for it? (I also > > wonder how long the SS had been at Gringotts.) > > Mac: > Given that the stone itself AND goblin business generally is SO > secret, it's a surprise the story got into the Daily Prophet. Did DD > leak it? > Angie replies: Good one! Never thought about the leak (that's plot device I can live with). You would think that the goblins would fight tooth and nail to prevent that story from leaking, since their claim to fame is that their vaults are so secure. I'm wondering why you think DD would leak it -- just to rub LV face in it? Sort of tangentially related, I've always wondered if there is something important we haven't been told about Gringotts, Bill, and Charlie, since Bill works for Gringotts (which is rumored to be protected by dragons) and Charlie works with dragons. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 01:13:22 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:13:22 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114637 Dzeytoun: > > I agree that she has been blindsided by some of the fan's > > preferences, particularly with regard to Snape and Draco. Indeed, she evidently finds it a deeply unhealthy trend, something with which I agree. > > > Kneasy: > Now, now - don't exaggerate. > She's surprised at the popularity of Snape and Draco but puts it > down to the actors playing them in the films - and she's 'shocked' > (take that how you will) by the number of web site moderators who > want to be sorted into Slytherin. Interesting too that the person she 'hates' most isn't Snape but Vernon Dursley. > > IIRC "deeply unhealthy trend" was the sort of language used by those who wished to ban - or burn - the books. > Valky: I am pretty sure that JKR herself has voiced that she thinks it could be a sign of an unhealthy trend in fandom to idolise characters with questionable virtue like Draco and Snape. And I agree that it very well could. I recall she did put some of it down to how well the two actors play their role and of course that these two actors have very appealing looks, so your right about that Kneasy but I think Dzeytoun is right too. Either way I agree that its got an unhealthy ring to it. I certainly don't want my kids to set themselves on the path of Draco Malfoy when they have Harry's story there in the same book that they could choose to aspire to. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 01:15:13 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:15:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114638 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" > wrote: > > > Hannah: I never really considered that PoA is a book devoted > Sirius, > > even though he is in the title. Like all of the books, it is > about > > Harry. > > Angie replies: Of course it's about Harry, but it's about what Harry learns about -- Sirius, mostly. POA sets up several things for the remainder of the series, but Harry learns about Sirius from Lupin or whomever and that is the focus of the book to me. Therefore, IMHO, POA is about Harry's discoveries concerning, primarliy, Sirius. Which, of course, is one of the reasons it makes no sense to me to kill Sirius. :) From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 01:21:32 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:21:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041004012132.52071.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114639 macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: (EDIT) Mac: No nor me either. I took JKR at her word, when she said (not a quote) that when someone is dead they stay dead. And yes I think he's dead because JKR said he 'had' to die and we would find out why. Griffin782002 now: Well she has said that. But what about the "properly dead"? Unless of course it means being a ghost or a form like L.V. was before the end of G.o.F. I made search a few days ago using the word 'veil'. It came up with various results, some of them with refering to those near-death expiriences. I didn't look at these articles for more details but some mentioned "beyond the veil expiriences". I only checked the results of the search and I am not sure when they were written. This made me think about what I have heard about these. Some have said that they "saw" dead relatives, who tell them something like "it's not your time yet, go back." And, sorry but I still do not understand how a veil kills Also mac said It's that finding out why which, in my view, contains the nub of my comment that he would return - not physically (though Harry may talk with him 'beyond the veil' somehow or even as a past 'mirror image' - memory that Sirius may have left behind, like TMR's in the diary). Who knows? I'm not even going to try to guess. Griffin782002 again: I know that she said something like that in the World Book Day Webchat. But if someone asked her if James or Lily would return, would it be possible to answer the same way? Griffin782002 who will not stop reading the books even if she proves wrong --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meltowne at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 01:22:58 2004 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:22:58 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > I've wondered whether DD was tipped off and if it was an inside job, > as well. Of course, the fact the vault was broken into after the > stone was moved justifies it being moved after the fact, but sheds no > light on what possessed DD to move it in the first place. It may > just be a plot device, but this one bothers me for some unknown > reason. Perhaps DD wasn't tipped off before the fact, but after - and send Hagrid back with a time turner to get the stone. As for why Hagrid, and why when he had Harry with him... Did Hagrid have any other reason to visit Gringot's? After the fact, DD knows that Hagrid was at Gringott's to help Harry, so why not also arrange for him to do some other business there at the same time. Nobody would suspect his of being up to anything since he's going with Harry to his vault - they just make a side trip to the other vault. While Hagrid seems to lat many things slip, he is good a retrieving those things DD values the most - the stone, baby Harry... pr maybe Hagrid is the only one who DD can ask without being questioned about his own motives. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 01:43:14 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:43:14 -0000 Subject: The eyes have it (Malfoy & The Diary) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114641 Having just posted about 'what became of the CoS', I went to the usual DD/Harry debrief scene to re-read if there were any clues there that I'd missed - Answer: No, not that I could see anyway, but instead I came across this (apologies if this was already noted): " ... 'Don't you want to know how Ginny got hold of that diary, Mr Malfoy?' said Harry. Lucius rounded on him. 'How should I know how the stupid little girl got hold of it?' he said. 'Because you gave it to her,' said Harry. 'In Flourish and Bloots. You picked up her old transfiguration book, and slipped the diary inside it, didn't you?' He saw Mr Malfoy's white hands clench and unclench. 'Prove it,' he hissed. 'Oh, no one will be able to do that,'said Dumbeldore, smiling at Harry. ... " Smiling at Harry... SMILING at Harry (?). How can DD *know* Harry is right (and he *does* know)? - his smile is like a 'Well DONE sir!' kind of congratulation. Harry worked it out without DD (though of course Dobby gave a crucial clue). Even so, how does DD know? he wasn't there in F&B's? Answer is he's just spent the last few minutes getting the truth from Lucius by legilimency: here are the quotes (with my emphases): (Lucius bursts into DD's office) ... 'So!' said Lucius Malfoy, his cold *eyes fixed on Dumbeldore*. ... (DD) held up the small black book with the large hole through the centre, *watching Mr Malfoy closely*. ... 'I see ...' said Mr Malfoy slowly to Dumbeldore. (Lucius sounds rather mesmerised here doesn't he?) ... 'A clever plan,' said Dumbeldore in a level voice (hypnotic?), still *staring* Mr Malfoy *straight in the eye*. ... Later comes the first quote (at the top), with Malfoy's behaviour in the meantime being interpretable as that of someone in, and then coming out of, a trance. The cleverness in JKR's writing makes it equally possible to interpret Malfoy's behaviour throughout as that of someone caught red-handed and embarassed to be found quite so obviously devious. Clever writing, as usual. JKR has, indeed, provided the clues to read, even if it takes the 5th-10th time through (in my case)to spot them and ooP to tell us what to look for (legilimency/occlumency). I am left, like so many before me, fearing I must yet again read all 5 books *again* to (more) closely determine how DD (and Snape) behave (s) when in conversation with diverse characters. Oh well, not an onerous task at least. From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Mon Oct 4 00:21:54 2004 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 21:21:54 -0300 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) References: Message-ID: <007e01c4a9a8$343b7c10$1f9cd8c8@elfinpc> No: HPFGUIDX 114642 Dzeytoun: > In other words, if I had to bet on what will *actually* appear in the > next two books, I would say we will see a kind of fierce Cold War > between the two of them, occasionally showing some smoldering heat as > Snape pours on the nastiness and Harry can't resist taking advantage > of opportunities here and there to push Snape's buttons > (e.g. "Complaining again, Potter?" "Sorry, Professor, I didn't mean > to snivel.") Elanor Pam: NOW that's something I'd love to see. <3 Being polite while getting the point across - I think that's more or less what everybody in the thread was trying to get at, and we just related politeness to respect since they tend to work together in some cases. Or at least we relate one with the other here in Brazil, excuse my engrish... From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Sun Oct 3 23:31:44 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:31:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41608BE0.4070403@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114643 > Alla: > > > On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like > certain characters, what does it say about us? > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about me? :o) > Perhaps a love of Sirius says that you are loyal, energetic, but without a terribly huge lot of forethought...or that you'd go for someone like that. ^_^ Me, I'm desperately in love with Luna Lovegood. I wonder what *that* says about me. - Gabriel Fey, who only gets the Weekly World News for the crossword puzzle, really... From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 4 01:41:41 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 21:41:41 -0400 Subject: Quidditch "potentially lethal?" was Re: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes References: Message-ID: <00db01c4a9b3$4eae4360$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114644 >>Casey: >>I don't think Snape is that bad "for the wizarding world". These are people that allow their children to play games that are potentially lethal. A bludger to the head sent Oliver Wood to the hospital wing for a long time. Yet his parents allowed to play it again after that. That kind of disregard for someone's health and well being would look at a teacher such as Snape as something not worth thinking about. Kethryn now - Ok, I am going to have to object to this particular sentiment expressed in the above paragraph which, to me, seems to be a rather judgemental thing to say. In particular, the "potentially lethal" games the kids are "allowed" to play by their parents. Hello? You think football isn't potentially lethal? How about baseball? Ever been hit in the head with a ninty mile an hour fastball? Did you hear about the girl who was watching a hockey game two years ago with her family and died when a stray puck hit her in the head? The point to all of this is that all children, unless they have deeply overprotective parents, play what can, in certain circumstances, be considered lethal sports. That does not make the parents bad parents or mean that they disregard their children's health, it means they respect their children enough to let them decide what they want to do for recreation. I don't consider Quidditch to be any more or less dangerous than Ice hockey and, if my kids (that I don't have yet and am not sure that I even want to have) want to play hockey, I'll be right there beside them every single stride down the ice. If my kid gets hurt, I will do what my parents did the first time I fell off my bike, pick them up, dust them off, check for severe damage, and send them back out onto the ice. The WW is inherantly more dangerous than RL so you absolutly cannot molly coddle these kids that go to Hogwarts and that, it seems to me, is a lesson learned early and often. When a child in real life screws around in chemistry, for example, really the worst thing that can happen is they will blow up themselves (especially since we do not allow them to play with dangerous chemicals at all). When a Hogwarts student screws up in potions, they might just kill themselves or their classmates or even the entire school. The really bad consequences we have seen in the WW are mostly permanent (Gilderoy losing his memory and his sense of self permanently comes to mind) and are unalterable. Gilderoy will never remember who he is, something that could of been prevented if he had respected the powers that he held. Now, games, especially "potentially lethal" games like Quidditch actually reinforce the lessons learned in the classrooms...you know, things like "pay attention" and "follow the rules." Finally, with the WW's abilty to cure people of broken bones in a heartbeat, it seems to me that there is a lot less danger involved in Quidditch than, say, real life football (American not European). Especially when it also seems to me that I have heard stories about athletes getting hurt and the coach putting them back out onto the field to play hurt. And I don't mean nosebleeds, either. I mean things like blow knees and cortizone shots (which, by the way, eats spinal cord tissue) to dull the pain. Anyways, my two cents on the matter. Kethryn who mutters something unpolite about overprotective parents... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 02:14:30 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:14:30 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: <41608BE0.4070403@superluminal.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114645 > > > Alla wrote earlier: > > > > > > On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like > > certain characters, what does it say about us? > > > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about me? :o) > > Gabriel: > Perhaps a love of Sirius says that you are loyal, energetic, but without > a terribly huge lot of forethought...or that you'd go for someone like > that. ^_^ > > Me, I'm desperately in love with Luna Lovegood. I wonder what *that* > says about me. > Alla: LOL! You know, I used to have that tendency to speak before I think sometimes, but that was BEFORE I went to law school. I work really hard on eliminating this one, because you really cannot let your adversary on ALL your secrets when you negotiate . The good news is I did not start actually DOING things before I thought them over. And NO, in RL I would NEVER go for someone like Sirius. I wear "Bad boys could be redeemed" glasses only when I read fiction. :o) (That was from Steve's very funny lecture at "Convention Alley" :o)) He is way too damaged to be good news as a boyfriend or husband. Hmmm, what does your love of Luna tells us? Maybe that you are in touch with your spiritual side? :o) That you have the ability to see what REALLY is important in life and managed not to get upset over stupid things, I am still wondering what my liking of Snape as a CHARACTER tells about me. :o) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 02:18:24 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:18:24 -0000 Subject: The eyes have it (Malfoy & The Diary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Having just posted about 'what became of the CoS', I went to the > usual DD/Harry debrief scene to re-read if there were any clues > there that I'd missed - Answer: No, not that I could see anyway, but > instead I came across this (apologies if this was already noted): > snip snip> > Answer is he's just spent the last few minutes getting the truth > from Lucius by legilimency (snip) > > JKR has, indeed, provided the clues to read, even if it takes the > 5th-10th time through (in my case)to spot them and ooP to tell us > what to look for (legilimency/occlumency). > > I am left, like so many before me, fearing I must yet again read all > 5 books *again* to (more) closely determine how DD (and Snape) behave > (s) when in conversation with diverse characters. Oh well, not an > onerous task at least. mhbobbin: Your post cracked me up because I too came across a passage in CoS recently that I went EUREKA! Legilimency!! Chapter 12 "The Polyjuice Potion". Harry has been brought to DD's office for the first time. "...as DD settled himself in the high chair behind the desk and fixed Harry with his penetrating , light blue stare." (Interruptions by Hagrid) Harry waited nervously while DD considered him, the tips of his long fingers together. "I must ask you,Harry, whether there is anything you'd like to tell me", he said gently. "Anything at all." Harry didn't know what to say. (Then there is a run down of thoughts that Harry has related to the voice he hears, the kids accusing him, the Polyjuice Potion etc.) "No, There isn't anything, Professor..." Re-reading this in post OOTP world, it is finally clear that the list of memories Harry experiences while in front of DD are being read by DD. And from this, DD has confirmed Harry's innocence. But note that DD now knows that Harry is brewing Polyjuice Potion, and clearly does not choose to halt it. I expect we can find other instances of this happening, now that we have this new information. I'd watch out for Lupin too. Harry sometimes senses that Lupin can read his mind. Will we need to reread the whole series each time a book is published. mhbobbin From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Oct 4 02:36:55 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:36:55 -0000 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > I was thinking this morning about Draco. Lot's of people have > expressed dismay a the lack of development of his character. JKR has > expressed dismay at his popularity among fans. Some have even > speculated that JKR will kill him off in the next book just to squash > what she sees as a perverse and unhealthy movement. I doubt JKR would stray from her plan just because she thinks Draco's popularity is unhealthy. Especially if, as I've always suspected, too many Draco fans are enamored of Cassandra Claire's Draco, and not JKR's. > I don't think she would kill him off just for that reason, but I do > wonder if Draco's usefulness to the story has rather run its course. > He was, well, pathetic in OOTP. After setting him up as a great > rival with the prefect thing, he essentially disappears through most > of the book and when he does appear again it's not easy to take him > very seriously. Draco ranks far down on the list of Harry's antagonists. From Harry's perspective he has indeed become irrelevant; Harry's principal antagonist is Voldemort. Nevertheless, Draco does have a rival in canon, and the prefect story arc sets it up: his nemesis is Ron. I also don't believe that he'll die. To kill him off would be an acknowledgment that Draco had little, if any, narrative function. Because what did he add? A few silly confrontations? A chance to show Snape's favoritism? His lack of development to date can be another way of emphasizing that Draco still has a lot to learn. His swagger is such that not even the prospect of a prison sentence for his father had any effect. And he has no means to learn those lessons as long as he is allowed to play the part of rich bully with a trail of sycophants. Long, long ago (2002) Elkins wrote a post entitled (I think) "Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame. And Dead, Too" which I cannot find but which, as I recall, I agreed with except for the "dead" part because, in my view, killing an unrepentant Draco would be pointless. Since I don't believe he will jump ship and join Harry et al., either, the only alternative is that Draco will be left alive at the end of the series but that his family's support of Voldemort will have cost him so much that he'll be left to grapple with the consequences of his own choices. I think leaving Draco in grey at the end would be much better -- and mor believable -- than either the black solution or the white. Debbie who finds Draco so tedious that she can't believe she's actually written a post about him From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 02:40:50 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:40:50 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114648 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meltowne" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" > wrote: > > > I've wondered whether DD was tipped off and if it was an inside > job, > > as well. Of course, the fact the vault was broken into after the > > stone was moved justifies it being moved after the fact, but sheds > no > > light on what possessed DD to move it in the first place. It may > > just be a plot device, but this one bothers me for some unknown > > reason. > meltowne wrote: > Perhaps DD wasn't tipped off before the fact, but after - and send > Hagrid back with a time turner to get the stone. > > As for why Hagrid, and why when he had Harry with him... Did Hagrid > have any other reason to visit Gringot's? After the fact, DD knows > that Hagrid was at Gringott's to help Harry, so why not also arrange > for him to do some other business there at the same time. Nobody > would suspect his of being up to anything since he's going with Harry > to his vault - they just make a side trip to the other vault. > > While Hagrid seems to lat many things slip, he is good a retrieving > those things DD values the most - the stone, baby Harry... pr maybe > Hagrid is the only one who DD can ask without being questioned about > his own motives. Angie again: Hmmm. Interesting. Hadn't thought of the time-turner possibility or that it would be less conspicuous if Hagrid was going to the bank for Harry, anyway. Hagrid would probably be the last person to ever question DD's motives or the widsom of what he was doing, since Hagrid seems to be so beholden to DD and respects him so much. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 02:43:27 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:43:27 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114649 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: snip. >> Well, what has Voldemort done that we've actually SEEN? He killed > Harry's parents. Bad, but they were his enemies. He tried to kill > Harry. Bad, but that was self-preservation. He brought himself back > to life. Can't fault him for that. He tried to get his hands on the > prophecy. Self-preservation again. > > Snape, meanwhile, has subjected Harry to five years of non-stop abuse. > > Yes, in many ways, Snape is MUCH more evil than Voldemort. > > Granted, we keep being TOLD that Voldemort is a great and powerful > evil. But we really haven't see that. On the other hand, we keep > being TOLD that Snape is a good guy. But his evil is readily > apparent. > > On balance, if I had to choose which to send to the gallows on the > basis of what I've actually SEEN, I would definitely give Voldie the > pass and let Snape swing. Alla: No, no, no, definitely not me. What is behind Voldemort's ideology? The idea that one group of people is better that other group of people because these people have different BLOOD in them. I stated many times that in my mind I associate pureblood ideology with antisemitism. (I am sure others have different associations) By no means, I want the guy who preaches this cr*p to win. No way. I understand what you are saying though that we have not seen much of Voldemort's evil deeds, therefore it is hard to have strong feelings about him based on the story itself. I agree with it. I also said earlier that I am absolutely NOT impressed with JKR portrayal of Vodemort. He strikes me as a cartoon kind of villain, because we are only being told about his deeds, not shown. He is not scary, he is annoying at most. I keep hoping that we will at least see all gruesome details of Godric Hollow murder in order for me at least be dsifusted with Voldemort for that. I think Renee said that her main gripe with series is that JKR portrays evil in the "good" guys much better than "bad " guys. I think I agree. Snape's "evil" side is portrayed perfectly,at least enough for me to have VERY strong feelings about it. At the same time, I keep hoping for his redemption at the end. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 02:44:10 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:44:10 EDT Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114650 Dzeytoun writes: > Well, what has Voldemort done that we've actually SEEN? He killed > Harry's parents. Bad, but they were his enemies. He tried to kill > Harry. Bad, but that was self-preservation. He brought himself back > to life. Can't fault him for that. He tried to get his hands on the > prophecy. Self-preservation again. > > Snape, meanwhile, has subjected Harry to five years of non-stop abuse. > > Yes, in many ways, Snape is MUCH more evil than Voldemort. > > Granted, we keep being TOLD that Voldemort is a great and powerful > evil. But we really haven't see that. On the other hand, we keep > being TOLD that Snape is a good guy. But his evil is readily > apparent. > > On balance, if I had to choose which to send to the gallows on the > basis of what I've actually SEEN, I would definitely give Voldie the > pass and let Snape swing. > > Julie sez: I definitely can't agree with your assessment. To me, evil has to involve actions. It goes a little further than being unpleasant, mean, abusive, a miserable git, etc. I'm also not sure one can have an "evil" heart if one doesn't take evil actions (perhaps the two go together anyway). Let's take Hitler as an example... Hitler could have had all the same hate in his heart, but if he'd expended it by sitting in a hovel somewhere drawing pictures of children being tortured, women being raped, people being gassed in ovens, etc, then plastered them on his wall and thrown darts at them while hurling foul invectives, he wouldn't have been evil. He would have just been a miserable git, though few would know of him anyway. He also could have posted hateful letters directed at Jews in papers, spread around nasty rumors about them whenever he could, and chased Jewish children around their neighborhoods, hurling the same foul invectives, belittling and threatening them, perhaps even throwing rotten fruit at them, so that they ran away and hid every time he appeared. While here he is taking some action, which in some cases might even be criminally prosecutable, he still isn't quite evil. He's not destroying lives or livelihoods. He's causing at most temporary emotional distress, while inviting the repugnance of people around him, making him a very miserable git of a person. What Hitler actually did of course, was to put what lived in his heart into extreme action, taking away the freedom and livelihood of millions of Jews, torturing and killing them, along with millions of others who didn't fit his Aryan ideal. It's those actions that tipped the scale, making him more than simply a miserable, hateful person --making him in fact an evil monster. Snape falls in the second category. He's definitely a miserable git, but he's yet to do anything evil, even to Harry or Neville. (Verbal abuse doesn't quite qualify, IMO). And, yes, we don't know what he did when he was a DE, but until we do, we can't conclusively say if he's done anything evil. Voldemort, OTOH, has killed repeatedly, including Harry's parents, Bertha Jorkins by torture, had a child -Cedric-killed on his orders, as well as attempting to kill two other children (Harry and Ginny). He's also directed the DEs to torture and/or kill hundreds (maybe thousands) of other wizards. Even if we haven't *seen* these things, we know them to be true, unless we believe the whole WW is delusional. Evil is as evil does, and Voldemort has done plenty of evil things. IMO, there's really no comparison between Voldemort and Snape when it comes to matters of evil, even if Snape is the much more complexly drawn character. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 02:52:51 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:52:51 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > > > Alla wrote earlier: > > > > > > > > > On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like > > > certain characters, what does it say about us? > > > > > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about > me? :o) > > > >Angie here: I have soft spots for Ron and Neville. I admit part of it is that my nephew is a dead ringer for Rupert Grint (sorry, movie reference), but part of it is because I usually root for the underdogs. I can't wait to see these two young men come into their own in Books 6 & 7. But I've also enjoyed getting to see Ginny starting to develop -- I think she's probably a lot like Molly was at her age -- very spirited. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 02:53:50 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:53:50 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like > certain characters, what does it say about us? > > > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about > me? :o) > > > Gabriel: > > > Perhaps a love of Sirius says that you are loyal, energetic, but > without a terribly huge lot of forethought...or that you'd go for someone like that. ^_^ > Me, I'm desperately in love with Luna Lovegood. I wonder what > *that* says about me. > > > > Alla: > And NO, in RL I would NEVER go for someone like Sirius. I wear "Bad boys could be redeemed" glasses only when I read fiction. :o) (That was from Steve's very funny lecture at "Convention Alley" :o)) He is way too damaged to be good news as a boyfriend or husband. > Valky: I Love Sirius too and I probably would go for a bad boy like Sirius rather than one like Snape they have a lot in common but they are different kinds of Bad Boy. What does that say about me? (That is of course if anyone can actually understand my distinction beteen them. :P) My absolute favourite of course is Harry all the way, close followed by Dumbledore and Hermione, then Neville. I also really like James.. who we know nothing about.... lol What does *that* say about me? Alla: > Hmmm, what does your love of Luna tells us? Maybe that you are in > touch with your spiritual side? :o) > That you have the ability to see what REALLY is important in life > and managed not to get upset over stupid things, > Valky: I can really relate to Luna myself, and I think it shows that you're excitable and imaginative, Gabriel, which I am too. And also, on the really plus side, that you are able to be true to yourself, a lot of people like Luna are labelled gullible but I disagree with that. People like Luna are not so much gullible as they are curious. I think it says that you're a person who doesn't limit themself or impose boundaries that don't necessarily have to be there, and thats a good thing. >Alla > I am still wondering what my liking of Snape as a CHARACTER tells > about me. :o) Valky: I am not sure I can give you a satisfactory answer, Alla. I like Snape as a character also, as you know. Perhaps it just says that you like literature that challenges you intellectually, thats what I put it down to for me. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 02:54:10 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:54:10 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > Angie replies: > Good one! Never thought about the leak (that's plot device I can > live with). You would think that the goblins would fight tooth and > nail to prevent that story from leaking, since their claim to fame is > that their vaults are so secure. I'm wondering why you think DD > would leak it -- just to rub LV face in it? I don't think Hagrid knew about the attempt to steal the stone so that leaves Quirrel!Mort and Dumbeldore (Flamel possibly). Of these, only DD has a reason to leak it - i.e. to alert Harry.It would be interesting to know whether DD could have engineered Harry's finding out about the daily prophet article. I suspect on re-reading we might be able to see DD's hand in all the clues to getting the stone (fluffy, devil's snare, brooms and keys, chess match and potions logic puzzle), much as CrouchJr!Moody reveals exactly (the obvious, once they're pointed out, clues about) how he helped engineer Harry's winning the triwizard tournament There have already been postings concerning the Mirror of Erised to suggest DD ensured Harry found it so that he'd be able to rescue the stone, but how DD knew this would (or even might) happen is never revealed. All this suggests that DD knows, among all the other things he knows but doen't yet tell us, that Harry is, apart from everything else he may be, the ultimate human 'sneaksocope' where Voldy's plots are concerned; that even unknowingly (until later books) his bond created at GH with Voldy means Harry can be relied upon, with assistance, to be person most likely to discover and then foil Voldy plots. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 02:59:15 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:59:15 EDT Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry Message-ID: <148.350c71a1.2e921683@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114654 In a message dated 10/3/2004 7:20:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > > Valky: > I am pretty sure that JKR herself has voiced that she thinks it > could be a sign of an unhealthy trend in fandom to idolise > characters with questionable virtue like Draco and Snape. And I > agree that it very well could. I recall she did put some of it down > to how well the two actors play their role and of course that these > two actors have very appealing looks, so your right about that > Kneasy but I think Dzeytoun is right too. > Either way I agree that its got an unhealthy ring to it. I certainly > don't want my kids to set themselves on the path of Draco Malfoy > when they have Harry's story there in the same book that they could > choose to aspire to. I agree it would be unhealthy to idolize Snape or Draco. However, I don't think it's unhealthy to be fascinated by them. Those are two different things. While none of us would want to see anyone model his or her life after Snape or Draco, or find certain of their actions admirable, I don't think there is anything wrong with finding some parts of their characters admirable (such as Snape's courage to spy against Voldemort, or Draco's...er, not sure there are any admirable parts of Draco's character!). Moving on, I think it's a human trait to find "bad boys" (or "bad girls") fascinating, and it is because we want to see them redeemed. That fact has fed the success of thousands of plays, novels, movies, etc, from time immemorial. It only becomes dangerous in real life when we believe WE can redeem someone else (a good woman can redeem a bad man, etc). No one can redeem someone else. That person has to redeem himself or herself. Julie (hoping to see Snape redeem himself) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 03:01:02 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:01:02 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > > Valky: > Here is my view on how I expect the scenario will play out. > The abusive behaviour that Snape has indulged himself in throughout > his time teaching Harry will not be dismissed nor resolved. I agree that this is probably the most likely scenario, as well. > > The problem is not between Harry and Snape, and I am sure we all > realise this, the problem is within Snape. As most have pointed out > Harry can't *change* Snape by manner of his response or even non > response to Snape. The wisdom I believe that DD employs is that > Snape is his own undoing. It is Snape's choice to distance himself > from the reach of Harry for Harry has tried to reach out to him, and > therefore it is Snapes loss, not Harry's. > > Snape has a redemptive pattern, so we always hope that in the end > his heart will spill open and he will find the peace that has eluded > him all his years. However, he has a lot in common with Sirius, he > projects his own inner torment at others and has a childish and > hypocritical manner of dealing with his pet hates. For this reason I > can see the possibility that Snape will share Sirius' fate. Interesting. Snape and Sirius as mirrors of one another? I think that may be very insightful. > > Unless he holds tighter to that brief moment of humanity in > occlumency, and begins to allow himself to recieve Harrys' Love he > has thrown away his lifeline and his last true chance to redeem. > From there it's a downward spiral. Noone like Harry has ever reached > out to Snape before. Snape hates Harry's innocence and natural > beauty, because most people he has ever known in his life have > turned that raw power that beauty against him. Snape has learned to > hate what Harry represents, he can quietly respect people like DD & > MacGonagall for their wisdom, coming of age and experience as far as > he is concerned, the also have the beauty and raw power of Harry but > he can dismiss it with them. Not so with the boy who lived and looks > like his father. > > I'm pretty sure Dzeytoun will not instantly agree with all of this, > and say that Harry need not be subject to this unfair treatment > anyway. Which I see as a perfectly good response. However, it is on > Snapes back to save himself, because he faces a worse fate by *his > own* doing than Harry does by Snapes doing against him. That may well be true in the grand narrative. > Harry has true, good friends in Hermione and Ron, if in the next two > years Snape goes too far with Harry, they have done it before they > will do it again, half the darn classroom will stand up and jinx the > silly old bugger at once. *Harry* HAS *earned* this respect from > them and he has their protection and confidence. > > If Snape pushes the barrel too far with Harry he faces consequences > that he doesn't imagine. Harry is not alone and he is very powerful > he is already a leader and his following are brave and fierce. Snape > losing control of his classroom is the least of what could happen > but it demonstrates that it is up to Snape to put away the gauntlet > and accept Harry's open heart because it is *his* undoing if he > doesn't. Hmm. Very interesting. > > In a lot of ways that doesn't compare to the cases of abuse that, > Dzeytoun, you are familiar with. But this *is* the story that we are > dealing with here and it shows that abusive people do damage to > themselves by their actions which is a very good message to bring > across. That is certainly a worthwile message, I agree. > > The way Harry *has* dealt with Snape is the best way possible. He > has tried to go beyond the pettiness he has built himself *respect* > beyond the respect that Snape demands from him. Now Harry *commands* > respect just by being there, just by existing. Snape is privileged > to be witness to what Harry has done with his lot, including the lot > that Snape has dished him. It's not always possible in abusive cases > that the abused be so risen above the abuser. But in Harry's case it > has already happened so why do we quarrel? > > Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 03:02:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:02:29 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114656 > Valky: > I Love Sirius too and I probably would go for a bad boy like Sirius > rather than one like Snape they have a lot in common but they are > different kinds of Bad Boy. What does that say about me? > (That is of course if anyone can actually understand my distinction > beteen them. :P) Alla: Yes, if I have to choose, I would pick Sirius too. The man who does what Snape does to chidren does not have much crush-like appeal to me. Instant turn-off so to speak :) Valky: > My absolute favourite of course is Harry all the way, close followed > by Dumbledore and Hermione, then Neville. > I also really like James.. who we know nothing about.... lol What > does *that* say about me? Alla: He! Harry is my absolute favourite too. I would definitely want my child to resemble him in some ways :) What does it say about you? That you love children, maybe? :) > Valky: > I am not sure I can give you a satisfactory answer, Alla. I like > Snape as a character also, as you know. Perhaps it just says that > you like literature that challenges you intellectually, thats what I > put it down to for me. Alla: That was a VERY satisfactory answer, Valky. Thank you. :) From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 03:02:43 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:02:43 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: <007e01c4a9a8$343b7c10$1f9cd8c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > > > > Elanor Pam: > NOW that's something I'd love to see. <3 Being polite while getting the > point across - I think that's more or less what everybody in the thread was > trying to get at, and we just related politeness to respect since they tend > to work together in some cases. Or at least we relate one with the other > here in Brazil, excuse my engrish... Yes, I agree that people often confuse courtesy with respect. In fact, while it is not possible to have respect without courtesy, it is entirely possible to have courtesy without respect. Dzeytoun From gelite67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 03:10:23 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:10:23 -0000 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" > wrote: > > > > I was thinking this morning about Draco. Lot's of people have > > expressed dismay a the lack of development of his character. > Draco ranks far down on the list of Harry's antagonists. From > Harry's perspective he has indeed become irrelevant; Harry's > principal antagonist is Voldemort. Nevertheless, Draco does have a > rival in canon, and the prefect story arc sets it up: his nemesis > is Ron. > Angie replies: Yes! I've been seeing Draco as Ron's nemesis for a while. At least, I'm sure Ron feels that way. Ron is always the one to jump in when Draco says something about Hermione and Draco and Ron are natural opposites: rich, poor, smooth, a blunderer, etc. Draco is downright cruel to Ron when he makes references about Ron's family being poor and making remarks about Molly. I know Draco's said stuff about Harry's family, but it seems to me he'd made more remarks about Ron's family. Of course Draco is Harry's nemesis too, and was markedly so in the first book, lesser in the second and well, we know what happened from there. As the story of LV and to a lesser extent, Draco's father and the Death Eaters developed, Draco was heard from less often. Draco's function in the last book had diminished to the point to where he was just a thorn-in-Harry's side. Truthfully, I hope to see more of Draco in Books 6 & 7, because I'd love to see both Harry and Ron mature to the point where they can annoy the heck out of him by not allowing him to bait them! From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 03:12:16 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:12:16 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114659 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > > Julie sez: > > I definitely can't agree with your assessment. > Snape falls in the second category. He's definitely a miserable git, > but he's yet to do anything evil, even to Harry or Neville. (Verbal abuse > doesn't quite qualify, IMO). I will disagree with this strongly. Verbal abuse most definitely does qualify as evil. And, yes, we don't know what he did > when he was a DE, but until we do, we can't conclusively say if > he's done anything evil. Voldemort, OTOH, has killed repeatedly, > including Harry's parents, Bertha Jorkins by torture, had a child > -Cedric-killed on his orders, as well as attempting to kill two other > children (Harry and Ginny). He's also directed the DEs to torture > and/or kill hundreds (maybe thousands) of other wizards. Even if > we haven't *seen* these things, we know them to be true, unless > we believe the whole WW is delusional. Evil is as evil does, and > Voldemort has done plenty of evil things. But, even granted all this is true, IF we had to make a judgement on what we have SEEN, well... And, as Alla has said in her post, therein lies a major weakness in the plot. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are so far off stage it's hard to react emotionally to them as a threat at all. Snape, on the other hand, is very much on stage and it's quite easy to react to his evil (and yes, I think he is on the balance an evil person, albeit one who probably works for the "good" side). > > IMO, there's really no comparison between Voldemort and Snape > when it comes to matters of evil, even if Snape is the much more > complexly drawn character. > And yet we really as yet have no basis for such a comparison, based on what has actually been SHOWN to us. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 03:47:28 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:47:28 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Harry has true, good friends in Hermione and Ron, if in the next two > years Snape goes too far with Harry, they have done it before they > will do it again, half the darn classroom will stand up and jinx the > silly old bugger at once. *Harry* HAS *earned* this respect from > them and he has their protection and confidence. > > If Snape pushes the barrel too far with Harry he faces consequences > that he doesn't imagine. Harry is not alone and he is very powerful > he is already a leader and his following are brave and fierce. Snape > losing control of his classroom is the least of what could happen > but it demonstrates that it is up to Snape to put away the gauntlet > and accept Harry's open heart because it is *his* undoing if he > doesn't. > You know, this could be especially interesting if Snape finally gets the DADA job. As you point out, Clifford, the members of the DA would naturally look to Harry, rather than Snape, for leadership. Imagine the towering fury THAT would engender in Snape. Finally his dream job, only to have it ruined by that blasted Potter! Whether Snape loses control of the class or not, this could also lead to the kind of thing you see in a lot of fanfic, i.e. Harry and Snape dueling as part of the DADA "lesson plan." After both of them ended up in the hospital wing, Dumbledore would have to pick up the pieces of the class, the classroom, likely the outside hallway, and any stray pieces of themselves Snape and Harry left on the floor. Now wouldn't that by a hilarious turn of events! Dzeytoun Dzeytoun From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 04:21:40 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 04:21:40 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114662 > Valky wrote: > .......if in the next two years Snape goes too far with Harry, they have done it before they will do it again, half the darn classroom will stand up and jinx the silly old bugger at once. > Dzeytoun: > You know, this could be especially interesting if Snape finally gets the DADA job. As you point out, Clifford, the members of the DA would naturally look to Harry, rather than Snape, for leadership. Imagine the towering fury THAT would engender in Snape. Finally his dream job, only to have it ruined by that blasted Potter! Whether Snape loses control of the class or not, this could also lead to the kind of thing you see in a lot of fanfic, i.e. Harry and Snape dueling as part of the DADA "lesson plan." After both of them ended up in the hospital wing, Dumbledore would have to pick up the pieces of the class, the classroom, likely the outside hallway, and any stray pieces of themselves Snape and Harry left on the floor. > > Now wouldn't that by a hilarious turn of events! > Valky: Absolutely Riotous! And I rather favour that JKR would choose a turn of events such as one of these to roll up the ends of the Snape V Harry story. It's much like her style and Snape was given fair warning with the mutiny on Umbridge in OOtP that it will happen. I am not that deeply into fanfic myself I hardly read it and I have only ever written two very short ones of my own, but I like the Harry/Snape Duel in the DADA classroom that would be kinda amusing. Speaking of Snape as DADA instructor I personally think he won't get there till book seven, by which time I expect DA or some spawn of it will have grown quite massive in the student ranks which would be a *disaster* of greater proportions for Snape as DADA teacher. I think it will probably happen just as you say. Snape *finally* given his dream job and nobody cares because they are all looking to the teacher they already know and trust.. Harry. That in itself is irony enough for a good laugh, for me. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 4 04:21:51 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 04:21:51 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114663 Dzeytoun: > YOU CAN'T DISMISS ABUSE. I'm sorry, it doesn't matter what's at > stake. And I mean that quite literally. SSSusan: But what if Harry *wants* to, *chooses* to, Dzeytoun? That would be his right, would it not? Given what we know of Harry's character, I think it is possible that Harry might **elect** to put his own anger and hatred aside (at least for a time), to focus on what he sees as the greater good and the greater concern. I am so very tired of reading what Harry MUST do. Harry/JKR will decide what Harry MUST do, and we really can only sit here and speculate. I don't think any of us is in the position to keep saying "CAN'T" and "MUST," etc. Siriusly Snapey Susan From alex51324 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 04:41:01 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 04:41:01 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114664 At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, I'd like to pose the question of whether folks think that Snape's behavior towards Harry *really* constitues abuse. EMotional abuse is a nebulous category. We can easilly say that Umbridge is abusive because her punishment causes Harry (and some other kid...was is Lee Jordan?) physical injury, and it's no longer considered appropriate to use corporal punishment at school, and corporal punishment that leaves marks is generally considered not quite on in the home enviornment, either. I would say that if Snape behaved toward his *own child* in the way that he behaves toward Harry, I would personally consider it emotional abuse--*because* a parent is *supposed* to provide apporpriate emotional nurturance to their own child, and his behavior is , er, not consistent with that. But Snape *isn't* Harry's parent, he's his teacher. The official role of a teacher is to teach subject matter, not to provide emotional nurturance. We all know of teachers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in caring for their students' emotional well being, but it isn't part of the job description. If the only people we let be teachers were those who could inspire love and trust in their students, schools would have an even more difficult time finding teachers than they already do. "Being nice to Harry" is not Snape's job. I would also be more worried if he treated a child in his own House the way he treats Harry, because Heads of House are (it appears) supposed to take a special interest in their own students. But he isn't. Harry has plenty of other places to look for emotional support (not as many as he would if he weren't an orphan, of course, but that's life). He has his friends, the adult weasleys, Dumbledore, Hagrid, and McGonagall. He doesn' *need* emotional support from Snape the way he would if Snape was (shudder) his father. This is not to say that a teacher can't be emotionally abusive. However, I doubt whether Snape's behavior is extreme enough to warrant that definition. As I see it, there are three major criteria to think of: the behavior itself, Snape's intent, and the effect of the behavior on Harry. The behavior we can see on the page. What has Snape done? He's asked Harry questions he wouldn't reasonably be expected to know the answers to in his first week of school. He's capriciously graded a couple of his assignments. He's blamed Harry for incidents of classroom misconduct in which Harry was not the instigator or sole participant. These behaviors are all unprofessional and inapproriate, but I'm not sure I'd call them abusive. (the capricious grading is what bothers me most, as a teacher.) What about Harry's reaction? If he was crying himself to sleep on a regular basis, having horrible nightmares about potions class, becoming physically ill on days when he was supposed to have class with Snape, or otherwise showing signs of extreme stress or anxiety, then I'd consider assigning the label of "abuse" to Snape's behavior. But he isn't. He dislikes Potions (most kids have a class or two that they don't like). He gripes about it. He displays a reasonable and healthy level of anger. Occasionally he thinks Snape might be trying to kill him, but he's always (so far at least) been proved wrong about that. It looks to me as if he considers himself unfairly treated, but not abused. Snape's motivation, we know nothing about. We can debate (and have been doing) the possible motivations for his behavior. But we can't know. His actual motivations are a black box. If he's behaving the way he does toward Harry because he *actively wants to cause lasting harm*, then I'd say, absolutely, yes, he's abusive. But most of the other motivations that have been suggested are, at worst, ambiguous in terms of determining whether his behavior is abusive or not. If he's just being an as**ole without considering the impact his behavior might have, then *maybe* I could see calling him abusive. Ditto if he's so totally unable to control his temper that he can't stop himself acting the way he does (though I think Snape would do *much* worse things if he were truely out of control). If he's doing the best he knows how (perhaps using the pedagogical methods that were in use when he was in school or that he was exposed to at home), then I'd say no, not abusive. Same if he has for some reason decided that sarcasm and humiliation are the best ways to get through to Potter. So, my conclusion is that I can't definively call Snape's behavior abuse based on the information that we *do actually have*. I don't consider his behavior very professional. If my kids were in his class, I would keep a close eye to make sure that he wasn't being harsher with them than they could handle. But I wouldn't say outright that he's abusive. If those who believe in abusive!Snape can present the case without going into a CAPSLOCK rage, I'd be interested in hearing it, particularly with reference to specific classroom (or other on-page) incidents that I haven't thought of. Alex From alex51324 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 04:42:49 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 04:42:49 -0000 Subject: Stopping Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114665 Oh, and here's another random thought--eductional decree number 26, banning all teachers from giving students information not "strictly related to the subjects they are paid to teach" is in effect by the time Snape refuses to teach Harry Occlumency anymore. And Dumbledore is gone. I'm not totally sure, in Snape's place, that I would be entirely willing to *break the law* to teach a student I didn't like, and who didn't like me. Particularly when the student in question hates the lessons. *We*, since we have been inside Harry's head for the last five years, know that he's not about to run to Umbridge and say "Snape's violating Eductional Decree 26 every week by teaching me Occlumency." But does Snape know that? I know that the Pensive thing is the instigating incident for his stopping the lessons, but that doesn't mean he wasn't looking for an excuse to stop *breaking the law* in order to conduct them. With Dumbledore in hiding, he's not necessarilly going to be able to stop Snape getting sacked (or worse) for doing it. Alex From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 05:04:29 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 05:04:29 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114666 OK, my turn. I lust for movie Snape, like most do. But in the books I want to marry DD. My friends say that he is too old for me. I also what to be like him, he is my role model. So what does that say about me?? Mrs. Tonks Dumbledore.. ??? tell me ... go ahead.. Tonks_op From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 4 03:12:35 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:12:35 -0400 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape References: Message-ID: <010001c4a9c0$013ff440$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114667 > Alla wrote earlier: > > If we like certain characters, what does it say about us? > > > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about > > me? :o) >Angie here: >>I have soft spots for Ron and Neville. I admit part of it is that my nephew is a dead ringer for Rupert Grint (sorry, movie reference), but part of it is because I usually root for the underdogs. I can't wait to see these two young men come into their own in Books 6 & 7. But I've also enjoyed getting to see Ginny starting to develop -- I >>think she's probably a lot like Molly was at her age -- very spirited. Kethryn now - I have a serious (pardon the pun) infatuation for Sirius and (gasp!) Snape. I also have one with Harry but I keep yelling at myself for that one because he is just too young. Now, if Harry were my age, that would be a whole other story, you know? With all three of them (if Harry was older), however, there are the oh so obvious flashing red danger signs but that is something I am historically prone to ignoring much to my own personal detriment. So, what does that say about me? Glutton for punishment comes to mind (but the ride sure is worth the pain)... Kethryn From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Oct 4 04:29:35 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:29:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why the dismay from JKR? (Snape) Message-ID: <20041004.012235.3064.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114668 Jennifer said: > Like she said- it's the bad boy syndrome. Extremely exciting and > always ends in disaster and it makes no sense. I just want to point out that it isn't the bad boy thing for some people. Snape is just interesting. Some girls find that attractive. Some girls just enjoy the character without being attracted to him. But it seems like JKR is just focusing on the "bad boy" thing when she is irritated at the fans crushing on Snape, which isn't exactly the it. Snape's a mystery, he's possibly the most complicated character in the book, every plot about him is *fun* because he's such a free radical. Plus he's intelligent, sharply witty, and, honestly, sometimes I'm glad that someone gives Harry the smackdown, only because main characters usually annoy me. BTW, do teen girls crush on Alan Rickman? I had a discussion with someone who said that it's a sign of maturity when you stop lusting after Willoughby and start appreciating Colonel Brandon (in Sense and Sensibility). What I mean is that the "fangirls" who crush on AR's Snape are probably fanwomen who are long past their bad boy stage. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Oct 4 05:36:37 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 01:36:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stopping Occlumency Message-ID: <20041004.013709.3064.8.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114669 Alex said: > I'm not totally sure, in Snape's place, that I would be > entirely willing to *break the law* to teach a student I didn't > like, You would if it meant the difference between life as you know it staying the same or Voldemort rising and destroying the world. Your argument makes sense in the real world, but the Order is trying to prevent an apocalypse, or something close to it. Snape knows this irritating, irresponsible little Potter kid is a key in the war; he does what he has to do, as he's always done in war. > *We*, since we have been inside Harry's head for > the last five years, know that he's not about to run to Umbridge > and say "Snape's violating Eductional Decree 26 every week by teaching > me Occlumency." But does Snape know that? If he's been poking around in Harry's head *and* has been given the go-ahead from DD, then yes, I think Snape knows he's safe. IMO, Snape had to trust Harry for the same reason Harry had to trust Snape: because DD said so. > but that > doesn't mean he wasn't looking for an excuse to stop *breaking the > law* in order to conduct them. Snape may be a self-motivated git, but he's been a spy for a long time. He knows about personal risk for higher priorities. I don't think Umbridge really scared him, anyway, aside from wanting to stay off her radar so he could do his job for the Order. No beaurocrat could be more capable of more violence than Voldemort or his (possibly more dangerous) DE's. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From zanelupin at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 05:37:19 2004 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 05:37:19 -0000 Subject: Why Move the Sorcerer's Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114670 Angie wrote: > I keep wondering why DD had the SS moved. I realize the whole plot revolves around the capture of the thing, but I mean, why, all of a sudden, was Gringott's no longer the best place for it? (I also wonder how long the SS had been at Gringotts.)< KathyK: I've wondered about this, too. Last summer there was a thread that begins at 74579 entitled the Elixir of Life. While the initial poster asked why Quirrell didn't just go to Devon and steal some Elixir from Nicholas Flamel to tide Voldemort over until they could get at the stone, it quickly turned into a discussion about these very issues. Why did the stone need moving? Who knew someone was after it? When did they know? When was the stone moved? How long was it at Gringotts? How about that coincidence where someone broke into Gringotts the same day Hagrid retrieved the Stone? Now if you go check out this thread, you might notice I posted to it quite a bit. I would like to apologize for my shameful lack of snipping in some of those messages. It's pretty atrocious. *blushes* And if you don't go back and read it (But do, it's fun to read old posts!) I'll share my thoughts on the matter, which became a little more coherent and have mingled with some other folks ideas (which is why you should go back and read them) thanks to the other posters and particularly Steve/bboyminn, formerly bboy_mn in messages 74752 and 74997. (for a very concise version of what happened check out 74997 in particular as I've apparently gotten very verbose--chocolate frogs to anyone who actually makes it to the bottom of this post!) Here's how I think it may have happened: I think the Philosopher's Stone initially resided with Nicholas Flamel. The Stone can be considered to be very valuable given it's capable of granting its wielder immortality and gold. Flamel has had hundreds of years to develop all sorts of protections against theft of the Stone. The safest place for it was with him even if others often attempted to steal it because of the protection he's created. I know Gringotts is, according to Hagrid, the safest place in the WW next to Hogwarts, but I don't believe Flamel kept the Stone there initially. I've got no proof, it just seems to make sense. Why would he keep it away from him when he's using it to make Elixir for him and his wife? Yes, he could have the Elixir stored at home, but at some point wouldn't they run out and need to make more? Then he'd have to go to Gringotts to retrieve the Stone or at least he would be carrying the Elixir from Gringotts to his home in Devon if he even took the precaution of making the Elixir there in the vault. It's quite a security risk either way. So the Philosopher's Stone is sitting pretty in the care of Nicholas Flamel. Why move it? My thought was that perhaps someone made a particularly clever attempt at stealing the Stone and this raised concerns for Flamel that perhaps it is no longer safe. However, Steve made a much stronger case for a different scenario for the move from Flamel's personal protection to Gringotts and then to Hogwarts. >From message 74997: "So, Dumbledore and Flamel's belief that it was in danger could be completely independant of Voldemort; I'm sure in the course of 600 years various people have tried to get access to the stone by various means on several occassions. "Flamel and/or Dumbledore and/or some other acquaintance hears rumors that there is a renewed interest in the stone in the more unsavory circles of the wizard world." KathyK, back now: With either scenario, the next step for Flamel and Dumbledore would be to move the Philisopher's Stone to a safer location. So they give Gringotts a try. They've got high security vaults that trap theives inside, and rumors of guard dragons. Let's go with Steve's scenario that there has been talk of a plot to steal the stone. Not only that but it's been brewing for a while. Dumbledore and Flamel have been hearing whispers cosistently for some months (for instance-- the exact timing isn't necessary for my purposes). Their first step was to move the stone to Gringotts, which has it's own special brand of protection against theives. This move could do one of two things: 1) Deter the thief from an attempt against Gringotts, well known for it's reputation for anti- theft protection. or 2) They've made the switch from Gringotts hopefully under the nose of the potential thief and set a trap for said thief at the home of Flamel. It doesn't really matter the reason. Flamel and Dumbledore sit back and wait. More time (months, again) passes. No one attempts to break into Flamel's house to get at the Philosopher's Stone and the quiet interest remains. New inquiries are made, new whispers reach Dumbledore's ears.** Rather than wait and see if the shadowy criminals make a suicidal attempt at Gringotts, Flamel chooses for Dumbledore to take control of the PS. Dumbledore begins to make preparations at Hogwarts, getting his teachers to begin creating their individual pieces of the Stone's protection. He charges Hagrid with the task of retrieving the Stone. Hagrid brings the Stone to Hogwarts with no problems. Everybody seems to think all is well as they don't know anything about Quirrell's connection to Lord Voldemort or that LV is after the PS. So what about that connection? And how about that oddly-timed break in at Gringotts that piques our young Harry's curiosity? I know it's widely assumed (by me, too) that Quirrell took the year before Harry arrived at Hogwarts to go do some fieldwork. And in this year LV bent him to his will. According to Erin's (erinellii) excellent analysis, there is strong evidence Quirrell took his year away from Hogwarts two years before Harry's arrival. Sadly I cannot find the message number of her essay so I'll just provide the link where you can find it on the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/quirrell.html#Leave Quirrell spent his year in the forest. He comes back with a new friend and begins making some quiet inquiries into the whereabouts of and the protections guarding the Stone. He spends the next year at Hogwarts developing his new personality as a fearful, stuttering, useless DADA teacher. He also continues his search for a way to get at the stone. Somewhere in here the Stone moves from Devon to Gringotts. By the end of term, Dumbledore and Flamel have made the decision to move it from Gringotts to Hogwarts. Dumbledore asks Quirrell if he can help out with a special project. I doubt he was forthcoming with a reason but Quirrell didn't need one. Quirrell, perhaps by discussing with other teachers, realizes what must be heading his way. He feels panicky. This will not go over well with his master if he cannot get at the PS before it falls under Dumbledore's care. But what can he do? He's been working on this for *ages* and has only gotten so far as a tip the Stone is now at Gringotts (yeah, yeah, I don't know where that came from). And then one fine day in late July Hagrid lets slip that he's going on important business for Hogwarts. Hagrid could be meaning both the Stone and Harry but Quirrell senses his last opportunity is here. The next day he heads to London to make his grab. He runs into Hagrid and Harry in The Leaky Cauldron and *knows* he is out of time. He has to try and get the Stone NOW. As Harry and Hagrid are zooming around Gringotts, Quirrell is executing his plan using "Voldemort's Guide to Successful Gringotts Break Ins--Be The First Thief to Get It Right!" Sadly our poor Dark Lord is outta luck. Quirrell hasn't memorized the text by heart and it takes him just a little bit too long to reach the vault. Hagrid, Harry, and LV's lovely prize Quirrell's worked so hard for are zooming away as Quirrell breaks in. Lord Voldemort is er, unhappy with this turn of events. "Now we have Dumbledore to contend with. Nice work, nitwit! If I had a body and a wand I'd give new meaning to the word Crucio!" Okay, it's late and I'm beginning to get punchy ;-) KathyK, up two hours later than she'd meant to be composing this fun post and really needs to get to sleep now as she's got to be bright- eyed for tomorrow's job interview From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 06:40:12 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:40:12 -0000 Subject: Opening of Book 6 - Theories, Anyone? In-Reply-To: <001b01c4a8ce$372d46e0$022f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > Oh, we're doing futurology now, are we? > > That is sooooo dangerous! What if one of us comes up with a better idea for the fist chapter then JKR? Won't you be disappointed? What if we come out with *the same* idea as JKR? Doesn't that qualify as a *spoiler*?!? Finwitch: Not to me, since it's all speculation! And if someone really *does* have such an excellent "first chapter" - post it into fanfiction.net or some other fanfic-forum and continue it! I'd be ever so curious to read it. Second, I very much doubt someone can come up with the same idea, and even if we do, we won't *know* that! (unlike after the book's published/information is from JKR's website/interview with JKR - in latter case, it's very general at most, so it doesn't exactly spoil too much... I myself might have seen it already at the source) Susana: > The first chapter has the purpose of the book. In PS introduces Harry, in CoS... is missing, in PoA informs about the escaped prisoner (Sirius), in GoF foresees the return of Voldemort, and in OotP establishes Harry as the target. > > I say it's missing in CoS because the first chapter doesn't introduce the purpose of the book; it just reintroduces Harry. That is very consistent with a whole plot being taken of CoS - and we know that plot has been 'transferred' to HBP. > > CoS is actually my least favourite book - I just can't see its purpose! Maybe that's why I reckon the introductory chapter is missing. If someone has any idea about the purpose of CoS in the series, do explain, please! Finwitch: Kafi explained it in further detail - but this Chapter introduces Dobby, the themes - Good intentions, bad results; Choices - the freedom to make them, the sacrifice this freedom might require etc. ; being great no way means you're good; introduction of the Ministry of Magic and the fact that they DO have means to watch over Harry... Susana: > Another hint we have is that Harry will have to learn to control his emotions in the sixth book. I thought the Dursleys would be essential to that. I was very surprised when I read JKR's statement that we'd see little of the Dursleys in the sixth book. I thought the reason Petunia had taken Harry was a subplot to be resolved before the main one(s) but reading posts here made me realize that to resolve that issue would 'give too much away'. Finwitch: Well, it will remain short if Harry's lack of control over his anger leaks, once again, in magical means! And keeps doing so. Strong magical accidents one after another following each other would, as I see it, indeed introduce Harry's need to control his emotions AND keep his time with Dursleys short. (that's what I think causes magical accidents - "ever got anything happen when you were angry or scared?" and I'm not going to imitate Hagrid's dialect - this further shows when Aunt Marge blows up, and when that case is rementioned in Harry's trial (and Dumbledore says it's about lack of emotional control as well as the fact that Fudge knew it, too). It could be that an official of Ministry of Magic, Accidental Magic Reversal Squad visits Dursleys and possibly takes Harry away to St Mungos to be treated for Dragon Pox or some such (duh, ALL the books have some visitor! in PS, Dumbledore/Hagrid; in CoS there are Masons for Dursleys and Dobby for Harry - later the Weasleys to pick Harry; PoA Aunt Marge/Sirius as dog; GoF four Weasleys; OOP Dementors/ members of the title's group... Will the Half Blood Prince visit the Dursley neighbourhood? ****** Something I see in the opening of every book: Faulty communication in PS - Dursleys steal Harry's letters (from Hogwarts, I suppose - but nothing to say that in those hundreds of letters weren't at least one from some place else. Hagrid solves this by giving Hedwig). in CoS, Dobby steals Harry's letters; Hedwig is locked up in a cage. in PoA, Harry must send Hedwig (his only means to communicate with WW) away for Marge and listen the result of all the lies of Dursleys, just to get a permission slip signed! (this is the last one where NO letters sent appears, but at least he can recieve them now) in GoF, Harry does not know *how* Weasleys mean to arrive (meaning the Weasleys get stuck into living room fire-place) due to their vague information. in OOP, the information is clearly vague, and Harry definately does all he possibly can to get the information he needs with little or no result - due to old headmaster's decision. (everyone keeps reminding that letters can be intercepted) Is Harry finally being properly communicating in HBP? think not, but more so than before - and I think he will be in Book #7 (because that's when he's supposed to defeat the Dark Lord!)... Finwitch From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 07:04:02 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:04:02 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114672 Alex wrote: What has Snape done? He's asked Harry questions he wouldn't reasonably be expected to know the answers to in his first week of school. He's capriciously graded a couple of his assignments. He's blamed Harry for incidents of classroom misconduct in which Harry was not the instigator or sole participant. These behaviors are all unprofessional and inapproriate, but I'm not sure I'd call them abusive. (the capricious grading is what bothers me most, as a teacher.) > Valky (interrupting): Me too about the grading but I am not a teacher. Alex continues: > If those who believe in abusive!Snape can present the case without > going into a CAPSLOCK rage, I'd be interested in hearing it, > particularly with reference to specific classroom (or other on- page) incidents that I haven't thought of. > > Alex Valky: I am sorry, Alex. I can't really make the case that you have requested for you. I feel that Snape is borderline abusive in dealing with Harry and essentially I have agreed with the term on principle while part of this debate, in most of my posts you'll see I have inserted dumbed down synonyms where I might have put abusive. Alex said: What about Harry's reaction? If he was crying himself to sleep on a > regular basis, having horrible nightmares about potions class, > becoming physically ill on days when he was supposed to have class > with Snape, or otherwise showing signs of extreme stress or anxiety, then I'd consider assigning the label of "abuse" to Snape's behavior. But he isn't. Valky: I agree with what you have said here Harry doesn't have these reactions to Snape but there is someone who does. Neville Longbottom. Now I have been thinking on this for a little while now especially in terms of the longest debate that has been going on the past few days about Harry needing to stand his ground with Snape. My response to that you can read if you sift through the deluge and paraphrased it basically says that Harry has Snape beaten in spades already. Someone who hasn't though is Neville. Neville is still suffering and tormented by Snape. In POA we discover he has been deeply cut by Snapes cruelty toward him. Neville has no respect for Snape and Neville is the subject most abused by the evident *issues* Snape hasn't matured beyond. Therefore it is *Neville* who most needs to stand up and take back his personal power here and not Harry. In a recent part of the discussion I have contemplated with another poster a way that the Snape v Harry situation might play out in a classroom riot brought on by Snape going too far with Harry. I have been thinking about it for a while and I have realised that it is not Harry that Snape will go too far with but Neville. I have imagined a couple of scenarios and I will give you one just for the pleasure of it. Snape is the seveth year DADA teacher, which means that he now operates to his great dismay in the DA shadow of Harry Potter. Snape is not getting the respect he had hoped would come with his DADA position and in some way tries to take it by making an example of Harry in front of the class. In the end of the scenario a menacing Snape stands over Harry pointing his wand and ranting threateningly some detached semi-DADA lecture about the power of the Dark Lord and this is where you'll be when you need to use DADA, when Neville finally enraged and beyond his limit with Snapes bullying jumps up and screams "leave him alone Professor..." Then Neville takes his magnificent stand against his greatest fear and inspires all sorts of amazement from his class mates. What do you think? Valky From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 08:36:07 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:36:07 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Homework -- Practicing Spells Away From School In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > Matt wrote: > > Possibly students only do written homework over the summer, and no > > spell practice. (We certainly have not seen Harry doing any > > practical homework.) Possibly there is an exception for homework, > > but the assignments get communicated to the Ministry so that they > > know that the spells are permitted. Possibly the Ministry > > conflates the two rules (as Harry sometimes seems to do) and only > > punishes underage magic if it is done in front of Muggles. > > Yb on the ball: > From what we've seen, a lot of Hogwarts HW is essays, and I think > all the holiday work is written, not practical. > > "This separation from his spellbooks had been a real problem for > Harry, because his teachers at Hogwarts had given him a lot of > holiday work. *One of the essays...* " PoA, AmVer, p.3, emphasis mine > > This quote implies that *all* the holiday work is written. Plus, the > notes handed out at the end of PS/SS don't mention anything about > exceptions for homework. Finwitch: Quite right... still, that was Harry's first year - twins' third. Maybe Wizards past their OWLs *are* allowed to practice spells, provided they're not doing it near Muggles/have an adult wizard near them? Considering how, after OWLs, they're about 16, only a year before being of age. Nor are they, after OWLs, necessarily attending Hogwarts any more! > Matt again: > > On the other hand, Fred and George are pretty secretive about the > > magic they do over the summer before Book 5. --- Yb again: > I think I have some sort of canon support that they are getting away > with it, not using a loophole. Fred and George get the notices too, > because they [F&G] hope they [school admins] forget to hand them > out. I think this implies that the twins are not exempt from the > rules. Perhaps it's a combination of being from a magical family, > thus only being around magical areas and people, and the fact that > their father works in the ministry, and can take care of > any "issues" that arise with the Improper Use office and Underage > Wizard statutes, that lets them get away with all their pranks and > practices. Finwitch: Quite right. As Harry's experience with Dobby's hoovering charm implies, the ministry clearly is NOT able to tell who does the spell, even though they can determine the spell used. So, Fred&George doing their WWWs goes unnoticed, considered that 1)there ARE five adults present (parents and all 3 older brothers), 2)they can't tell which twin did it or if it was Ron or Ginny 3)Fred&George ARE pass their OWLs, so Ministry lets it be as it is, they're almost of age, anyway - they'd lose popularity by nitpicking for months... F&G are being secretive mainly because of their mother freaking and destroying their stock if they let her know... Molly's seemingly strict about the under-age law, but I think she's just using it as an excuse. (as OOP shows when the twins *are* of age and use magic for everything. Now she says they're still at school when it comes to joining the order... Mind you, Percy did the same thing once he got his apparition license - apparating whenever possible). So I think that anyone gets away practising underage magic in places like Weasley household (by Ministry, but not by Molly) or any place fully magical - like Diagon Alley (so long as you don't do it in front of a ministry official) simply because they'll never find out! Also, considering that a) Bill made it to Head Boy b) Charlie made good at Quidditch (though he *might* have been the Head Boy, too - Ron just didn't mention it because he appreciates Quidditch more) c)Percy made it to Head Boy Apparently all 3 of them made good grades, too. (had to, in order to get the badges, I think) They all got swiftly employed from school... I think they DID practise their spells at home, and Ministry never found out. Maybe they even 'forgot' to give the notice to i.e. Bill? Fred&George concentrated on their pranks (for the shop) and Molly tries to keep it quiet. (if they manage to keep it from her, when she's *there*, the ministry has no hope finding out!) I don't think she minds their prank-shop now, at *Diagon-Alley*, *financed by Harry*, and *making success*. Ron hopes to be an Auror - will he? (considering you need NEWT in potions, and in order to be in class, he must get O in his OWL) No idea what Ginny plans to do once she leaves Hogwarts, or Hermione for that matter... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 09:13:59 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:13:59 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Gringotts, & the Firebolt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbursztynski" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > Why didn't the Goblins turn in Sirius to MOM when he ordered the > > Firebolt for Harry in POA? I know Crookshanks took the order, but > > the book says that the money was taken from Sirius's vault -- who > > else would authorize such a transaction except Sirius? Maybe > > Gringotts has a really strict privacy policy (being facetious here). > > Maybe it wouldn't have mattered -- who would the MOM have > > interrogated -- Crookshanks? :) > > > > Angie > > Sue here: > > Good thought. I'd vote for the privacy policy. I'm pretty sure that there are > some accounts in Switzerland that have been there for a long, LONG time, > long after the owners are dead and gone, and it took a lot of bludgeoning to > get the Swiss banks to give up accounts put there by Nazis hiding their > ill-gotten loot. > > I also think that the goblins, who run the bank, don't like wizards very much > and really don't care about their quarrels. :-) Finwitch: Another possibility: just what would the goblins tell the Ministry? That S. Black, from unknown place, had made a withdrawal for Quality Quidditch Supplies to send a Firebolt to Harry Potter, under Harry Potter's name? On their own? Think not. Besides, it's a numbered vault 711 - next(or near) to 713, in which the PS was. It is well possible that while the Goblin secrecy policy is not all that strict (covering criminal activity), maybe your average goblin does not know whose possession such numbered account is. They're given a number, the amount of withdrawal and authorisation letter - (with magical means to say if it's valid, or a password, which just could be Harry James Potter - but I'm with magic here). Maybe the Goblins don't know either! And um - maybe Harry has the authority to make a withdrawal from Sirius' Vault - in which case the withdrawal says NOTHING about Sirius at all. (No need for Sirius' death being announced and his will read, then). and I agree that Goblins don't like wizards much... as to why - I think the reason is presented in the *fountain* that Harry put some money into - also, the *lie* it presents! Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 4 09:32:51 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 05:32:51 -0400 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? Message-ID: <002401c4a9f5$1eecbed0$40c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114675 Angie replies: "Yes! I've been seeing Draco as Ron's nemesis for a while. At least, I'm sure Ron feels that way. Ron is always the one to jump in when Draco says something about Hermione and Draco and Ron are natural opposites: rich, poor, smooth, a blunderer, etc. Draco is downright cruel to Ron when he makes references about Ron's family being poor and making remarks about Molly. I know Draco's said stuff about Harry's family, but it seems to me he'd made more remarks about Ron's family." DuffyPoo: Not to mention that both Ron and Draco are from pure-blood families. In fact, the same pure-blood family as they are both related to the Black family, according to Sirius and the Tapestry. It is interesting to see the opposites in these two, particularly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 09:33:55 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:33:55 -0000 Subject: What became of the Chamber of Secrets? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Have just posted on another thread the not original idea of the CoS > possibly figuring later on as a weapon for LV to fight Harry. > > Please someone alert me and other elative newbies to any posts there > may have been in HPfGU (or other sources) about what was done with > the chamber after the end of CoS. > > Was it sealed forever? Destroyed? or what? Is it still there? Does > it still have secret(s) (I do recall this question asked in the last > three months)? > > A great place for DD to disappear to in OoP since noone, but noone > knows where it is apart from Harry, Ron and, arguably, Myrtle. Finwitch: Except that you need parseltongue to open it. I it stayed open, any girl visiting Myrtle's toilet would know it was there. (but most avoid it, and probably wouldn't be atelling)- I know Dumbledore has many skills, but I do not think parseltongue is one of them. Or did he ask Ginny who might have gained the ability due to her being possessed by the memory of Tom Riddle? (He did not ask Harry, obviously). I myself think that DD visited his brother Aberforth, rather than the Chamber. Then again, if Aberforth IS parselmouth... (for some reason I don't believe Albus is one). He probably needed to ask him to rejoin the order anyway... But, of course, if HARRY wants a place to hide frome *everybody*, it'd be a good place, considering how few can get in, and Myrtle could keep watch! Maybe they'll even have DA meetings there, now that the basilisk is dead? Finwitch From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 10:28:29 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:28:29 -0000 Subject: Why people like Snape (was : why the dismay from JKR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114677 ---Dzeytoun wrote:> > JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay > over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why would > she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. Is all of it just because she is worried about teenagers falling for Alan Rickman, or is there something else? I honestly haven't a clue. Hannah: I think it's because JKR has created characters which she likes so much more; Harry, Lupin, Hagrid, and she's almost hurt on their behalf that some of us prefer the baddies. I like Snape because he's such an interesting character, and he has all the best lines. Some of the characters are a bit 2-dimensional, and it's harder to get excited about them. I don't understand why people find Snape attractive, but I really do care about his fate. I suppose people identify with Snape. I'd love to say I was as kind as Hagrid, as brave as Harry, as wise as Dumbledore, but I'm not, and I don't think many real people are. Snape is flawed, but he gives us the hope that past digressions can be rectified. He is (or can be interpreted as) trying to do the right thing, even though he's not very happy about it. I think people sympathise with that. We all make mistakes (maybe not quite as bad as becoming a DE...) and hope that we will be forgiven and able to make up for them. As for Alan Rickman, I think most true HP fans had their favourite characters established long before the films came along. And lets admit, he is pretty attractive compared to DD, Flitwick, Filch, or children too young to be considered attractive to the adult HP fan. Hannah, who keeps having to delete large portions of her fanfic because she's too biased towards Snape to write him plausibly From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 10:28:36 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:28:36 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114678 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > > > I am so very tired of reading what Harry MUST do. Harry/JKR will > decide what Harry MUST do, and we really can only sit here and > speculate. I don't think any of us is in the position to keep > saying "CAN'T" and "MUST," etc. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I would strongly disagree with that statement, but be that as it may. I sense that you see in this (and I may be wrong) a kind of Christian parable with Harry being a sort of martyr/Christ figure. Certainly that is one way to interpret things. Another way of looking at it (developing this from some of M.Clifford's posts) is that the characters all represent emotional/moral traits. Thus Harry is Love, Voldemort is Hate, Snape is Bitterness, Remus is Calm, Dumbledore is Wisdom, etc. In this context, the whole thing becomes a kind of fleshed out morality play very similar to the type of thing done in the Middle Ages where actors portraying different moral/emotional/psychological traits went through ritualistic actions to illustrate what were perceived as important truths. I suppose if we look at HP as Morality Play then Wisdom nurtures Love which will defeat Hate. In that case, the interplay between Snape and Harry (to use M. Clifford again) is about Bitterness devouring itself and bringing about its own destruction due to its inability to embrace Love. I find that a more compelling symbolic explanation of what's going on than the more direct Christ analogy. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive. Dzeytoun From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 10:36:42 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:36:42 +0100 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" Message-ID: <482F2493-15F1-11D9-B659-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114679 To be frank, I've never (unlike many) been particularly fascinated by the younger members of the cast of HP. Oh, I've posted about Harry of course, and a few about Neville, but that's because it looks as if they have interesting pasts - and in this tale the past seems destined to determine the future. Except for a few details I reckon that if we had a clear picture of the past then the future plot arc would be self-evident. For that reason (mostly) Hermione has consistently been near the bottom of the priorities list when I sit down at my keyboard to cobble together the next Kneasy trifle. Hermione just *is*. An adjunct to the story, a useful device whereby the author can impart background information to the reader. One of the first bits of supplementary info an HP addict comes across is Hermione as alter ego for JKR. She's (Hermione that is) roughly based on Jo as youngster and when Hermione makes a definitive statement (as in "You can't apparate...." or "I read it in...") this is Jo speaking ex cathedra. It's a useful means of warning fans not to go haring off on wild goose chases and thankfully it's used fairly sparingly. It also leaves open the possibility of human fallibility when Hermione starts a sentence with "I think that..." Some will disagree and claim that she is much more to the story than the authors mouthpiece. But consider, this site is awash with habitual and incorrigible theorisers; how many of the theories inflicted on the long-suffering members envisage Hermione as having a key role in the final showdown or even as a pivotal figure in her own right as opposed to being an adjunct to Harry? She'll be in there somewhere doing something, without doubt - but she's not automatically on the list of suspects for employment in one of JKR's twisty plot devices. Ginny, or even Luna rate higher. Apart from SHIPping (plus my transmogrification of her into WHIPLASH), consciously or unconsciously the members seem to have no great expectations of her rising above or sinking below her current role. In the HP equation Hermione is a constant, not a potential variable. Could you envisage, for example, Hermione being killed off in the next two books? Readers can and have postulated Harry, Ron, Neville, DD, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, but never Hermione, biting the dust. Why not? Is it so unthinkable? What's so special about Hermione that her survival is guaranteed? (Though I did once wistfully imagine her being torn limb from limb by a rampaging mob of pissed off House Elves finally goaded beyond endurance by her patronising presumption that the how and why of their place in society should be arranged so as to comply with the dictates of her personal social prejudices.) One thing to remember when considering Hermione is that the character in the books (particularly the first one) is nowhere near as pleasant as the one depicted in the medium-that-must-not-be-named. She's a bossy, bumptious, shrewish know-it-all who if it weren't for the episode with the troll that brought the Trio together could well have attended Hogwarts for seven years without making a single friend. She is not likeable; shades of Myrtle - or Bertha. But to judge from her actions Hermione is not overly anxious about being liked or being popular. She has other priorities - being right - and then telling everyone so. She knows exactly where she stands on everything and her belief in her own correctness is impregnable; the opinions of others need not apply for consideration. In almost every book this is forcibly expressed: the Midnight Duel, the Firebolt, Divination, SPEW, the DA 'contract' enforcement, Rita Skeeter. Moreover, if you posit any situation where 'right' or 'wrong' in the wider moral sense has any bearing you could more or less guarantee what stance Hermione would take - and she'll not worry about technically breaching her own standards if in her opinion it serves the greater good. Of course sometimes what she does, what she says seems just a little off, a little contrived. Two examples: The first is in her initial meeting with Harry - "I know all about you, of course [...] and you're in Modern Magical History and the Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts and Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth Century." "Am I?" said Harry feeling dazed. "Goodness, didn't you know, I'd have found out everything I could if it was me." Yes, and so would anyone else. But not Harry, not even just a few days after he finds out that the Dursleys have been lying to him for years. He never asks Hermione; not then, not ever; he never sneaks into the library to find the books, he never browses F&B's shelves, despite spending a week or more in Diagon Alley after Stan Shunpike links Sirius Black, Harry Potter and Voldemort for him on the Knight Bus. If JKR doesn't want him to know, why mention the damn books? Grrr. T'ain't natural, I tell 'ee. This scene sets up Hermione as a fount of knowledge. Strange then that she never refers to these books again, even after it becomes apparent that the events surrounding Harry's early childhood might answer a lot of questions. Secondly there's that petrification episode in CoS. Many have commented that it's entirely out of character for Hermione to tear pages out of a book; I'd suggest that it's also out of character for her to scribble on the pages of a book ("pipes") and carry off the page to show to Harry and Ron. Invariably at other times she's just *told* them or dragged them up to the library. And where did that hand-mirror come from? It's all designed so as to set up a delayed realisation on Harry's part, we know that - but it doesn't seem to have been plotted or presented with JKR's usual facility, and a lot of fans noticed. Among all the major characters Hermione is the one I've theorised about least; she just doesn't have a handle, a foible, a weakness that can be built on. Oh, except once, and her weakness was her caring nature. What would she do, what price would she pay if an apparently sincere somebody wandered up to her and promised that if she co-operated in this very minor bit of business, then it would eventually result in House Elves being freed? Mmm. Interesting. Otherwise I've nothing to offer. Like most I'm near-as-dammit certain that she'll be a survivor and although not a SHIPper I think she'll cast her beady eye on Ron and nail the poor unsuspecting bugger to the floor. And after that he won't have a life he can call his own. Run, Ron! Run! Kneasy From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 10:41:13 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:41:13 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114680 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Valky: > I agree with what you have said here Harry doesn't have these > reactions to Snape but there is someone who does. Neville Longbottom. > Now I have been thinking on this for a little while now especially > in terms of the longest debate that has been going on the past few > days about Harry needing to stand his ground with Snape. My response > to that you can read if you sift through the deluge and paraphrased > it basically says that Harry has Snape beaten in spades already. > Someone who hasn't though is Neville. Neville is still suffering and > tormented by Snape. In POA we discover he has been deeply cut by > Snapes cruelty toward him. Neville has no respect for Snape and > Neville is the subject most abused by the evident *issues* Snape > hasn't matured beyond. Therefore it is *Neville* who most needs to > stand up and take back his personal power here and not Harry. > > In a recent part of the discussion I have contemplated with another > poster a way that the Snape v Harry situation might play out in a > classroom riot brought on by Snape going too far with Harry. I have > been thinking about it for a while and I have realised that it is > not Harry that Snape will go too far with but Neville. > I have imagined a couple of scenarios and I will give you one just > for the pleasure of it. > > Snape is the seveth year DADA teacher, which means that he now > operates to his great dismay in the DA shadow of Harry Potter. > Snape is not getting the respect he had hoped would come with his > DADA position and in some way tries to take it by making an example > of Harry in front of the class. In the end of the scenario a > menacing Snape stands over Harry pointing his wand and ranting > threateningly some detached semi-DADA lecture about the power of the > Dark Lord and this is where you'll be when you need to use DADA, > when Neville finally enraged and beyond his limit with Snapes > bullying jumps up and screams "leave him alone Professor..." Then > Neville takes his magnificent stand against his greatest fear and > inspires all sorts of amazement from his class mates. > > What do you think? > > Valky Excellent points. I think you may well be onto something with the Neville scenario. Certainly the evolution of his character in OOTP would lead in this direction, and you can't help but feel that there has to be some goal toward which this is heading. Perhaps if we pair people up with their "enemies" whom they will eventually defeat/destroy, it would be Harry vs Voldemort, Ron vs Draco, and Neville vs Snape. The scenario you posit for seventh year DADA seems extremely plausible. It would also be funny beyond measure. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Mon Oct 4 10:49:05 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:49:05 -0000 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" In-Reply-To: <482F2493-15F1-11D9-B659-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Among all the major characters Hermione is the one I've theorised about > least; she just doesn't have a handle, a foible, a weakness that can be > built on. Oh, except once, and her weakness was her caring nature. What > would she do, what price would she pay if an apparently sincere > somebody wandered up to her and promised that if she co-operated in > this very minor bit of business, then it would eventually result in > House Elves being freed? Mmm. Interesting. > Well, I think she has a worse weakness than that, which is her love of logic (perhaps paradoxically). Hermione is all too ready to accede to any argument that matches her logical standards. Given that, she would be extremely easy to deceive given the right approach. That is, line the logical evidence up, and trust that she won't let her heart, which might no better, overwhelm her reason, which is being deceived by a chain of false evidence. This, incidentally, is the way she is often portrayed in Azkaban!Harry fanfiction, and I think it is a real danger. In OOTP we saw the danger of Harry not thinking. I would love it if in HBP we saw the danger of Hermione thinking too much. Dzeytoun From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 11:11:49 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:11:49 -0000 Subject: Occlumency questions/LV 's plans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114682 Dungrollin previously: > > But something else jumped out at me, and I've not found any > > discussion of it ? perhaps because everyone was so delighted > > to have so much else to analyse in the few pages dedicated to the > > Occlumency lessons ? is that Snape glosses over *how* they > > know that You Know Who knows that Harry's seeing into his mind. Annemehr: > The best idea I could come up with, is that Dumbledore could tell > when he looked into Harry's eyes the night of the snake attack, > just as he was Portkeying Harry and the Weasleys to Grimmauld > Place. At that instant, Harry felt hatred for Dumbledore and > wanted to sink fangs into him. Dumbledore tells Harry his view of > the incident in his office after the MoM battle: "On those rare > occassions when we had close contact, I thought I saw a shadow of > him stir behind your eyes..." Dungrollin previously: > > Is it significant that they know that, but not that Harry's > > already dreaming about the corridor? Is Harry's dreaming about > > the corridor *up until* snake.vs.Weasly because You Know Who is > > dreaming of getting his hands on the prophecy, but *after* > > snake.vs.Weasly Harry's dreaming because You Know Who is feeding > > him misinformation? Annemehr: > The snake might be presumed to be Nagini possessed by Voldemort. I > don't quite feel easy about believing this, because possession by > Voldemort is apparently damaging, and I don't think LV would want > to damage Nagini nor cause her to mistrust him. If it were > possible for LV to possess an animal benignly, wouldn't he have > been able to "keep" the animals in the Albanian forest for longer? Dungrollin now: Hmmm. I'm sure this has already been well dissected... But what the hell. My thoughts lean towards short-term possessions ? e.g. Riddle/Ginny throughout CoS, and LV/Harry at the end of OotP. These don't appear to be too damaging in the long-term, and even Quirrel survived it for a year (though whether that's actually the same thing is debateable). Nagini is unlikely to be an ordinary snake anyway; presumably being magical would extend the survivable time of possession. Annemehr: > So, I think LV was there, possessing a snake, to gather more > information regarding how to get at the prophecy. While attacking > Arthur (which he was not originally planning to do), it seems he > felt Harry's emotions of horror and realised what was happening. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It was only just before (chapter-wise, I mean) the escape of the > imprisoned DEs that Harry realised during an Occlumency lesson that > the door he'd been dreaming of was the door to the DoM. It had > always been closed so far, so I infer that LV had not yet seen > what was behind it. After Rookwood was available to LV, I believe > the dreams were more and more about making Harry actually want to > see what was behind the door. I think it was after Rookwood's > escape that LV formulated his plan of luring Harry to the DoM. LV > soon learned all he needed to know, began sending Harry dreams on > purpose, and then it was only a matter of time until LV felt > Harry's horror at "seeing" Sirius being tortured, and would know > Harry was coming. That's when he put the rest of the plan into > action. Dungrollin now: You appear to think that Dumbledore knew that LV realised Harry was intruding into his mind just from how *Harry* changed. Well, I'll admit is a possibility. But surely we can come up with something more interesting... I was more inclined to theorise about Snape and Dumbledore and the Order and the spying on the DEs. All we get from the conversation at St. Mungo's overheard on the old extendables is suspicions, nobody appears to know anything for certain. In the first Occlumency lesson Snape says `It seems so' in response to Harry's question about whether LV realised Harry was reading his thoughts. Then (possibly to avoid answering any more questions) he says `It is enough that we know' which sounds a lot more certain than previously. Dumbledore seems to have been waiting for this to happen (according to Molly in St. Mungo's. And we know all about this damn connection between Harry and LV in GoF. So why on earth didn't he start with the Occlumency lessons in September? Why wait until after Christmas? The decision to teach Harry Occlumency can't be a result of Dumbledore's suspicions after snake.vs.Weasly, because Dumbledore was already suspicious, and the Order take Dumbledore's suspicions seriously (Lupin: `Dumbledore's got a shrewd idea,' said Lupin, `and Dumbledore's shrewd ideas normally turn out to be accurate' ? OotP, chapter 5.) What new piece of information made him realise that LV *knew* Harry was seeing into his thoughts, and where did it come from? Now, for the moment I'll ignore the rousing chorus of `Snape the double agent!' simply because I rather fancy the idea that he's doing something more interesting than spying(1). So, purely in the spirit of exploring other possibilities, I'm going to leave that as my option of last resort. Could it be something to do with Bode? Nah. When Bode was killed by the Devil's Snare DD and the order would automatically think of LV reading Harry's mind, seeing that Bode was recovering and sending a gift-wrapped helping hand into the sweet hereafter. But that all happened after the Occlumency lessons started, so it can't have influenced the decision. Similarly, they didn't know about Harry dreaming about the corridor until Snape saw it, so it can't be that... Damn it, I think I'm out of ideas. If any old-timers are reading this and not replying because someone's thought it through before, please let us newbies know... We're confused! Cheerio, Dungrollin. (1) `Thanks to you, Dumbledore was able to recall the Order of the Phoenix about an hour after Voldemort returned,' ?Sirius, OotP chapter 5. ? Is this what Snape was sent to do at the end of GoF? From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 11:18:29 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:18:29 -0000 Subject: Is Draco's Character Arc complete? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114683 Dzeytoun:> I was thinking this morning about Draco. Lot's of people have expressed dismay a the lack of development of his character. JKR has expressed dismay at his popularity among fans. Some have even speculated that JKR will kill him off in the next book just to squash what she sees as a perverse and unhealthy movement. > > I don't think she would kill him off just for that reason, but I do wonder if Draco's usefulness to the story has rather run its course. > He was, well, pathetic in OOTP. After setting him up as a great > rival with the prefect thing, he essentially disappears through most of the book and when he does appear again it's not easy to take him very seriously. He still remains the same vicious child he was in Book I. Although that served well for a villain in the first couple or three books, it's hard to see how he can figure large in a world of war and death and prophecies. > > Simply put, it seems that either his character needs to develop, and fast, or he will lose what little relevance he has left to the story. Hannah: I did have a thought as to a function for Draco in book 6 or 7. We know he's pretty bad at keeping his mouth shut about things. I wonder if Snape could exploit this? I suspect that Snape isn't as close the 'inner circle' of LV as he once was; for instance he didn't know about the DoM plan (we have to assume he didn't, I'm not getting into that now...) I can just see Draco letting things slip to Snape that maybe the other DE's weren't intending on sharing with him. Draco would think 'I know full well Professor Snape is my Dad's old mate and is a DE...' and be keen to show off that he knew things about LV's plans. Just a thought. I agree he doesn't really appear to be much of a match for Harry. Maybe for Ron, but I don't know how much we'd see of any battle between them, since we usually follow Harry. On a side note, while Draco isn't particularly scary in the canon so far, I have to say that for me, LV hasn't matched up to the figure of awe and dread he's supposed to be either. We know he's more evil than we've seen so far. The most chilling character IMO is diary! Tom (technically LV, I know). I find him far more frightening than monster-snake-man!Voldemort. Maybe there's hope for Draco's evil nature yet. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 12:08:53 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:08:53 -0000 Subject: House Elves' enslavement (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114684 Debbie wrote: > It's my theory that Dobby was formerly the Potters' elf and that he > was "relocated" to the Malfoys after the Potters' home at Godric's > Hollow was destroyed and his masters killed. Dobby's devotion to > Harry is extraordinary and doesn't seem fully explainable by the > explanation Dobby gives -- that house elves were miserably treated > while Voldemort was out and about, and that Harry's triumph was > a "beacon of hope" for house elves. Dobby shows Harry the loyalty > of a "heart master" although Harry is unrelated to Dobby's legal > masters. If the Potters are *his* family, though, that would > explain his loyalty to Harry, even though he is bound to obey the > Malfoys and keep their secrets. > > I've even found some canon to support it. When Marietta rats on the DA and Dobby comes to warn everyone, he says "Dobby has come to warn you . . . but the house-elves have been warned not to tell . . ." Dobby doesn't want to provide the details -- house-elf guilt must run deep -- but he finally confirms that Umbridge is coming. This confirmation implies that either Umbridge's warning was not a direct order or that, as a free elf with an employment contract, he was free to disobey. However, he still feels guilt about disobeying anyone with authority at Hogwarts, and attempts to punish himself. > > The interesting thing is what happens next. As Dobby attempts to do injury to himself, Harry says "Dobby -- this is an *order* -- get > back down to the kitchen with the other elves and , if she asks you whether you warned me, lie and say no! . . . And I forbid you to > hurt yourself!" Dobby's reaction? A big "Thank you, Harry > Potter!" > > It almost seems as though Dobby was waiting for Harry to order him > not to obey Umbridge. As a free elf employed at Hogwarts, I don't > think he was magically compelled to obey Umbridge. However, Dobby > felt that he needed to punish himself *until* Harry gave him an > express *order* which he hastens to obey. It may be simply > the "heart-master" syndrome kicking in. But it might be more. > Hannah: I never bought the theory that Dobby was the Potter's house elf, but you do make a good argument and I'm half-persuaded. I think he would have been inherited by Lucius along with his mansion, piles of gold, dark arts memorabilia etc. They seem to be tied to old families and old properties. I suppose Dobby could have been the house elf of James' parents, and was then inherited by him. I don't understand how Dobby came to be relocated to the Malfoys. Surely they would already have at least one inherited elf? Would Malfoy really want to buy an elf that used to serve the Potters - maybe he would, perhaps that was why he did. But the way Dobby talks suggests that he was maltreated when LV was around, and I can't believe that James or Lily would have done this (if they did, it goes against his loyalty to and apparent love for Harry). He remembers how it was, being treated like vermin (paraphrasing here). He may just be speaking about elf friends, but it always seems to me that it's bitter experience, and that is what drives him to risk so much to warn Harry. He also says that he is *still* treated like vermin (my emphasis). I find the canon supporting your argument quite persuasive, but the trouble is we know so little about actual house elf rules. Dobby is a bit of a law unto himself, and I believe all house elves have more autonomy than wizards like to think. It seems to me that the reason house elves are still enslaved is their own attitude (I don't mean that as a criticism of them), in that elves who are really unhappy seem to be able to find ways to disobey their 'master,' and their main obstacle is convincing themselves they are in the right. When Harry tells Dobby not to punish himself, Dobby is only too happy to take that as an order he must obey. He obeys because it suits him. I don't know if it's a sign that the Potters are Dobby's original masters. Or maybe the elves have to obey students of Hogwarts as well as staff? Hannah From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 12:09:17 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:09:17 -0000 Subject: Occlumency questions/LV 's plans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114685 Dungrollin wrote: > `Thanks to you, Dumbledore was able to recall the Order of > the Phoenix about an hour after Voldemort returned,' ?Sirius, > OotP chapter 5. ? Is this what Snape was sent to do at the end of > GoF? Dungrollin now: I knew I shouldn't have left that in, it occurred to me just before I pressed send and I typed it without thinking. Dumbledore asks a whole load of other people to get the 'old crowd' back together. Snape can't be doing that too. Sorry, ignore it. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 12:32:14 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:32:14 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114686 Valky: " Then Neville takes his magnificent stand against his greatest fear and inspires all sorts of amazement from his class mates. > > > > What do you think?< Dzeytoun: > Excellent points. I think you may well be onto something with the Neville scenario. Certainly the evolution of his character in OOTP would lead in this direction, and you can't help but feel that there has to be some goal toward which this is heading. Perhaps if we pair people up with their "enemies" whom they will eventually defeat/destroy, it would be Harry vs Voldemort, Ron vs Draco, and Neville vs Snape.< Except that Neville has already taken a magnificent (if so far unsuccessful) stand against a far more dire antagonist: Bellatrix Lestrange. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that we haven't actually seen her hurt Neville worse than Snape has, considering the fourteen years of living death she inflicted on his parents and that we've seen Neville himself emotionally and physically tortured by her. Snape makes an attractive scapegoat, but surely she is the one responsible for Neville's nightmares and irrational fears? I believe JKR made Snape borderline for a reason: no matter where we draw the line between "difficult" and "abusive" there are going to be people who are careful and clever enough to stay just inside of it and still make others miserable. You'd have to move the line all the way to saintliness to catch them out, and where would that leave the rest of us? Making special rules just to deal with the Snapes is tyranny, and so, I'm afraid, is moral conversion by force. Besides, it doesn't work. People are so passionately determined to do what they think is right that even those who aren't usually sneaky will resort to clandestine behavior if they must--like joining the DA. Then you need an I-squad to ferret them out, and that means creating another group with special privileges, and those attract bullies the way veela attract testerone. Meet the new boss... JKR said that Dumbledore allows Snape because he thinks the children need to learn to deal with all kinds of people. I think we are going to see that there are other ways of dealing with bullies than getting revenge. It wouldn't be very satisfying to me if Harry was noble enough to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew for killing his parents and then took out his wrath on Snape for insulting them. To paraphrase something Ron never said, he'd really need to rethink his priorities. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 12:42:00 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:42:00 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > JKR has on several ocassions expressed puzzlement and some dismay over the fascination with Severus Snape in fandom. Now, why would she? I mean, he seems to be a very complex character. Is all of it just because she is worried about teenagers falling for Alan Rickman, or is there something else? I honestly haven't a clue.< JKR has enemies who like to take what she says out of context. They would love to catch her saying nice things about Slytherin House or other not so wonderful role models, so she's careful to say we shouldn't think they are nice. But I think she's more worried about Draco fandom than Snape. As someone said, Snape fans are presumably old enough to take care of themselves, and can be gently teased about their infatuation. Draco fangirls, though, might be too young or naive to realize that translating a lust for dangerous men from fiction to reality might be the difference between riding a roller coaster and jumping off a cliff. Pippin From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 12:57:28 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:57:28 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114689 > > Valky: > " Then Neville takes his magnificent stand against (Snape) his greatest fear and inspires all sorts of amazement from his class mates. > > > Pippin: > Snape makes an attractive scapegoat, but surely she..... (Valky: Bellatrix who he has already stood against) .......is the one responsible for Neville's nightmares and irrational fears? > Valky: Not at all. POA makes a specific case of Neville fearing Snape with his Boggart and furthermore in OOtP you see Neville shaking with fear when Snapes castigates him. I am not using Snape for a scapegoat nor am I ignoring Bellatrix' and Rodolphus' visitation upon Neville. I am simply pointing out that there is *someone* who fits the description that Alex posited regarding a criterion for making a strong case that Snape is, in fact, *abusive*, in the very sense of the word. That person is Neville Longbottom and if anyone is yet to make a stand to Snape and take back his personal power from Snape it is Neville. Harry has not given in to Snapes badgering, and he's done really well for himself in spite of it. Neville OTOH is deeply and horrendously affected by Snape, regardless of the Lestranges' or LV or his Grandmother, Neville is affected by *Snape specifically* and that is canon of Snape abusing his privilege. What Bellatrix and her husband did to Neville's parents may well have a great deal of relevance to his fearfulness, but we are given specific canon to evidence that Snape is hurting Neville so there is no reason to dismiss it. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 12:59:53 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:59:53 -0000 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" In-Reply-To: <482F2493-15F1-11D9-B659-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114690 Kneasy wrote: Hermione just *is*. An adjunct to the story, a useful device whereby the author can impart background information to the reader. > Some will disagree and claim that she is much more to the story than the authors mouthpiece. But consider, this site is awash with habitual and incorrigible theorisers; how many of the theories inflicted on the long-suffering members envisage Hermione as having a key role in the final showdown or even as a pivotal figure in her own right as opposed to being an adjunct to Harry? She'll be in there somewhere doing something, without doubt - but she's not automatically on the list of suspects for employment in one of JKR's twisty plot devices. Ginny, or even Luna rate higher. Apart from SHIPping (plus my transmogrification of her into WHIPLASH), consciously or unconsciously the members seem to have no great expectations of her rising above or sinking below her current role. In the HP equation Hermione is a constant, not a potential variable. > > Could you envisage, for example, Hermione being killed off in the next two books? Readers can and have postulated Harry, Ron, Neville, DD, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, but never Hermione, biting the dust. Why not? Is it so unthinkable? What's so special about Hermione that her survival is guaranteed? (Though I did once wistfully imagine her being torn limb from limb by a rampaging mob of pissed off House Elves finally goaded beyond endurance by her patronising presumption that the how and why of their place in society should be arranged so as to comply with the dictates of her personal social prejudices.) > One thing to remember when considering Hermione is that the character in the books (particularly the first one) is nowhere near as pleasant as the one depicted in the medium-that-must-not-be- named. She's a bossy, bumptious, shrewish know-it-all who if it weren't for the episode with the troll that brought the Trio together could well have attended Hogwarts for seven years without making a single friend. She is not likeable; shades of Myrtle - or Bertha. > Otherwise I've nothing to offer. Like most I'm near-as-dammit certain that she'll be a survivor and although not a SHIPper I think she'll cast her beady eye on Ron and nail the poor unsuspecting bugger to the > floor. And after that he won't have a life he can call his own. > > Run, Ron! Run! Hannah: I'm enjoying these posts Kneasy :-) I'd never really stopped to consider how minor a role Hermione seems to play in all our theorising. There does seem to be a consensus that she's going to get her come-uppance in future books, either over the house-elf thing, or over her treatment of Rita, or through some other act of taking the law into her own hands. I'm not particularly interested in 'shipping' myself (not when there are so many more interesting mysteries out there than which teenagers have a crush on each other), but I do think that Hermione and Ron will get together. The thing that does interest me about possible Harry/Hermione or Ron/Hermione 'ships is how the third member of the trio is going to feel. Very left out, I'd think. For Harry it would be yet another blow, he may see it as 'losing' the two people he cares about most, and it would push him closer to other characters, such as Neville, Ginny, and maybe Luna. For Ron, I think he would feel very resentful, and it might be enough to push him into becoming rather dangerous to his former friends. I've just realised that even in this bit of theorising Hermione serves no other purpose than a convenient female to come between Harry and Ron. I suppose Kneasy summed up my opinion correctly; Hermione will be around for the final battle, no doubt doing something useful. But I don't see us getting any great surprises about her and her character. Of course, when she's revealed as the half-blood prince, fails all of her OWLs, and turns out to be ESE! I will eat my words :-) Hannah, who hopes Kneasy will do Ron in the next 'deconstructing our favourite characters' post From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 13:16:29 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:16:29 -0000 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > I'm not particularly interested in 'shipping' myself (not when there > are so many more interesting mysteries out there than which > teenagers have a crush on each other), but I do think that Hermione > and Ron will get together. The thing that does interest me about > possible Harry/Hermione or Ron/Hermione 'ships is how the third > member of the trio is going to feel. Very left out, I'd think. > Kneasy: Or dead. That would solve the potential romantic conflict nicely, don't you think? > > Hannah, who hopes Kneasy will do Ron in the next 'deconstructing our > favourite characters' post Kneasy: We'll see. I'll commune with a few large G&Ts and listen to what the siren voices that guide the stumbling typing fingers (two, plus one thumb) have to say. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 13:36:08 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:36:08 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114692 > Pippin: > > Snape makes an attractive scapegoat, but surely she..... > > (Valky: Bellatrix who he has already stood against) > > .......is the one responsible for Neville's nightmares and > irrational fears? > > > > Valky: > Not at all. POA makes a specific case of Neville fearing Snape withhis Boggart and furthermore in OOtP you see Neville shaking with fear when Snapes castigates him.< Argh, I don't remember that in OOP, can you give the reference? In GoF, Neville has a bad night after he sees the cruciatus curse demonstrated, not after any of his misadventures in Snape's class, even Trevor's almost-poisoning or the detention with frog guts. Still, I wouldn't deny that Neville is afraid of Snape. But what we learn in PoA is that Neville's fear of Snape will be overcome by *laughter*, a lesson Neville has yet to apply in real life. Neville's fear of Snape is *irrational*. It wouldn't be irrational for him to fear emotional abuse, but we know he doesn't, because boggart!Snape doesn't tell Neville what a miserable failure of a wizard he is (and we know boggarts can do that, because Hermione's did). We have never seen Professor Snape draw his wand on a student but that's what Neville fears--how can that be reality based? Neville was radically insecure and having trouble with magic before he ever came to Hogwarts and he blew up his cauldron before Snape ever said a word to him, so I don't see how we can conclude that those problems are Snape's fault. And Neville has not yet stood against Bella --he's defied her but he hasn't beaten her yet. It won't be satisfying if anyone else brings her down. Pippin From garybec101 at comcast.net Mon Oct 4 13:37:00 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:37:00 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114693 I believe that Dark Magic can apply to many forms of magic if the intent is evil, as many have already posted, because some magic can be used in both cases. But when we speak of the "Unforgivable Curses", (my opinion) they can only be used for evil, for instance, an AK47 assault riffle (used in military) can do major damage. One does not need that much power to defend oneself. And the bullets that explode upon impact, used for killing, along with the bullets that will penetrate bulletproof vests. All of those examples, their intent would have to be to kill, to be evil. Becki, (who sometimes wishes she could do the imperious curse on her daughters to get them to clean their rooms : )) From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 4 14:18:44 2004 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:18:44 -0000 Subject: HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114695 My apologies to the house-elves! I just have to put a big Happy Birthday out there to Minerva!! Hope no one minds, she's one of my favourites... Hoping for more info on her in future books, Linda! From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 14:23:18 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:23:18 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114696 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" Pippin wrote: > JKR has enemies who like to take what she says out of context. > They would love to catch her saying nice things about Slytherin > House or other not so wonderful role models, so she's careful to > say we shouldn't think they are nice. But I think she's more > worried about Draco fandom than Snape. As someone said, > Snape fans are presumably old enough to take care of > themselves, and can be gently teased about their infatuation. > > Draco fangirls, though, might be too young or naive to realize that > translating a lust for dangerous men from fiction to reality might > be the difference between riding a roller coaster and jumping off > a cliff. Very well said. Slightly off-topic, but but when am I not... I think there's a general difference between the Draco-fans and the Snape-fans. Draco- fans want to **save him**. Whether they want to reform him into a good guy, or just take him over and make into into a GOOD bad guy, the key is THEY CHANGE HIM. Canon!Draco has few fans. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 14:31:35 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:31:35 -0000 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" In-Reply-To: <482F2493-15F1-11D9-B659-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114697 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Of course sometimes what she does, what she says seems just a little off, a little contrived. > Two examples: > The first is in her initial meeting with Harry - > > "I know all about you, of course [...] and you're in Modern Magical History and the Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts and Great Wizarding Events of the Twentieth Century." "Am I?" said Harry feeling dazed. "Goodness, didn't you know, I'd have found out everything I could if it was me." > > Yes, and so would anyone else. But not Harry, not even just a few days after he finds out that the Dursleys have been lying to him for years. He never asks Hermione; not then, not ever; he never sneaks into the library to find the books, he never browses F&B's shelves, despite spending a week or more in Diagon Alley after Stan Shunpike links Sirius Black, Harry Potter and Voldemort for him on the Knight Bus. > If JKR doesn't want him to know, why mention the damn books? Grrr. T'ain't natural, I tell 'ee.< Pippin: To demonstrate that Harry is remarkably incurious about his past. One can argue that it isn't natural, but it is, IMO, a deft way to show us this facet of his being. It's not unnatural to me, BTW. Sitting just a few feet away from the keyboard here is a box with all my family's letters from WWII in it. I'm remarkably reluctant to delve into it--not sure I'll like what I find, y'know? I've read about others who feel the same way. And Harry already knows that the big answers aren't in those books: they won't tell him why he survived nor why Voldemort wanted to kill him. Kneasy: > Secondly there's that petrification episode in CoS. Many have commented that it's entirely out of character for Hermione to tear pages out of a book; I'd suggest that it's also out of character for her to scribble on the pages of a book ("pipes") and carry off the page to show to Harry and Ron. Invariably at other times she's just *told* them or dragged them up to the library. And where did that hand-mirror come from? It's all designed so as to set up a delayed realisation on Harry's part, we know that - but it doesn't seem to have been plotted or presented with JKR's usual facility, and a lot of fans noticed.< Pippin: Elementary my dear Kneasy, Hermione didn't do those things, and JKR makes it slightly out of character so that we'll notice and Harry doesn't. Ginny!Mort dunnit, but it's not time for Harry to realize that, because he isn't to know that there's a more than distant connection between Voldemort-that-was and the vapor in Albania. Hermione marks the switch in targets from random mudbloods to Harry Potter. Here's the clue: "I knew you would go to any lengths to solve the mystery--particularly if one of your best friends was attacked." --CoS ch 17. Those clues were put there in hopes that Harry would be lured to the Chamber (easy enough for Ginny to keep watch and see when he went), there to fall once more into the diary's power. But stupid Harry didn't find the clues in time, and Riddle was forced to take Ginny down there himself--term would soon be over and Harry would return once more to the impregnable fortress of Privet Drive. Kneasy: > Among all the major characters Hermione is the one I've theorised about least; she just doesn't have a handle, a foible, a weakness that can be built on. Oh, except once, and her weakness was her caring nature. What would she do, what price would she pay if an apparently sincere somebody wandered up to her and promised that if she co-operated in this very minor bit of business, then it would eventually result in House Elves being freed? Mmm. Interesting.< Pippin: As a mystery writer, JKR can't explore the psychology of her villains directly -- that would let us know who they are. But she can use Hermione to open a window on their thought--the above scenario could apply very well to ESE!Lupin. Hermione' also gives us some idea of what makes Snape tick, particularly her frequent "Well, you were breaking school rules" looks whenever Harry gets to brooding on his wrongs, her lack of interest in taming her hair, her elaborate revenges and her devious methods of implementing them. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 14:33:12 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:33:12 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114698 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > wrote: > > snip. > LV or his Grandmother, Neville is affected by *Snape specifically* and that is canon of Snape abusing his privilege. What Bellatrix and her husband did to Neville's parents may well have a great deal of relevance to his fearfulness, but we are given specific canon to evidence that Snape is hurting Neville so there > is no reason to dismiss it. > Alla: > > Exactly, Valky. I mean, could those who defend Snape actions please choose what matters in defining the abuse - Snape's actions or his victims reactions. > Because judging by reactions, Neville is abused by Snape to the > fullest degree, IMO. > > And that is why Harry's defiance is so important to me - because he does NOT let Snape to become his biggest fear. No, it does not improve their relationship, but it HELPS Harry not to shake with fear most of the time when he sees Snape . > It is VERY likely that Bella and Co is the cause of Neville's > problem before school, but who knows, maybe, just maybe Neville's > emotional stability would reach significant improvement BEFORE they > hit year 5, if Snape would call him an idiot not that often. I remember Shaun's doing the list of Snape's treatment of Neville and remember disagreeing with it, but never doing full reply. Maybe I'll dig it up. What comes to me right away, is Snape's humiliating Neville again before the boggart scene. I wonder what did he do to deserve THAT. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 14:40:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:40:45 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114699 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: snip. > It wouldn't be very satisfying to me if Harry > was noble enough to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew for killing > his parents and then took out his wrath on Snape for insulting > them. To paraphrase something Ron never said, he'd really > need to rethink his priorities. > Alla: Temporarily, Pippin, yes. Permanently - please, please, No. Personally I see two alternative plot developments, which will be satisfying for me (I will aceept anything JKR writes, of course, but...:)) I want to see Snape change as I said many times. If we will see ANY changes, GREAT. If he does not change, yes, of course, I would rather Harry not to spend his energy dealing with Snape's behaviour, untill he is done with Voldemort. Afterwards, I REALLY want to see Harry to bring Snape down. No, I don't want him to kill Snape, of course not. But I want Harry to show Snape that he IS a better person in a way where Snape's pride will be hurt. The best scenarion under such circumstanmces TO ME would be Harry saving Snape life and making Snape realise that he owes life debt to Potter all over again. From garybec101 at comcast.net Mon Oct 4 14:57:34 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:57:34 -0000 Subject: Something about Harry (was: Snape and Harry again) In-Reply-To: <003d01c4a801$5e31c450$aef595c8@elfinpc> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114700 HunterGreen: (jumping in) > I feel the same way about the prophecy, and was severely disappointed > when it was introduced into the text. I think I agree with both Carol > and SSSusan in that regard. I would prefer for Harry to have been > special when he was born (with the ability to do things like throw > off the imperius curse and learn difficult things like the patronus > charm very easily), because that means the prophecy is not self- > fulfilling. > > If Harry was born as an average wizard (with perhaps the capacity for > being a Quidditch prodigy), and the prophecy came along and *caused* > him to be special (by causing Voldemort to attack him/give him some of > Voldemort's powers, and causing his mother to die to save him, which > gave him the blood protection), then I think Harry has Professor > Trelawney to blame for his life. I would prefer to think that Harry > *already* had the power to defeat the dark lord, and that she only > *predicted* it, rather than causing it (the events at the end of PoA > would have happened the same if she hadn't predicted them, for example). > However, I think this is where the story is going, so I have trouble > believing it, it's more of a lingering hope. Elanor Pam: I actually think that, if Harry had been "born" special, or had some kind of built-in ability, it'd completely destroy the whole concept of the story. Harry became the one who could destroy Voldemort because Voldemort CHOSE him. He had the bright idea of pointing his wand at Harry and that was what made all the difference. Voldemort's choices should be taken into account as well. Becki now; I think HunterGreen in on the right track with his version of the prophecy being the prediction, not the cause. I believe everything would have happened even if the prophecy (ies) would never have been heard. Kind of like the tree in the woods falling, would it still make noise if no one was there to hear it? There is no where in the prophecy that LV chooses "the one". It says that he will mark "the one", which, IMO just tells everyone who it is. He is fulfilling his portion of the prophecy. Harry does not have any choice in the matter of whether or not to fight Voldy, except if he chooses not to prepare, he will probably not be the one to "survive", the part of the prophecy that is ambiguous. Becki (calling out to Jo, "Answer the open letter!!!!!) From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 15:19:59 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:19:59 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius (was: what were Malfoys) (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114701 > > Mac wrote: PoA introduces Sirius - an extremely ambiguous character but who we are supposed to love, like Harry (and James). > > Harry's view of Sirius by the end of PoA and through much of GoF and OotP is of adulation. No wonder he's clutching at straws since he has NO-ONE, literally, to love or that he can consider really cares about him apart perhaps from DD, but then maybe not him even. So why must Sirius have an entire book (PoA) and then be so suppressed and even 'necessarily' killed? Where does it fit? > > Lots of characters in the books and lots of HPfGU posters read > Sirius very differently than I had always done, namely they see him dark: I saw him misunderstood and good: He's James' best mate, > Harry's godfather, even DD trusts him (or does he?) - flawed, > reckless, but esentially good. > > Hmmmm .... Sirius comes from an arcehtypically pureblood family (how far can we escape our roots?), he *hates* (always has) Snape who, awful though he is to Harry (I think its an act as much as based in justifiable dislike) works tirelessly to protect Harry, he is accused again and again as a DE (but we ignore it/forgive Sirius - he's *always* got a 'reasonable' explanation - even comes across as > persecuted), he breaks rules, is a loose canon, instigates terrible (if you think about it) and risky behaviour by the Marauders (how did DD possibly *not* know?) and, one way or another, knew enough about the Potter's demise to be on the spot straight after it happened (if only that late). Why does JKR say that in early drafts of GH a DE met Sirius there? Sirius is not stupid enough to be duped, so why is he associating with DE's? Especially at GH. > > So, please, it must have been discussed. Point me towards posts that accuse Sirius of being much darker than the books let on at times. has anyone ever suggested he was a DE?: more the person that Stan Shunpike, Ernie Prang and that always ammbiguous character Fudge think he is (Voldy's right hand man, 2nd in command), as opposed to the noble 'wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot wand' saint we have so far been led to believe in. > > I can give some quotes from the books which, if reinterpreted, could support a theory I am trying to get to work (but can't yet) that yes Sirius was a DE all along and, moreover, they (DE's) now hate him - the reason he was lured to MoM and killed there by them. He, not Snape, I can imagine (sorry Sirius fans), just might be the one who LV says 'has left me forever - he will be killed'. > > So, please help me to either redeem Sirius (I really really would > like to be able to do this while understanding why he 'had' to die) or else drive nails into his coffin (of course he had to die). My chief problem is that while his being in hiding between PoA and the end of OotP makes sense if not only the MoM but also the DE's > are 'after him' (as they killed his brother), his ability in this > position to do anything useful at the end of GoF isn't clear to >me,yet DD dispatches him to do *something* (and no I don't think it >was just to open up Grimmauld Place as an OotP HQ, though it makes >sense that he did that too). If it assumed that Sirius was once >a 'major' DE, but betrayed LV at GH for his friend James, is there >anything Sirius could do by the time of GoF to get back 'in' with >the DE's, bearing in mind he *must* be killed at the end of OotP? Hannah: I promised I'd answer this post, so here goes. I'm neither a rabid Sirius-phile or Sirius-phobe. He's an interesting character, rather as Snape is, because his motivation isn't always clear, his past is shady, and his actions can be interpreted in several ways. I agree there is more to Sirius than meets the eye. Something made DD mistrust him even before GH, and apparently not even question his guilt afterwards. Something also made Lupin, one of his best friends, believe he was a spy before and after GH. There's the 'prank' and the issue of why he was never expelled. There's Snape's apparent conviction that Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters. I can see that Sirius may have been a DE who left. It's not very likely, but I don't think it's impossible. I am sure he wasn't working for them again during OotP though. If he was, he'd have taken Snape's advice and not rushed off to rescue Harry, and Bella wouldn't have killed him, since he would have been very useful as a spy. I also believe he really did care about Harry, even if he wasn't a very good influence on him. I don't think the DoM plot was set up to lure him out of hiding and kill him. There would surely have been easier ways to get him of hiding (a fake 'help me Sirius' message from Harry, for example). The DoM mission was about getting the prophecy, and maybe destroying Harry. Sirius only got there by accident. You could argue that ESE! Snape set him up, but even then it seems very complicated and risky, especially as a whole load of other Order members including DD were alerted in the process. I agree Sirius is not a wonderful misunderstood saint. Future books will likely reveal more of his unsavoury past exploits. But as he himself said; 'The world is not divided in good people and Death Eaters.' Hannah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 15:30:34 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:30:34 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > I would strongly disagree with that statement, but be that as it > may. I sense that you see in this (and I may be wrong) a kind of > Christian parable with Harry being a sort of martyr/Christ figure. > Certainly that is one way to interpret things. Alla: Yes and from some of JKR's hints this interpretation is quite likely. It does not mean that we should forego other interpretations, of course (I cannot say that I am entirely happy with the exact Cristian parallel myself. At least if JKR follows it , I hope that the emphasis will be on resurrection of Crist-like figure) Dzeytoun: Another way of > looking at it (developing this from some of M.Clifford's posts) is > that the characters all represent emotional/moral traits. Thus Harry > is Love, Voldemort is Hate, Snape is Bitterness, Remus is Calm, > Dumbledore is Wisdom, etc. In this context, the whole thing becomes > a kind of fleshed out morality play very similar to the type of thing > done in the Middle Ages where actors portraying different > moral/emotional/psychological traits went through ritualistic actions > to illustrate what were perceived as important truths. > > I suppose if we look at HP as Morality Play then Wisdom nurtures Love > which will defeat Hate. In that case, the interplay between Snape > and Harry (to use M. Clifford again) is about Bitterness devouring > itself and bringing about its own destruction due to its inability to > embrace Love. Alla: Could you educate me, please, a little bit? I know about those Middle Age plays, but in a very general terms. Wisdom nurtures Love which will defeat Hate sounds like a rather standard interpretation to me, but is it what usually was supposed to happened with Bitterness according to the plot line? If it is true , I doubt that everything in Potterverse would fit to the slightest degree. Was Wisdom, for example supposed to make mistakes and admitting to them in those plays? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 15:33:04 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:33:04 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114703 Tonks: > I lust for movie Snape, like most do. But in the books I want to > marry DD. My friends say that he is too old for me. I also what to > be like him, he is my role model. So what does that say about me?? > Mrs. Tonks Dumbledore.. ??? tell me ... go ahead.. > Alla: I know, I know. You are wise beyond yout years. You also love lemon drops and love getting socks as presents for your birthdays. :) And, and you have good leadership skills, most of the time anyway. :o) From oppen at mycns.net Mon Oct 4 15:35:59 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:35:59 -0000 Subject: My take on house-elves and their families Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114704 Judging from Winky's reaction, I have a theory of my own on house- elf "servitude"---the bond between house-elf and wizard (or witch) might be a lot like the bond between parent and child. I've never been a parent myself, but I am quite certain that if I had told my mother "Go away! I don't want you for my mother any more! You're disowned!" it would have broken her heart--no matter how rocky things had become between us. And even after that, she'd have continued to see herself as my one-and-only, rightful, mother, and would have continued to react as such---just as Winky did for the Crouches. If she, in that situation, had heard news of me, she'd've taken an interest---just as Winky did. This also covers why the other elves plainly think Dobby's weird and strange. How would _you_ feel about someone who welcomed their child disowning them? At the very least, you would think there was something very odd going on there, and you might think that this person is best avoided. Just my two Knuts. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 4 15:58:37 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:58:37 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114706 Dzeytoun: > I sense that you see in this (and I may be wrong) a kind of > Christian parable with Harry being a sort of martyr/Christ > figure. Certainly that is one way to interpret things. SSSusan: Well, yes & no. I happen to find many Christian themes & images within the books, yes, and they please me. But one of the things that I find cool about JKR is that she's written these books in such a way that they're NOT screaming "Christian books!" at people, making them feel that if they're not interested in such things, there's nothing within for them. Besides, even if I happen to find things that seem "Christian" to me, those things *aren't* exclusively "Christian." I mean, what I've been arguing is that I believe Harry will likely find a means of setting aside his dislike, anger, hatred, disrespect [choose your term of preference] for/towards Snape in order to focus on what "matters more" to him: working for the Order, learning all he can to prepare himself to face down Voldemort, working for the side of Good [or for the greater good, if that term appeals more]. I believe he will do this, rather than focus on what might seem more "just," personally, which would be to continue to be hateful and angry towards Snape, to continue to defy him, to continue to not try very hard in his classes in order to somehow show Snape that he's not going to take his "abuse." This type of decision, to put one's own self lower on the priority scale than the greater good is *NOT* a Christian-only tenet. In fact, I'm thinking it's a pretty widespread way of seeing things, a very common part of many people's value systems. I would say that taking the more "selfish" route of demanding to be treated in X kind of way, with that being more important than ANYTHING else [as you've said], is a much more *uncommon* view. By the way, I do want to mention that nowhere have I argued that if Harry manages to set aside his hatred and "I'm not going to do what HE says" attitude regarding Snape, because he's made a conscious decision that the Order and the defeat of Voldy are more important, that that means he suddenly respects Snape. I *hope* for a grudging respect eventually, for the things Snape has risked & the things he has done on Harry's behalf, but he HAS been a jackass to Harry & Neville in class, and I don't expect Harry to instantly develop respect for the kinds of tactics he has used. I merely ["merely," as if it'll be easy! :-)] want Harry to CHOOSE to become mature and outward-focused, to CHOOSE to be above snarkiness, pettiness and personal vendettas. Yes, doing so would be a "Christian" move in one world, but it would also be considered "right" in many, many other moral belief systems. Siriusly Snapey Susan From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 16:25:55 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius (was: what were Malfoys) (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041004162555.98353.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114707 Hannah wrote: Hannah: I promised I'd answer this post, so here goes. I'm neither a rabid Sirius-phile or Sirius-phobe. He's an interesting character, rather as Snape is, because his motivation isn't always clear, his past is shady, and his actions can be interpreted in several ways. I agree there is more to Sirius than meets the eye. Something made DD mistrust him even before GH, and apparently not even question his guilt afterwards. Something also made Lupin, one of his best friends, believe he was a spy before and after GH. There's the 'prank' and the issue of why he was never expelled. There's Snape's apparent conviction that Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters. I can see that Sirius may have been a DE who left. It's not very likely, but I don't think it's impossible. I am sure he wasn't working for them again during OotP though. If he was, he'd have taken Snape's advice and not rushed off to rescue Harry, and Bella wouldn't have killed him, since he would have been very useful as a spy. I also believe he really did care about Harry, even if he wasn't a very good influence on him. I don't think the DoM plot was set up to lure him out of hiding and kill him. There would surely have been easier ways to get him of hiding (a fake 'help me Sirius' message from Harry, for example). The DoM mission was about getting the prophecy, and maybe destroying Harry. Sirius only got there by accident. You could argue that ESE! Snape set him up, but even then it seems very complicated and risky, especially as a whole load of other Order members including DD were alerted in the process. I agree Sirius is not a wonderful misunderstood saint. Future books will likely reveal more of his unsavoury past exploits. But as he himself said; 'The world is not divided in good people and Death Eaters.' Hannah Griffin782002 now: First I must say that I am not a Sirius-phile and certainly not a Sirius-phobe. One of the reason I can't consider him dead is the fact that Harry was upset in the of OotP. About this theory that he died because he was a D.E. sounds to me very nasty. Under this circumstances, Harry should have left Sirius and Lupin to kill Peter. And D.D. praises Harry for not letting them kill him. To me his words sound too similar with Gandalf''s words when Frodo said that he wished Frodo had killed Gollum. And finally as you said the world is divided into good people and D.E., but no good person is perfect. Griffin782002 who apologise if her last post was a bit aggressive --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen at dacafe.com Mon Oct 4 17:11:00 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:11:00 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114708 > Alex wrote: > > What has Snape done? He's asked Harry questions he wouldn't > reasonably be expected to know the answers to in his first week of > school. He's capriciously graded a couple of his assignments. He's > blamed Harry for incidents of classroom misconduct in which Harry > was not the instigator or sole participant. These behaviors are all > unprofessional and inapproriate, but I'm not sure I'd call them > abusive. (the capricious grading is what bothers me most, as a > teacher.) > > > > Valky (interrupting): > Me too about the grading but I am not a teacher. > > Alex continues: > > If those who believe in abusive!Snape can present the case without > > going into a CAPSLOCK rage, I'd be interested in hearing it, > > particularly with reference to specific classroom (or other on- > page) incidents that I haven't thought of. > > > > Alex > > > Valky: > I am sorry, Alex. I can't really make the case that you have > requested for you. I feel that Snape is borderline abusive in > dealing with Harry and essentially I have agreed with the term on > principle while part of this debate, in most of my posts you'll see > I have inserted dumbed down synonyms where I might have put abusive. > > Alex said: > What about Harry's reaction? If he was crying himself to sleep on a > > regular basis, having horrible nightmares about potions class, > > becoming physically ill on days when he was supposed to have class > > with Snape, or otherwise showing signs of extreme stress or > anxiety, then I'd consider assigning the label of "abuse" to Snape's > behavior. But he isn't. > > Valky: > I agree with what you have said here Harry doesn't have these > reactions to Snape but there is someone who does. Neville Longbottom. > Now I have been thinking on this for a little while now especially > in terms of the longest debate that has been going on the past few > days about Harry needing to stand his ground with Snape. My response > to that you can read if you sift through the deluge and paraphrased > it basically says that Harry has Snape beaten in spades already. > Someone who hasn't though is Neville. Neville is still suffering and > tormented by Snape. In POA we discover he has been deeply cut by > Snapes cruelty toward him. Neville has no respect for Snape and > Neville is the subject most abused by the evident *issues* Snape > hasn't matured beyond. Therefore it is *Neville* who most needs to > stand up and take back his personal power here and not Harry. > kmc adds: In PS/SS Harry gets points taken off because he was disrespectful not because he didn't know the answer. Harry set the tone for his and Snape's relationship from day one. IMO Snape selects a student in each of his first year classes to ask these types of questions. I am sure he changes them from one class to another so older siblings can't pass the answers down. Harry thinks Snape causes his scar to burn and that Snape hates him. Harry often jumps to the negative opinion of Snape and does not show him respect due the office of teacher. Including the Occlumency lessons, where Snape must remind Harry that he is still his teacher and will be addressed in the appropiate manner. As to Neville, he has destroyed six caldrons. He has been the cause of injury to his fellow students. Snape is venting frustration with Neville not abuse. I wonder if Snape is getting Howlers from Neville's potion partners' parents because of the cost of caldron replacements. (Now that would be a funny scene - ranks right up there with Snape in "lime green robes".) I actually had a caustic, sarcastic, no nonsense teacher who favored any football player the way Snape favors the Slytherin. Every non- football player in his class got a dose of his negative teaching methods at least once. He was one of three teachers I kept in touch with after I left school and when he died, there was a write up in the paper about the number of his former students who came to his funeral because he taught us something outside of his subject matter. He taught us that there are consequences to our actions and some times the consequences are negative, even if you think you are doing everything right. Snape teaches a subject that can have negative consequences in real life. Its been mentioned before - bad potion can cause serious injury or death. One little mistake and a caldron is melted, the class is standing on chairs and everyone is breaking out in boils. Neville did this before we saw Snape picking on him. Snape is not fair to the students because he favors his house. Other than that I think he is right to expect respect of the "office" and subject matter. -kmc From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 17:23:02 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:23:02 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: >> kmc adds: > > In PS/SS Harry gets points taken off because he was disrespectful not > because he didn't know the answer. Harry set the tone for his and > Snape's relationship from day one. IMO Snape selects a student in > each of his first year classes to ask these types of questions. Alla: I strongly disagree. I won't go into depth on commenting about the first scene. I said it quite a few times. Harry was not disrespectful at all and Snape was the one who set the tone of their relationship from day one. I think he did it on purpose to have an excuse to pick on Harry from now on. I will just ask you - how do you know that he chooses the student every year? I think he did it with Harry and Harry only, but since neither you nor me can prove that, I guess we have to agree to disagree on that one. KMC: > Snape is venting frustration with > Neville not abuse. Alla: If the result of his "venting frustration" is that said student is scared of the said teacher more than anything , in my book it is abuse. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 17:28:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:28:00 -0000 Subject: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: S P O I L E R S P A C E > There is a huge update in the FAO section and yes, Snape was a > Slytherin. Too bad. :) > > She is also saying that she is going to kill more characters. :( Oh, and the result of the poll is there. Lupin and James also did not swith bodies From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 17:43:06 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:43:06 -0000 Subject: Quidditch "potentially lethal?" In-Reply-To: <00db01c4a9b3$4eae4360$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114712 Casey wrote : "I don't think Snape is that bad "for the wizarding world". These are people that allow their children to play games that are potentially lethal." Kethryn replied : " The point to all of this is that all children, unless they have deeply overprotective parents, play what can, in certain circumstances, be considered lethal sports." Del comments : I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with those sports, but from what I've seen on TV, I have a remark to make. American football, hockey : don't the players wear helmets and other kinds of protective pieces of equipment ? Base ball : the ball is sent to one specific player, and if that player misses it, a third player catches it, right ? And that player is heavily protected, if I'm not mistaken. Quidditch, on the other hand, is played without *any* kind of protection, not even the most basic kind of helmet, and the bludgers can be sent to any player on the pitch, even if that player is intensely focusing on something else (chasing or seeking for example). So IMO Quidditch is indeed much more dangerous than any sport Muggle children might play at school. Moreover, it's the *only* sport wizard kids can compete in at Hogwarts, so they don't have a choice either. And finally, I'd like to add that we do know that the WW isn't as protective of its children as the Muggle world is : casualties were a common occurence in the previous Tri-Wizard Tournaments, which were entered by kids from 11 to 17 years of age. This is even the very reason DD decided on an age limit in GoF. Del From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 18:19:24 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:19:24 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > > > > There is a huge update in the FAO section and yes, Snape was a > > Slytherin. Too bad. :) > > > > She is also saying that she is going to kill more characters. :( > > > Oh, and the result of the poll is there. > > Lupin and James also did not swith bodies Sophierom: Here's what I find most interesting in the update of the JKR site (I'll put more spoiler space below in case you still haven't gone to read the site yet): S P O I L E R S P A C E JKR wrote in response to the FAQ Poll Question: "What did Dumbledore's Howler to Aunt Petunia mean? ('Remember my last'?)...So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then(you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that Now let the speculation begin, and mind you type clearly, I'll be watching " Sophierom: Why would Dumbledore have been in correspondence with Petunia before Harry came into the picture? I know there was, at one time, some speculation that Petunia or Dudley was actually magical, which might give Dumbledore reason to write Petunia... but I've also heard that these rumors were squashed by JKR. Can anyone point me to the webchat or other interview where she might have indicated that neither Petunia nor Dudley would develop magical ability late in life? I believe that someone else has postulated (I'm sorry, I can't remember who) that Death Eaters killed Lily and Petunia's parents. Other reasons why Dumbledore would have written to Petunia before Harry landed on her doorstep? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 18:23:15 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:23:15 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114714 Update on the JKR site - and an answer to the FAQ that goes further than I'd expect. I'll put spoiler space in, though I'm not certain it's necessary. A R E Y Y O U P A Y I N G A T T E N I O N ? OK - as you know the winning question was in reference "to my last" As expected this referred to the letter left on the doorstep with Harry. However, herself goes on to ask "Well why not "my previous"? Ans. Because there were letters (plural) before that one. Oops! Anyone postulated an on-going correspondence between DD and Petunia? Going back to before GH? Time for some skull work. Kneasy From tzakis1225 at netzero.com Mon Oct 4 18:24:35 2004 From: tzakis1225 at netzero.com (demetra1225) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:24:35 -0000 Subject: Malfoy, Diary and Dark? Sirius (was: what were Malfoys) (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: [major snippage] > So, please, it must have been discussed. Point me towards posts that > accuse Sirius of being much darker than the books let on at times. > has anyone ever suggested he was a DE?: more the person that Stan > Shunpike, Ernie Prang and that always ammbiguous character Fudge > think he is (Voldy's right hand man, 2nd in command), as opposed to > the noble 'wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot wand' saint we have so far been led to believe in. Demetra: I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but you might want to take a look at a thread started by Kneasy, post# 103685. My response was #104067. Despite his many faults, I don't think Sirius was ever a DE. However, I do find it interesting that on her Website, JKR refers to Sirius as the "most dangerous" of all the marauders. More dangerous than the traitor Peter? More dangerous than the guy who turns into a hairy, murderous beast once a month? Makes you go hmmmmmmm. Demetra From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 18:34:53 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:34:53 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > > Why would Dumbledore have been in correspondence with Petunia before > Harry came into the picture? I know there was, at one time, some > speculation that Petunia or Dudley was actually magical, which might > give Dumbledore reason to write Petunia... but I've also heard that > these rumors were squashed by JKR. Can anyone point me to the webchat > or other interview where she might have indicated that neither Petunia > nor Dudley would develop magical ability late in life? > > I believe that someone else has postulated (I'm sorry, I can't > remember who) that Death Eaters killed Lily and Petunia's parents. > Other reasons why Dumbledore would have written to Petunia before > Harry landed on her doorstep? Hmm. Mostly she did squash the rumours. However, on one occasion she did suggest that we keep our eye on Dudders. Whether this is applicable to this point, I'm not so sure. Bets on which House he'd be affiliated to: Slytherin - 1:12 (12 gets you 1) Hufflepuff - Evens Gryffindor - 10:1 Ravenclaw - 100:1 Strangely enough I did wonder if the Evans's had succumbed to Voldy, just a few days ago in my 'Gilding the Lily' post - 114251. (Phew! Just under the wire.) Now all I have to do is wait with bated breath to find out if I'm right. When's the book due out? Kneasy From swaine.t at xtra.co.nz Mon Oct 4 18:54:49 2004 From: swaine.t at xtra.co.nz (Tanya) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:54:49 +1300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.1.20041005075009.01b36340@pop3.xtra.co.nz> No: HPFGUIDX 114717 At 07:23 a.m. 5/10/2004, you wrote: >Kneasy wrote > >Update on the JKR site - and an answer to the FAQ that >goes further than I'd expect. >I'll put spoiler space in, though I'm not certain it's necessary. > >A >R >E >Y >Y >O >U >P >A >Y >I >N >G >A >T >T >E >N >I >O >N >? > >OK - as you know the winning question was in reference "to my last" >As expected this referred to the letter left on the doorstep with Harry. > >However, herself goes on to ask "Well why not "my previous"? >Ans. Because there were letters (plural) before that one. > >Oops! Anyone postulated an on-going correspondence between DD and >Petunia? Going back to before GH? > >Time for some skull work. > > >Kneasy Tanya wrote The difficult thing about this for me, is that in COS, Dumbledore says he is going to write to both their families. Ron and Harry. This is after the flying car incident. We know he wrote to Molly, hence the howler. However, we can only assume he did. Tanya [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 19:10:41 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:10:41 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114718 JKR WEBSITE SPOILER WARNING! S P O I L E R S P O I L E R S P O I L E R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! sophierom: Why would Dumbledore have been in correspondence with Petunia before Harry came into the picture? I know there was, at one time, some speculation that Petunia or Dudley was actually magical, which might give Dumbledore reason to write Petunia... but I've also heard that these rumors were squashed by JKR. Can anyone point me to the webchat or other interview where she might have indicated that neither Petunia nor Dudley would develop magical ability late in life? Kneasy: Hmm. Mostly she did squash the rumours. However, on one occasion she did suggest that we keep our eye on Dudders. Whether this is applicable to this point, I'm not so sure. Bets on which House he'd be affiliated to: Slytherin - 1:12 (12 gets you 1) Hufflepuff - Evens Gryffindor - 10:1 Ravenclaw - 100:1 Dungrollin: Did she squash 'em all? What about that delightfully enigmatic 'No... Petunia's not a *squib*'? (my emphasis, and paraphrased to boot.) I must admit that I'm leaning towards Petunia being the late- developer, and DD having done something clever to excuse her from class. (Or perhaps she did attend Hogwarts for a term and got bullied rotten... :-)) But does Vernon know? Someone please... It's too obvious... It can't be right. Put me out of my misery and tell me why it can't be true! Dungrollin. PS what odds are you giving on Petunia's house? I can't see how she'd fit anywhere, perhaps the hat spat her out again. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 4 19:36:19 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:36:19 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114719 I'll add a little spoiler space for anyone who hasn't looked at the FAQ updates. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * So JKR was asked, "Do you like Sirius Black?" and her response was, well, less than glowing. She specifically points out all his flaws in record time, including his penchant for "spouting bits of personal philosophy" but not always living up to them (i.e. how he treats Kreacher). What happened to Sirius being one of her favorite characters? That she couldn't wait to get to POA and write about Lupin & Sirius? Will Lupin next on the chopping block?!? Basically she distills Sirius down to a 'slightly unbalanced' person with one great quality--feeling great affection for James, which he then transferred to Harry. I felt a little let-down by her characterization. Not that she said anything untrue of course ;), but she seems to be wavering on her view of Sirius, like she was influenced by fandom casting the cold light of day on the character. It's like hearing your Mom trash your brother behind his back: "Oh well, that one...yes, well we tried but he's been a big disappointment." Jen, wondering if JKR is back-pedaling or merely bringing to light her true feelings on the subject. From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 10:35:51 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:35:51 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? (Snape) In-Reply-To: <20041004.012235.3064.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114720 > Jennifer said: > > Like she said- it's the bad boy syndrome. Extremely exciting and > > always ends in disaster and it makes no sense. Aura annegirl11 at j... wrote: > I just want to point out that it isn't the bad boy thing for some > people. Snape is just interesting. Some girls find that attractive. > Some girls just enjoy the character without being attracted to him. > But it seems like JKR is just focusing on the "bad boy" thing when > she is irritated at the fans crushing on Snape, which isn't exactly > the it. > > Snape's a mystery, he's possibly the most complicated character in > the book, every plot about him is *fun* because he's such a free > radical. Plus he's intelligent, sharply witty, and, honestly, > sometimes I'm glad that someone gives Harry the smackdown, only > because main characters usually annoy me. > > BTW, do teen girls crush on Alan Rickman? Jennifer: I'd imagine since Alan Rickman played Snape he's probably become an object of affection for girls and women. I just think Snape is not a nice person. There's no justification for the way he behaves most of the time and although he seems to be playing for the good side that doesn't mean he's essentially a nice misunderstood person. Why do people like him? There's nothing to like! That's probably why she's so amused by it. People are finding qualities in these characters that they find attractive etc. but she's not trying to write them that way. I mean Snape is a great character to read, I agree there, and I find his encounters with Harry so interesting but why do people feel the need to make excuses for his behavior? People like mystery and Snape is as ambiguous as they come. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 19:42:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:42:21 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > OK - as you know the winning question was in reference "to my last" > As expected this referred to the letter left on the doorstep with Harry. > > However, herself goes on to ask "Well why not "my previous"? > Ans. Because there were letters (plural) before that one. > > Oops! Anyone postulated an on-going correspondence between DD and > Petunia? Going back to before GH? > > Time for some skull work. Right. Thunk a bit and (for the time being at least) I'll stick to the idea I posted in 114251. For those with short memories or who don't read long posts the relevent section is repeated here:- > An aside - Mr and Mrs Evans. Both died within a short time-span - between the wedding and GH (again according to the Lexicon). Is this a coincidence? As Lady B. puts it "To lose one parent is unfortunate, to lose two looks like carelessness." I've a couple of possibilities to offer here - either: 1. It was Mr and Mrs Evans that died in the car crash and Petunia used this event as the basis for the tale she tells Harry, or 2. It wasn't chance that caused them to shuffle off this mortal coil, it was enemy action. Just one very, very oblique clue here; Petunia reacts to the name Voldemort and to the mention of Dementors. Where has she heard these before? Voldy possibly from DD's letter after GH, or possibly not. It could have been the reason given for an earlier bereavement.... or two. > Expansion- One question that never seems to get asked is - why is Petunia so anti- magic, anti-Potters, anti-Harry? Generally it's been assumed that it's a combination of jealousy, spite and fear of the unknown. But if it's not... if she has a real reason to fear magic.... like the loss of her parents....it's a whole new concept of Petunia. Every time she looks at Harry she might see the reason her parents died. Hanging on this could be Petunia as late-magic-developer. She's been in denial (hate that phrase, but never mind, just this once), there's been a block. But if it looks like her present family is in danger from the same source - Petunia could blossom. Kneasy From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 19:51:57 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:51:57 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? (Snape) SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" wrote: Why do people like him? There's nothing to > like! That's probably why she's so amused by it. < ** ** ** ** ** Sorry but no. The website says he could have "latent good qualities." And yes, he *was* in Slytherin. Pippin From girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 10:52:39 2004 From: girl_next_door704 at yahoo.com (girl_next_door704) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:52:39 -0000 Subject: Snape, the Potters and LV. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114723 Hi, I don't know if this topic has been discussed in this group or not, it's quite a simple theory about why Voldemort was reluctant to kill Lily in Godric's Hollow. I think that Snape liked Lily for one reason or the other. Maybe coz she helped him out many times, but he never said that, coz his ego might have got in his way, maybe he couldn't believe that he liked a Mud blood , like Darcy in Pride and Prejudice and his pride cost him a great deal when Lily finally married James. So maybe when Snape joined the Death Eaters, he might have vowed to kill James and yet had Voldemort deal with him that he would never harm Lily; maybe that's why Voldemort was reluctant to kill Lily; maybe he was the intermediate between Voldemort and Wormtail, maybe so, maybe not. I guess this is why when Voldemort fell and the Potters were dead, Snape changed sides and helped Dumbledore gather up a few Death Eaters and gain his confidence enough to gain a job and a respectable life. Neha S. From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 4 10:42:32 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:42:32 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114724 Dzeytoun: > Another way of looking at it is that the characters all > represent emotional/moral traits. Thus Harry is Love, Voldemort > is Hate, Snape is Bitterness, Remus is Calm, Dumbledore is Wisdom, > etc. > > I suppose if we look at HP as Morality Play then Wisdom nurtures > Love which will defeat Hate. In that case, the interplay between > Snape and Harry (to use M. Clifford again) is about Bitterness > devouring itself and bringing about its own destruction due to its > inability to embrace Love. Jennifer: So if- "Harry is Love, Voldemort is Hate, Snape is Bitterness, Remus is Calm, Dumbledore is Wisdom..." What are Sirius and the Weasleys? From patnkatng at cox.net Mon Oct 4 19:56:52 2004 From: patnkatng at cox.net (Katrina) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:56:52 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > > Update on the JKR site - and an answer to the FAQ that > goes further than I'd expect. > I'll put spoiler space in, though I'm not certain it's necessary. > > A > R > E > Y > Y > O > U > P > A > Y > I > N > G > A > T > T > E > N > I > O > N > ? > > OK - as you know the winning question was in reference "to my last" > As expected this referred to the letter left on the doorstep with Harry. > > However, herself goes on to ask "Well why not "my previous"? > Ans. Because there were letters (plural) before that one. > > Oops! Anyone postulated an on-going correspondence between DD and > Petunia? Going back to before GH? > > Time for some skull work. > > > Kneasy Katrina: Someone on mugglenet said something about this FAQ that reminded me of one of your theories, so I thought I'd pass it on. This person posited that the pre-GH correspondence was DD preparing the Dursleys in case they had to take Harry. The implication being that not only did DD know that Harry's parents would be killed, but that Harry would survive the attack. Grist for the theory mill. From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 15:01:48 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:01:48 -0400 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape Message-ID: <1943B4C4.20B3795E.39E60FE2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114726 Tonks-op wrote: >> But in the books I want to marry DD. My friends say that he is too old for me. I also what to be like him, he is my role model. So what does that say about me?? << fuzzlebub85 here: It says, Mum, that you're crazy. You're supposed to marry Dad. Kaylee Tonks-Lupin From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 20:01:30 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:01:30 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114727 Alex wrote: Emotional abuse is a nebulous category. We can easilly say that Umbridge is abusive because her punishment causes Harry (and some other kid...was is Lee Jordan?) physical injury, and it's no longer considered appropriate to use corporal punishment at school, and corporal punishment that leaves marks is generally considered not quite on in the home enviornment, either. Snape's motivation, we know nothing about. We can debate (and have been doing) the possible motivations for his behavior. But we can't know. His actual motivations are a black box. If he's behaving the way he does toward Harry because he *actively wants to cause lasting harm*, then I'd say, absolutely, yes, he's abusive. But most of the other motivations that have been suggested are, at worst, ambiguous in terms of determining whether his behavior is abusive or not. If he's just being an as**ole without considering the impact his behavior might have, then *maybe* I could see calling him abusive. Ditto if he's so totally unable to control his temper that he can't stop himself acting the way he does (though I think Snape would do *much* worse things if he were truely out of control). If he's doing the best he knows how (perhaps using the pedagogical methods that were in use when he was in school or that he was exposed to at home), then I'd say no, not abusive. Same if he has for some reason decided that sarcasm and humiliation are the best ways to get through to Potter. > KMC: > > Snape is venting frustration with > > Neville not abuse. > > > Alla: > > If the result of his "venting frustration" is that said student is > scared of the said teacher more than anything , in my book it is > abuse. Sophierom: This thread has made me want to ask JKR: do you see any difference between Umbridge's abuse and Snape's bullying/abuse/harsh teaching methods (since we all disagree about what exactly to call Snape's behavior)? How about the Dursleys' abuse and Snape's? Of course, I can't ask Rowling, so I'll ask all of you instead. Obviously Umbridge is physically abusive with that evil quill, the Dursleys are emotionally/verbally abusive, and Snape is potentially verbally/emotionally abusive (I agree with those who argue that he is at times abusive)...but is Umbridge's behavior worse than Snape's? Because I admit to having a much stronger emotional reaction to Umbridge than Snape. Same with the Dursleys. This could be, simply, because Snape has a few redeeming qualities (mainly, he's saved Harry's life and Dumbledore says he trusts him). So, I guess I'm asking about motivation, which Alex brought up in the original post. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we believed that Snape does have slightly more noble motives than Umbridge (who seems to wield crulety for the sake of being cruel) and the Dursleys (who seem to act out of fear and ignorance) ...does that make Snape's behavior okay? Do the ends justify the means? Sorry, lots of questions, no real answers because I, myself, am torn between wanting to forgive Snape (so long as he is working for the good of the Order, which I believe he is) and wanting to beat him over the head (which I just realized is not a very mature response to abuse, sorry). Just seeing if anyone is interested because I think this thread is fascinating, and I was particularly fascinated by Alex's comparison to Umbridge. From red_rider4 at lycos.com Mon Oct 4 15:24:24 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (hester_griffith) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:24:24 -0000 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" In-Reply-To: <482F2493-15F1-11D9-B659-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114728 > Kneasy wrote: > Secondly there's that petrification episode in CoS. > Many have commented that it's entirely out of character for Hermione > to tear pages out of a book; I'd suggest that it's also out of > character for her to scribble on the pages of a book ("pipes") and > carry off the page to show to Harry and Ron. Invariably at other > times she's just *told* them or dragged them up to the library. And > where did that hand-mirror come from? It's all designed so as to set > up a delayed realisation on Harry's part, we know that - but it doesn't > seem to have been plotted or presented with JKR's usual facility, and > a lot of fans noticed. Hester: Maybe I see too much of myself in Hermione. I have often been critised as being overly logical without enough heart. I read that episode as if Hermione had gotten an idea and rushed off to the Library to check it out (or maybe she was already their studying before the match). When her suspicion was confirmed she realized she better have some precaution. I certainly would. She found someone who (conveniently) was vain enough to carry around a pocket mirror (I knew plenty of girls in High School who did). She also grabbed the page out of the book and scribbled "pipes" on it just in case she didn't make it back. This seems reasonable considering she is a "Mudblood" and in greater risk than other purebloods. If I had any fear of being petrified or dying I would do the same for my friends. To a logical mind, the sequence doesn't really seem all that contrived. The convenience of someone with a mirror being in the library just then is about as contrived as it gets. And even that is not *that* unbelievable. Hester From hautbois1 at comcast.net Mon Oct 4 16:38:32 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:38:32 -0000 Subject: Carpets and Muggles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114729 I found myself wondering this morning (on my way to work) about how a Muggle Artifact is defined by the MoM. In GoF there is a lot of talk about magic carpets and illegally importing them. Because they are Muggle artifacts, charming a carpet to fly breaks wizarding law (Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects, GoF). I find myself wondering what exactly is defined as a muggle artifact. I suppose something that only muggles use, like cars, which would explain all the trouble Arthur Weasley found himself in after the Anglia incident. But, what about the Knight Bus--why is this not included in the ban? If we go with muggle artifacts being things only muggles use, why carpets? I would guess that carpets are not unknown in the homes of wizards. Why can pots and pans be charmed (CoS), but not carpets? Why a triple-decker bus, but not a Ford Anglia? I know the argument exists that flying carpets may pose a "security risk" (imagine a family flying over your head on grandma's antique Persian rug) but Mad-Eye showed us how to solve that problem in OoP (the Disillutionment Charm). Just a thought on one of the "little things". Patrick From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 20:09:44 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:09:44 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > I'll add a little spoiler space for anyone who hasn't looked at the > FAQ updates. > > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > > So JKR was asked, "Do you like Sirius Black?" and her response was, > well, less than glowing. She specifically points out all his flaws > in record time, including his penchant for "spouting bits of > personal philosophy" but not always living up to them (i.e. how he > treats Kreacher). > > What happened to Sirius being one of her favorite characters? That > she couldn't wait to get to POA and write about Lupin & Sirius? Will > Lupin next on the chopping block?!? > > Basically she distills Sirius down to a 'slightly unbalanced' person > with one great quality--feeling great affection for James, which he > then transferred to Harry. > > I felt a little let-down by her characterization. Not that she said > anything untrue of course ;), but she seems to be wavering on her > view of Sirius, like she was influenced by fandom casting the cold > light of day on the character. It's like hearing your Mom trash your > brother behind his back: "Oh well, that one...yes, well we tried but > he's been a big disappointment." > > Jen, wondering if JKR is back-pedaling or merely bringing to light > her true feelings on the subject. Sophierom: Interesting thoughts, Jen, but I wonder if she's really wavering. Didn't JKR also once say that Snape was one of her favorite characters (to write, at least)? Maybe she liked Sirius as a character (emotionally unstable, very human, wrongly accused -all traits of a dynamic, interesting character), but she wouldn't want him as her best friend? :-) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 20:12:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:12:21 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katrina" wrote: > > Someone on mugglenet said something about this FAQ that reminded me > of one of your theories, so I thought I'd pass it on. > > This person posited that the pre-GH correspondence was DD preparing > the Dursleys in case they had to take Harry. The implication being > that not only did DD know that Harry's parents would be killed, but > that Harry would survive the attack. > > Grist for the theory mill. It all depends when the letters were sent. They'd have to be after DD got wind of Voldy's intentions - about the time that they went into hiding, I'd think. It'd also mean that DD had no intention of allowing Harry to go to Sirius. Why not? Didn't he trust him? Heh, heh, heh. All those Sirius posts of mine last year look like they might bear fruit. Still, I'd place this theory behind the other I've posted - the deaths of Lily's parents - for now at least. Kneasy From hockeybug1994 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 17:07:40 2004 From: hockeybug1994 at yahoo.com (DawnnieC) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Learning From Snape In-Reply-To: <1096751438.86884.73398.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041004170740.18339.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114732 > Bookworm: > Your suggestions are appropriate for two adults. For a child/student > to *show* contempt for a teacher or to ignore him is disrespectful > and the teacher would be within his rights to discipline him. Dzeytoun: > So? Snape will discipline Harry in any case. Snape has not earned > respect and HARRY MUST NOT SHOW IT TO HIM. > Bookworm: > A better approach, IMO, would be for Harry to be *very* respectfully > polite no matter what Snape says or does. If he can maintain that > attitude, then he would have truly developed some maturity in > dealing with Snape. Dzeytoun: > You are totally and completely incorrect. All that will show is that > he has developed a poor sense of self-worth and a completely inappropriate > habit of giving respect to people who have not earned it. Dawnnie delurking to respond: I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. Being overly polite to a person who is treating you poorly does **not** demonstrate a poor sense of self-worth nor does it mean you will form the habit of doling out inappropriate respect. Have you ever heard the old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right" or "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?? They both apply here. Just because Snape is a mean, disrespectful, bully does not mean Harry should respond the same way. If people *only* changed their behavior/attitude in response to another (in your suggestion, if I am reading it correctly, Harry should only change his behavior *after* Snape changes his) then no one would ever change. Each would be waiting for the other to ?make the first move.? Somewhere, someone *needs* to initiate the change. Ideally, you would like it to be the adult, but sadly that isn?t always the case. As a person who has over 14-years experience working in the special education field as well as several as a counselor I can tell you from personal experience that the quickest, most efficient way to diffuse a particularly volatile (mean, bullying, arrogant) personality is to respond with civility. When you do that, the power shifts from the bully to the target (for lack of a better word). Bullies (and I consider Snape?s behavior bullying) thrive off fear and intimation. Their power lies in the ability to elicit specific behaviors from their targets, manipulating the situation (through the use of words) to make others angry, cry, frustrated, and/or prone to verbal outbursts. By reacting to the bully, the target gives up his power to the bully. When the victim/target chooses **not** to respond to the bullying behavior, he regains his power and renders the bully powerless. This is why I believe Harry **should** learn to treat Snape with respect/civility. Harry cannot control Snape?s behavior, but as pointed out earlier, Harry can certainly change his reactions to Snape. If he were to react by not reacting the dynamic between the two would certainly change; it has to as one of the variables (bully/target) that defined the relationship has changed. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, [sic] ?No one can make you feel inferior without your permission? - - it applies here. Snape felt inferior to James et al and Harry feels inferior in Snape's presence. Dawnnie ~ ~ going back into lurking mode as she has 20 more emails in her in box. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 20:23:20 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:23:20 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? FF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: Just seeing if anyone is interested because I > think this thread is fascinating, and I was particularly fascinatedby Alex's comparison to Umbridge.< It's telling that Ron and Hermione are both shocked by Umbridge's quill and think Harry should report it, while neither of them have ever said the same about Snape's behavior in class. In fact, Harry was going to complain and Ron told him not to push it--PS/SS ch 8. In the same chapter Hagrid also tells Harry not to worry about Snape--I can't imagine him reacting to the quill in that way. It's really too bad Hermione wasn't Harry's friend yet, because I can imagine her reaction: Harry (indignantly): He said I was the new celebrity! Hermione: Well, that's true, Harry, you are. Harry: Did you hear him ask me all those questions? Was I supposed to have learned that stuff already? Hermione: I have. And you are planning to learn it, aren't you, Harry? I mean, why else are you here? Harry: What'd he have to take a point off me for? Hermione: Well, you snarked him, didn't you? I know he wasn't very nice to you, Harry, but two wrongs don't make a right. Harry: And then he took another point off because I hadn't been keeping an eye on Neville! Hermione: Well, somebody should. That accident was really dangerous! Harry: But why pick on me? Hermione: Well, you did have time to notice what Draco, Seamus and I were doing, didn't you? I suppose he thought since you're so observant, you might keep an eye on Neville too. But don't worry, I'll do it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 20:26:58 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:26:58 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114734 >> Dungrollin: > Did she squash 'em all? > What about that delightfully enigmatic 'No... Petunia's not a > *squib*'? (my emphasis, and paraphrased to boot.) Alla: Yes, my first thought was the previous letter was petunia's invitation to Hogwarts, but since "letters" are in plural , I would agree that Dumbledore writing about the murder of their parents is also a possibility. From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 4 15:30:41 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:30:41 -0400 Subject: Snape--Abusive? References: Message-ID: <003501c4aa27$1deaf380$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114735 Alex said - >>At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, I'd like to pose the question of whether folks think that Snape's behavior towards Harry *really* constitues abuse. Emotional abuse is a nebulous category. The official role of a teacher is to teach subject matter, not to provide emotional nurturance. We all know of teachers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in caring for their students' emotional well being, but it isn't part of the job description. If the only people we let be teachers were those who could inspire love and trust in their students, schools would have an even more difficult time finding teachers than they already do. "Being nice to Harry" is not Snape's job. Harry has plenty of other places to look for emotional support (not as many as he would if he weren't an orphan, of course, but that's life). He has his friends, the adult Weasleys, Dumbledore, Hagrid, and McGonagall. He doesn' *need* emotional support from Snape the way he would if Snape was (shudder) his father. So, my conclusion is that I can't definively call Snape's behavior abuse based on the information that we *do actually have*. I don't consider his behavior very professional. If my kids were in his class, I would keep a close eye to make sure that he wasn't being harsher with them than they could handle. But I wouldn't say outright that he's abusive. Kethryn now - I happen to agree with you on this, Alex. I don't think that what Snape does to Harry is abusive, he does get a little closer to it with Neville than with Harry, but Snape never actually crosses the line to where I would stand up and scream, "He should be behind bars!" I said somewhere on the board before that Snape was like a burned out teacher but actually I think that assessment, upon rereading the books, is incorrect. Snape is more like a college professor than a high or middle school teacher. So, now come the arguments, "It's not fair that Snape acts more like a college professor and drives them harder, they are only children after all." So I will counter with the argument that he is teaching what I consider to be one of the most highly dangerous subjects in the school (my father is a chemist and I know all too well what can go wrong with that, having spent time in the hospital where he is getting patched up...and not due to negligence either). If children are to play with dangerous potions, then I would rather have a drill sergeant instructing the class than a molly coddler; it's just safer that way. Another argument is "But college students can drop out of the class and not take a professor they hate." Really? We can? In my majors (doubling), very often I do not have a choice because only one prof teaches the class in question. That means, for this semester and for example, that my database class is taught by someone who barely speaks english, my programming languages class is taught by a heavily accented Hungarian who breathes sleeping gas, my Calc II professor is a tyrant (this is, by the way, the only class that I could exchange for another with the result of having a truly messed up schedule), my design and analysis of algorithms class is taught by a smarmy sarcastic jerk (he is the only person who teaches it), and my english class in only taught by one man and one man only. Wow, look at that, I have a smarmy sarcastic jerk for a professor and I am stuck with him until I finish all my sophomore level computer science classes. I am willing to bet money that Snape is a damn good teacher. Sure, he is a jerk and he is unfair towards certain people, but have we heard of anyone making a potion wrong after being in his class? If we did, I would be willing to bet money that it was someone who never paid attention to details in his/her life. I just had a strange thought, actually. Have you noticed at Hogwarts that the teachers treat the male and female students exactly the same? Damn, that is extremly rare in an educational system (not blaming the teachers, blaming society). According to our society, well, coed Quidditch teams are right out the window, NEWT potions are too complicated for girls, and boys should probably not take fluffy subjects like Divination (cause it might turn them gay). Hermione takes arithmancy which is a math and logic based system (traditional male subject) while Ron and Harry are taking Divinations (which seems to be more of a girl subject). They are not weighed according to sex at Hogwarts. ok, now I really want to go there, and the attitudes that drove me off math classes are not present at Hogwarts. So, while their behavior may be what some consider to be abusive (re Snape), the entire school has advanced attitudes about gender and it's effect on scholastic ability. Snape also reminds me of Dr. Benton and his treatment of Carter while he was still a student on ER. Benton treated Carter like Snape treats Harry and Carter turned out to be a damn fine Doctor. Kethryn P.S. I don't know about the rest of you but I remember being utterly bored in HS and MS because the teachers dumb down the class and teach to the middle 1/3. The lower 1/3 of the class were screwed, for the most part, and the upper 1/3 were bored off their rear ends. The best class I ever had, through 13 years of public education, was actually my physics class where the teacher treated us as if we were college students and she never dumbed down a lesson. She was mean as a snake but damn did we learn from her and we did not abuse the freedoms she granted us. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 20:20:11 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:20:11 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114736 > > A > > R > > E > > Y > > Y > > O > > U > > P > > A > > Y > > I > > N > > G I'm no expert, and I'm sure you all have read the books more than *I* have but it seems to me everyone is making a large assumption, that "My Last..." refers to the letter left with Harry. If memory serves, the Dursleys have received a number of letters from Hogwarts, and at least one other letter regarding Harry directly from Dumbledore (re the Flying Ford incident). The only thing I'm left to imply from this is that Petunia has received more than one letter from Albus regarding Harry, and in his last letter he explained some things in very specific terms which he wants them to recall most explicitly. Distaiyi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 20:31:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:31:56 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: snip. > I felt a little let-down by her characterization. Not that she said > anything untrue of course ;), but she seems to be wavering on her > view of Sirius, like she was influenced by fandom casting the cold > light of day on the character. It's like hearing your Mom trash your > brother behind his back: "Oh well, that one...yes, well we tried but > he's been a big disappointment." > > Jen, wondering if JKR is back-pedaling or merely bringing to light > her true feelings on the subject. Alla: I don't know, Jen. I am trying to think positive. As someone just told me off list, but she is saying at the end, aren't we all not perfect? I may have been feeling a little let down by Sirius characterisation at the end of OOP (understatement of the century :o)) But now she did not say anything that I did not already know. I love him anyway. :o) I also think that she squashed Sirius as DE indefinitely by saying that he loved James as a brother. What I found interesting is her positive characterisation of Remus in that answer. Hmmm, I wonder what Pippin thinks about it. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 4 20:38:12 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:38:12 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > It all depends when the letters were sent. > They'd have to be after DD got wind of Voldy's intentions - about the time that they went into hiding, I'd think. > > It'd also mean that DD had no intention of allowing Harry to go to Sirius. Why not? Didn't he trust him? Heh, heh, heh. All those Sirius posts of mine last year look like they might bear fruit. > Not up to your usual standard, I'm afraid. Sirius was the secret keeper as far as DD knew, which would mean that if Voldie got through to GH, it was a good bet our Paddie had been neutralized one way or another and wouldn't be available for Harry-minding. But it certainly sounds as if DD was expecting Lily's Samson-in-the-Temple stunt. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 4 20:51:07 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 20:51:07 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114739 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Not up to your usual standard, I'm afraid. Sirius was the secret > keeper as far as DD knew, which would mean that if Voldie got > through to GH, it was a good bet our Paddie had been > neutralized one way or another and wouldn't be available for > Harry-minding. > > But it certainly sounds as if DD was expecting Lily's > Samson-in-the-Temple stunt. > What do you expect? It is the back-up theory after all. If the other one (114721) falls flat on it's face then I'll return - nudging canon here, re-interpreting canon there, pull in a reasonable extrapolation from over there... and before you know it - a bright, shiny, refurbished, slightly used theory. I theorise, therefore I am. Kneasy From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Oct 4 21:04:50 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:04:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update Message-ID: <20041004.171418.1840.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114740 dd11214 said: > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > She is also saying that she is going to kill more characters. :( I was a bit depressed about that, but then I realized that I've been predicting that exact thing since I finished OOtP. IMO: DD's head is on the chopping block, obviously Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew, at least one Weasley (it's a tossup between Percy and one of the older boys, depending on how the plot goes), and probably a couple of background kids like Dean Thomas, Angelina, Dennis Creevy, etc. So, this Petunia-DD letter thing! Interesting! Maybe Petunia did get an invitation letter to Hogwarts? Or maybe while Lily was in school, she was invited to a school function like Family Day or something? I think this was an older question, but I noticed that Jo answered a q, "What is your advice for kids who are being bullied." Her answer is an emphatic, "TELL SOMEONE." So in regards to the "abuse" debate that's been going on, it is apparently Jo's opinion that Harry was wrong not to tell anyone about Umbridge's detentions, and that Neville probably should talk to someone about the anxiety Snape has been causing him. (BTW, I agree with the people who said that Harry isnt' being particularly abused by Snape, but Neville is.) It still irritates me, though, that the Dursley's abuse is ignored and protected by the books. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Oct 4 21:03:58 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:03:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What became of the Chamber of Secrets? Message-ID: <20041004.171418.1840.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114741 Personally, I think the Slytherines have keggers down there. ("Secret" chamber in a high school? That's just an *invitation* to teenagers: "Please litter with broken bottles and used condoms.") Either that, or water polo practice. Aura, who would get the hugest kick out of playing around in the chamber. ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 21:16:35 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:16:35 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114742 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "distaiyi" wrote: > > I'm no expert, and I'm sure you all have read the books more than *I* > have but it seems to me everyone is making a large assumption, that > "My Last..." refers to the letter left with Harry. Sophierom: Again, just in case, spoiler below (though surely everyone's seen the site now??? ;-): S P O I L E R A L E R T JKR said, quote: "So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old." She's specifically indicated that the "last" was when Harry was left with the Dursleys, which means that the previous letters had to have come before Harry ended up on the Dursley's doorstep...Unless I'm misreading her quote. From steve51445 at adelphia.net Mon Oct 4 21:22:16 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:22:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch "potentially lethal?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041004212222.UISQ15118.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 114743 Del comments: "I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with those sports, but from what I've seen on TV, I have a remark to make. American football, hockey: don't the players wear helmets and other kinds of protective pieces of equipment ? Baseball : the ball is sent to one specific player, and if that player misses it, a third player catches it, right ? And that player is heavily protected, if I'm not mistaken. Quidditch, on the other hand, is played without *any* kind of protection, not even the most basic kind of helmet, and the bludgers can be sent to any player on the pitch, even if that player is intensely focusing on something else (chasing or seeking for example). So IMO Quidditch is indeed much more dangerous than any sport Muggle children might play at school. Moreover, it's the *only* sport wizard kids can compete in at Hogwarts, so they don't have a choice either. Steve now: I think quidditch is more dangerous 'to us' not to wizards. Broken bones and torn whatevers can end muggle athletes' careers. Wizards breaking bones isn't that big of a deal. Harry broke is arm in the quidditch match on Saturday. He had it deboned, and reboned by Sunday morning. WW medicine, and wizard 'hardiness' (Neville's bouncing after being thrown out the window) make for the lack of fatalities in quidditch. Quidditch is the only sport that we know of right now; similar to the way we know nothing of Hogsmeade visits before Harry's 3rd year. Personally, I think there are other sports in the WW, maybe played by the students who didn't make the house teams. We might not know about them because Harry has not seen them. There's a charms club and a gobstones club, why not an after school sports program? Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 4 21:20:33 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:20:33 -0000 Subject: JKR update re: Colin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114744 JKR's new update includes a statement about Colin Creevey having never developed pictures from his camera before the exposed film was ruined from the basilisk, but if memory serves me right didn't he develop pictures of Harry and ask him to autograph them which led to further tormenting from Draco. From alex51324 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 21:41:11 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:41:11 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114745 A number of people have posted, Re: my abusive Snape post, that Neville is a strong candidate for having been genuinely emotionally abused by Snape. I think this is a great point--we don't see *a lot* of evidence that Neville's Snape-Anxiety is "interfering with his schoolwork and activities of daily living" as they say, but we do see *some*, and it's easy to imagine that there's lots more Harry hasn't noticed. (We know Harry isn't all that observant when it comes to people's feelings.) I was very troubled by the posts suggesting that Harry should "stand up to Snape," mostly because I can't imagine such a scene being satisfying. We already know that Harry isn't cowed by Snape; he doesn't need to prove it in a really obvious way. If Harry stood up in class and told Snape to behave more professionally, it would probably come across to me (as it certainly would to Snape) as Harry being a brat. There would be no emotional payoff to Harry standing up to Snape; it wouldn't mark any particular development in his character. But if *Neville* stands up to Snape...that would be totally different. Neville *does* have to prove that he's not cowed by Snape. (However, I see it happening in Book 6--after he stands up to Lestrange, it would seem very odd if he goes back to Hogwarts for sixth year and he's just as afraid of Snape as he always was.) Alex From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Oct 4 21:47:17 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:47:17 -0400 Subject: Hogwarts' education (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? Message-ID: <20041004.174902.1840.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114746 Caveat: Before I start "excusing Snape's behavior" as people will accuse me, let me just say, I know Snape is an ass. He's unfair, borderline abusive, and giving Neville an ulcer. I'd just like to comment on other parts of his character. Kethryn (pretty name) said: > but Snape never actually crosses the > line to where I would stand up and scream, "He should be behind > bars!" Exactly. And I did say that about Umbridge (my copy of OOtP has fingernail marks on the page with the evil quill) and heartily wished social services would investigate the Dursleys. > I said somewhere on the board before that Snape was like a > burned out teacher but actually I think that assessment, upon > rereading the books, is incorrect. Snape is more like a college > professor than a high or middle school teacher. I really agree. Someone's lj icon has Snape saying, "This job would be great if it wasn't for the FUCKING STUDENTS!" So, so true - and he's not the only teacher to think so. Snape is pretty damn smart and -- despite his pining for DADA -- loves his subject matter (as per his lecture in PS, which sounds like a valentine to Potions.:) It's just the dunderheaded kids who make it miserable. He'd be much happier teaching at a university, but alas, there isn't one. Some fanfic writer posited that after the war, he'll take a position at some magical think tank and spend the rest of his days in happy solitiude in his own lab. >"It's not fair that Snape acts more like > a college professor and drives them harder, they are only children > after all." Aside from your argument, Kethryn, which is a good one, there's the fact that in the WW, kids apparently grow up fast. Hogwarts is a dangerous school by Muggle standards, and the kids are expected to take a lot of responsibility for themselves. I can't imagine living in a college-type dormitory at 11 years old and actually having the self-disciplen to do my homework every night and get up in time for class every morning. I was a good kid and I loved school, but my mom had to practically threaten my life to get me to learn my times tables. All the Hogwarts classes are a little more advanced than the adverage American public school system. (ITA, Keth, about the top 1/3 of the class being bored.) So if Snape is more demanding in his classroom, he's got cultural precedent. > I am willing to bet money that Snape is a damn good teacher. Agree. I've had teachers like him, too. If you can get past being terrified of them (like Neville needs to) and get past your fury (like Harry needs to), you'll be surprised to realize that you're actually learning from them. I suspect that Hermione actually sort of likes Potion class for the challenge. She hates how Snape treats her friends, but since she mostly stays off his radar (now that she's older and knows better than to try to be the teacher's pet), she probably doesn't hold that much against him. Hermione's more emotionally mature, so I think she just treat Potions as an opportunity to learn, and try to ignore Snape's personality. > I just had a strange thought, actually. Have you noticed at > Hogwarts that the teachers treat the male and female students > exactly the same? Yup, the WW is apparently gender fair. And, btw, not only does Hermione take arithmancy, but it's her favorite class. (Soemthing about, "It's fascinating, and such a challenge.") Contrast that to smart muggle girls who would be good at math if it wasn't for the girl-excluding classroom environment. (I ask you: why did I consistently fail math with some -- usually older male -- teachers, yet consistently get A's and B's with other teachers? Something's not right there.) > coed Quidditch teams are right out the window, Question: in the books, I get the sense that the Quidditch *locker rooms* are co-ed, too. When Wood addresses the team while they're getting ready, the girls and the boys are present. Did I miss something? Is the implication that they get dressed (and shower afterwards?) in their own, gender-separate locker rooms, but the team warms up or puts on their gear or something in another room? > Snape also reminds me of Dr. Benton and his treatment of Carter > while he was still a student on ER. Benton treated Carter like > Snape treats Harry and Carter turned out to be a damn fine Doctor. And that other kid threw himself in front of a train.... Just sayin, Snape = Benton, Harry = Carter, Neville = train-goo. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 4 21:45:36 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:45:36 -0000 Subject: JKR update re: Colin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > > JKR's new update includes a statement about Colin Creevey having > never developed pictures from his camera before the exposed film was > ruined from the basilisk, but if memory serves me right didn't he > develop pictures of Harry and ask him to autograph them which led to > further tormenting from Draco. Dungrollin: That was the Lockhart 'and we'll both sign it for you' episode, wasn't it? I do recall a mention, though possibly from later, of Harry being pleased that his photographic self was putting up a struggle w/r/t being dragged into frame by Lockhart's photographic self... don't have a book to hand though. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 21:55:13 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:55:13 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: >> I was very troubled by the posts suggesting that Harry should "stand > up to Snape," mostly because I can't imagine such a scene being > satisfying. We already know that Harry isn't cowed by Snape; he > doesn't need to prove it in a really obvious way. If Harry stood up > in class and told Snape to behave more professionally, it would > probably come across to me (as it certainly would to Snape) as Harry > being a brat. There would be no emotional payoff to Harry standing up > to Snape; it wouldn't mark any particular development in his > character. But if *Neville* stands up to Snape...that would be > totally different. Neville *does* have to prove that he's not cowed > by Snape. (However, I see it happening in Book 6--after he stands up > to Lestrange, it would seem very odd if he goes back to Hogwarts for > sixth year and he's just as afraid of Snape as he always was.) > Alla: Hi, Alex! I don't know about others, but I certainly was not suggesting that Harry should do MORE standing up to Snape right now. What he already does is enough to me. I was just trying to get across my strong opposition to Pippin and some other posters' point that Harry should start smiling at Snape's insults. I mean laughter is the best medicine, sure, but not always, IMO. Moreover, I am not opposed to Harry temporarily abandoning his resistance to Snape in favor of defeating Voldemort. but it would not mean to me that Snape is right by any means, just that Harry sees a bigger goal in mind and prepares to fry a bigger fish (as Valky so eloquently put it) I was also trying to get across my point that IMO the ONLY reason why Snape's insults do not always get under Harry's skin is because Harry won't let them, not because Snape 's intention is not to be abusive. Despite all of that, I once posted quotes that sometimes Harry IS afraid of Snape. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 22:00:37 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:00:37 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' education (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041004.174902.1840.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114749 > Kethryn (pretty name) said: > > but Snape never actually crosses the > > line to where I would stand up and scream, "He should be behind > > bars!" Alla: Snape has his good qualities, so I most certainly do NOT want him behind bars, but to me he crossed the line where he should not be teaching Harry or Neville LONG time ago. Aura: > Exactly. And I did say that about Umbridge (my copy of OOtP has > fingernail marks on the page with the evil quill) and heartily wished > social services would investigate the Dursleys. Alla: I don't think ANY of Snape bashers will argue that Snape is in the same league as Umbridge. Umbrdige is physical and emotional sadist to her students. Snape also exhibits milder degree of sadism, but only emotional one (Thanks, Nora). > Aura: He'd be much happier teaching at > a university, but alas, there isn't one. Some fanfic writer posited that > after the war, he'll take a position at some magical think tank and spend > the rest of his days in happy solitiude in his own lab. > Alla: That is what I have been saying all along. Please, JKR let Snape survive the war and send him to some research institute FAR FAR away from Hogwarts. Again, let me stress, I don't want Snape to abandon teaching before story ends, because he is VERY colourful character. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 22:03:49 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:03:49 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? - Yes, he is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114750 Alex Boyd wrote: > > At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, I'd like to pose the > question of whether folks think that Snape's behavior towards Harry > *really* constitues abuse. > Neri: JKR said in an interview "the Connection", Oct 12 1999 http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc.html "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power" Neri From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Mon Oct 4 22:16:48 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:16:48 -0000 Subject: Gilding the Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114751 I wrote: >> [T]he bit about the Evans parents being victims of >> Voldemort or his minions strikes me as likely. Hickengruendler replied: > I agree, but like some other posters pointed out, the > chat last March where she said that the grandparents > are not very important to the plot sort of contradicts > the theory. On the other hand, we don't know what JKR > considers important. I took that comment to mean that the GPs would not figure into the plot prominently, not that they aren't part of the backstory. If Kneasy's speculation -- with which I agreed -- is correct, the information about the Evanses deaths is not terribly "important" to the story because it simply confirms things we already know (VM and his band were violent and didn't shrink from attacking the families of those who opposed them). >From my post: >> Petunia appears to be terrified by the idea of Voldemort, >> arguably moreso than a single murder (of her allegedly >> hated sister) would explain. Hickengruendler: > There I disagree with you. No matter how much you might > hate your sister, the idea that her murderer is on the > loose is terryfying. Especially, because the reason why > Lily and James were killed is now living under Petunia's > roof. I would be afraid, as well. A fair point, and part of the reason I said "arguably." The argument on the other side is that if you already both resented your sibling and thought that her entanglements with those "weirdos" were dangerous, it would be easier to rationalize that she brought her death on herself, and that everything would be different for you. >From my post: >> Certainly this is an area where JKR must have thought >> about the backstory, and it presumably ties in in some >> way with the issue of Dumbledore's bargain with Petunia >> and her odd behavior in OP. Unless Petunia's portrayed >> character is a complete red herring, she must be getting >> something out of the arrangement other than the >> satisfaction of knowing that Harry is protected. And >> the simplest explanation (yeah, I know, never a safe bet >> with Rowling, but...) would be that she or Dudley or the >> whole family is being protected as well. Hickengruendler: > And here I don't really agree with it as well. The only > safe place is the Dursley's home, and even assuming that > Petunia and Dudley are safe their as well, at the very > least Dudley isn't safe while he is at Smeltings.... I wasn't suggesting that the Dursleys were protected by the same charm that Dumbledore says he used to protect Harry. Just that it was part of Petunia's deal with DD that he would offer her some form of protection as well. Or, alternatively, maybe there is something specific that Petunia has to fear from Voldemort, and so she is willing to cooperate in his downfall by keeping Harry safe. Hickengruendler: > Petunia clearly loves Dudley, no matter how nasty she is > otheriwse. And still in this case she seems to put him in > danger to keep Harry safe. I agree with your observation, but am suggesting that there are two possible inferences from it. One could infer that Petunia loves Harry so deeply that she is willing to put Dudley at risk. Or, alternatively, one could infer that Petunia is getting something else out of the deal. I am suggesting that the second possible inference is more credible. -- Matt From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 4 22:26:05 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:26:05 -0400 Subject: JKR made a mistake - SPOILER Message-ID: <001001c4aa61$24265ca0$52fae2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 114752 In her new post to her website, JKR is asked: "How did Colin's camera work inside Hogwarts if it was a Muggle camera ("Chamber of Secrets")?" Her reply "Who says it worked? Colin never got to develop the film, so he never knew whether he had taken pictures correctly or not. All we know is that the insides of the camera were scorched when the Basilisk looked into the lens.." However, in CoS - Mudbloods and Murmurs: "'Harry! Look what I've got here! I've had it developed, I wanted to show you --' Harry looked bemusedly at the photograph Colin was brandishing under his nose. A moving, black and white Lockhart was tugging hard on an arm Harry recognized as his own.He was pleased to see that his photographic self was putting up a good fight and refusing to be dragged into view." Then Colin asked him to sign it and Harry refused. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Mon Oct 4 22:36:02 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:36:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Having read a number of very strong posts from Snape/Sirius > ?philes/?phobes, I would like to ask one question ? has > anyone else noticed that many of the characters are really > caricatures? > > The Dursleys made Harry sleep in a closet; they send him a > tissue for Christmas; a teacher is repeatedly "sadistic" > toward particular students without comment from school > authorities; Gilderoy Lockhart (need I say more?). These > are just a few examples, but IMO the characterizations are > a little over-the-top. ............... > The magic of JKR's storytelling is that we have all come to love > these characters (good and bad) and think of them as real. Somewhere in the depths of Yahoo!, there's a post of mine suggesting that Rowling's most impressive gift is the ability to bring life to these impossibly caricatured stereotypes, and to turn them into characters who read as "real." -- Matt From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 4 23:28:42 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:28:42 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114754 > Sophierom: > Interesting thoughts, Jen, but I wonder if she's really wavering. > Didn't JKR also once say that Snape was one of her favorite characters > (to write, at least)? Maybe she liked Sirius as a character > (emotionally unstable, very human, wrongly accused -all traits of a > dynamic, interesting character), but she wouldn't want him as her best > friend? :-) Jen: That's the dilemma as a writer, I suppose. You bring to life many complex characters, and may be attracted to writing one who wouldn't be particularly appealing in real life. And I guess it's only fair that JKR could change her mind about the characters over the years as well. When she first conceived of her characters she was at a much different point in her own life. It's been, what, 15 years or so since Harry appeared to her? > Alla: > I don't know, Jen. I am trying to think positive. As someone just > told me off list, but she is saying at the end, aren't we all not > perfect? > > I may have been feeling a little let down by Sirius characterisation > at the end of OOP (understatement of the century :o)) > > But now she did not say anything that I did not already know. I love > him anyway. :o) Jen: Ah, you all are probably right--I'll keep the faith ;). Like you said Alla, JKR didn't say anything we haven't discussed endlessly on the list. But, she also pretty much closed the door on any new significant backstory that we're not aware of yet--what you see is what you get. Sirius *is* exactly as we've discussed him on- list and there's no more mystery to uncover. Not to say he won't re- appear in some form, but he most likely won't be significant for the backstory, just the current one. Sometimes I think I'd do better *not* to read the comments on JKR's website. As more and more truths are revealed, I find myself missing the time when everything was mysterious and therefore open to speculation. And I could hold on to my own beliefs about what JKR is trying to say, rather than finding out the truth ;). Jen, glad JKR continues to comment on Lupin in positive ways. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 23:32:01 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:32:01 -0000 Subject: Quidditch "potentially lethal?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114755 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Del: > So IMO Quidditch is indeed much more dangerous than any sport Muggle > children might play at school. Moreover, it's the *only* sport wizard > kids can compete in at Hogwarts, so they don't have a choice either. Geoff: Hmm. You obviously haven't seen my church Senior Boys' Club playing Unihoc! That's dead lethal - even for the referee. Quidditch nothing! Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 23:50:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:50:05 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114757 > Jen: Ah, you all are probably right--I'll keep the faith ;). Like > you said Alla, JKR didn't say anything we haven't discussed > endlessly on the list. But, she also pretty much closed the door on > any new significant backstory that we're not aware of yet--what you > see is what you get. Sirius *is* exactly as we've discussed him on- > list and there's no more mystery to uncover. Not to say he won't re- > appear in some form, but he most likely won't be significant for the > backstory, just the current one. > > Sometimes I think I'd do better *not* to read the comments on JKR's > website. As more and more truths are revealed, I find myself missing > the time when everything was mysterious and therefore open to > speculation. And I could hold on to my own beliefs about what JKR is > trying to say, rather than finding out the truth ;). > > Jen, glad JKR continues to comment on Lupin in positive ways. Alla: I do know what you mean, Jen. On one hand I LIKE new information, on the other I want some mystery lfet. You are right, we may not get any new information about Sirius characterisation, but I think we already got lucky, because OOP revealed A LOT of depth about Sirius,a lot of the reasons behind his motives. I am not sure I agree that we will not get any new backstory. She PROMISED us more about the reasons for the mutual hatred between Sirius and Snape and she better live up to it. :o) I am VERY interested in Prank backstory :o) and I think we will learn it eventually. Yes, after today I am finally saying good buy to ESE!Lupin in my mind. Remus is one of her favourite characters, she would LOVE to meet him, she thinks that he is more MATURE that Sirius, whom she likes even though she does not like some of his traits. Sorry, Pippin. :) From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 23:56:20 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:56:20 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: Dzeytoun: In this context, the whole thing becomes > a kind of fleshed out morality play very similar to the type of thing > done in the Middle Ages > I find that a more compelling symbolic explanation of what's going > on than the more direct Christ analogy. Of course, the two are not > mutually exclusive. Geoff: Well, of course, they're not! In the 15th/16th centuries, they took place within the framework of the church and, among other things, were a way of putting over Christian virtues in an understandable fashion to folk who were unable to read and write. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 00:01:49 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:01:49 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius / Stubby Bored Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > > > Mac wrote: > PoA introduces Sirius - an extremely ambiguous character but who we are supposed to love, like Harry (and James). snip > So why must Sirius have an entire book (PoA) and then be so > suppressed and even 'necessarily' killed? Where does it fit? > > > > Lots of characters in the books and lots of HPfGU posters read > > Sirius very differently than I had always done, namely they see > him dark: I saw him misunderstood and good: He's James' best mate, > > Harry's godfather, even DD trusts him (or does he?) - flawed, > > reckless, but esentially good. > > > > snip snip> he's *always* got a 'reasonable' explanation - even comes across as persecuted), he breaks rules, is a loose canon, instigates terrible (if you think about it) and risky behaviour by the Marauders (how did DD possibly *not* know?) and, one way or another, knew enough about the Potter's demise to be on the spot straight after it happened (if only that late). Why does JKR say that in early drafts of GH a DE met Sirius there? Sirius is not stupid enough to be duped, so why is he associating with DE's? Especially at GH. > > > Hannah: snip snip He's an interesting character, rather as Snape is, because his motivation isn't always clear, his past is shady, and his actions can be interpreted in several ways. > I agree there is more to Sirius than meets the eye. Something made DD mistrust him even before GH, and apparently not even question his guilt afterwards. Something also made Lupin, one of his best friends, believe he was a spy before and after GH. There's the 'prank' and the issue of why he was never expelled. There's Snape's apparent conviction that Sirius was guilty of betraying the Potters. > snip snip snip Future books will likely reveal more of his unsavoury past exploits. But as he himself said; 'The world is not divided in good people and Death Eaters.' mhbobbin: Suddenly, the name Stubby Boardman lept into my head. Yes, it seemed like a joke when we all read about him in The Quibbler. The idea of Sirius as some sort of Lounge Lizard. (Chapter 10 ootp) Boardman. Bored Man. I don't mean the whole story as reported in The Quibbler is legitimate. But what would have prevented Sirius from sneaking out of Grim Old Place to sing with The Hobgoblins. He was, after all, a Bored Man. And this particularly far-fetched article is mentioned twice. First, when Kingsley gives the paper to Arthur thinking Sirius would find it interesting. Second, when Harry picks up Luna's magazine. What to go on? Not much. The whiff of whiskey a couple of times. What has to be long stretches of time alone in Grim Old Place, unaccounted for. And Sirius' reckless personality. Maybe the point of the article is only to hint at Sirius' recklessness and not to be taken literally. This article is mentioned in the same chapter as Sirius accompanying Harry to the Train, and being seen by Lucius. And Harry speculates that this also meant that Lucius knew that The Weasleys, Hermione Tonks, Lupin and Mad Eye Moody, as well as Harry, knew where Sirius was. Recklessness that costs Sirius dearly as he then must always be confined to headquarters. And that is only an episode Harry saw. Did Sirius endanger the Order in other ways? Is this why he HAD to be put out of the way, or killed, for awhile. Not to mention all the Double-AGent, DE, spy theories. (Please forgive me and do not turn me into a newt if this has been discussed recently. ) mhbobbin-- From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 00:38:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:38:48 -0000 Subject: stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114760 > Annemehr wrote: > I completely agree with Beatnik24601 that the sense of the words > certainly seem to imply brewing up a flask of something lethal. > > The trouble with that, though, is that it's boring! Isn't it? > Ordinary Muggles are perfectly capable of mixing up poisons, after > all. Not to mention how surprised we'd be to find Snape teaching > Hogwarts students to brew death potions. Perhaps these are two of the myriad of issues that Beatnik was thinking of. > > I wonder if, by 'stopper death' he could have meant 'control death?' > He couldn't have meant 'control death' in an absolute sense, but > perhaps in an incomplete way. In which case, Finwitch and Beatnik are both right. See how accomodating I can be? Carol responds: If we take Snape literally about being able to "brew Fame" and "bottle Glory," we need to take him literally about being able to "stopper Death," too. All three would need to be brewed, bottled, and stoppered, even though he lists only one verb per commodity or substance. In other words, yes, he's brewing Death and enclosing it in a stoppered bottle, just as he's doing with Fame and Glory, but the bottle contains Death itself, or the *essence* of Death, not some mundane poison or other lethal substance (which, I agree, would be boring!). Exactly what the implications of being able to brew, bottle, and stopper Death would be I have no idea. *If* Snape can really do so, I imagine that ability will play a crucial role in Book 6 or 7. OTOH (though as a Snape fan, I hate to say this), it's possible that the whole speech is poetic hyperbole, intended to impress on his students not only that Potions is a field to be respected but that he himself, as Potions Master, should be regarded with something like awe. (If he could really brew Fame and bottle Glory, wouldn't he already have done so rather than lowering himself to teach unappreciative "dunderheads"? And if he can do the same with Death, the Department of Mysteries should hire him as an Unspeakable!) Still, I'd rather believe that he's speaking the truth here, and that being a Potions Master is a lot more impressive than Harry and his fellow students realize. Carol, who originally thought that "stopper Death" meant prevent death (some sort of immortality potion), but admits reluctantly that the wording doesn't lend itself to that interpretation From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 00:51:16 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:51:16 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114761 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: It wouldn't be very satisfying to me if Harry > was noble enough to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew for killing > his parents and then took out his wrath on Snape for insulting > them. To paraphrase something Ron never said, he'd really > need to rethink his priorities. > > Pippin But he wasn't going to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew, Pippin, he was going to send him to Azkaban. That's hardly forgoing vengeance, or justice as the case may be. Now, it's true he believed that there are certain places you shouldn't go for justice/vengeance, and I'm sure that he still believes that. Which is probably going to be a big deal for him as he wrestles with having to kill Pettigrew. It would be an enormous disappointment for me if he did not put Snape in his place in some appropriate fashion. That doesn't mean I think he should kill Snape. But just as he was ready to appropriately punish Pettigrew by sending him to Azkaban, I expect him to appropriately punish Snape for his behavior. Public humiliation would probably be best. Dzeytoun From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 01:11:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:11:10 -0000 Subject: Bode and Croaker (Was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114762 > > mhbobbin: > > > In GOF, at the Quidditch World Cup, Arthur briefly speaks to two > Unspeakables who work in the Dept of Mysteries. .... The other is Croaker. Haven't heard of Croaker since. With a name like that I wouldn't bet on his chances of surviving the series but my guess is that we're going to meet him again and he'll reveal something about the Veil. > > > Tina now: > Good point about the unspeakables! With a name like a Croaker, I > wouldn't be surprised if he knew lots about the Death Chamber! > Carol adds: I thought the first time I read those names (especially in connection with their being Unspeakables) that Bode's name didn't bode well for his survival, and I also expected Croaker to "croak." But I'll probably be told that I'm reading implications from American English into the second of those interpretations. "Bode" surely has the same meaning on both sides of the Atlantic, but "croak," being slang, may not. Carol From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 21:33:25 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:33:25 -0000 Subject: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update In-Reply-To: <20041004.171418.1840.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114763 annegirl11 wrote: > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > So, this Petunia-DD letter thing! Interesting! Maybe Petunia did get an > invitation letter to Hogwarts? Or maybe while Lily was in school, she was > invited to a school function like Family Day or something? Or maybe just letters from the School regarding Harry, like w/ the Flying Ford incident. > I think this was an older question, but I noticed that Jo answered a q, > "What is your advice for kids who are being bullied." Her answer is an > emphatic, "TELL SOMEONE." So in regards to the "abuse" debate that's been > going on, it is apparently Jo's opinion that Harry was wrong not to tell > anyone about Umbridge's detentions, and that Neville probably should talk > to someone about the anxiety Snape has been causing him. (BTW, I agree > with the people who said that Harry isnt' being particularly abused by > Snape, but Neville is.) It still irritates me, though, that the Dursley's > abuse is ignored and protected by the books. The fact that Neville is afraid of Snape hardly amounts to abuse. And what I recall of Snape's interaction with Neville is hardly different from any other Gryffindor student must endure. When it comes to "Harry" at home, given that this is his only home, I think she is treading quite nicely the line between abuse and disfunction and where a child needs to be removed from a home. He is safe, clothed, and fed but not loved. There are lots of kids who are far worse off who don't get taken out of their homes. If anyone here can come up with a good, fair demarcation of when a child is abused enough to be taken out of a home you'll go down in history... that said, I believe the books deal with his life quite adequately at home, but most of it dealt with in the first books as in later books he is only there a very short time. Also JKR is removing Harry from the environment more and more by having the Weasley's come get him earlier and earlier... too bad they're in for their own world of hurt in book 6/7 (IMHO). Thanks for reading this poor fan's opinions. distaiyi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 01:35:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:35:09 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > But he wasn't going to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew, Pippin, he was > going to send him to Azkaban. That's hardly forgoing vengeance, or > justice as the case may be. Now, it's true he believed that there > are certain places you shouldn't go for justice/vengeance, and I'm > sure that he still believes that. Which is probably going to be a > big deal for him as he wrestles with having to kill Pettigrew. > > It would be an enormous disappointment for me if he did not put Snape > in his place in some appropriate fashion. That doesn't mean I think > he should kill Snape. But just as he was ready to appropriately > punish Pettigrew by sending him to Azkaban, I expect him to > appropriately punish Snape for his behavior. Public humiliation > would probably be best. > Alla: All true , Dzeytoun, and as I said if Snape does not see Harry for Harry at the end, not Harry as James, I am all for Snape's humiliation. I think Harry saving his life will be perfect,ESPECIALLY if Harry will do it with the best intentions in mind - not wanting to humiliate Snape , but to keep him alive. Of course Snape being Snape will misunderstand that and will decide that he owes a lifedebt to Potter again. :o) I just hope that Harry will not give him ANY chance to pay such debt back. :) I REALLY want Harry to survive at the end, but in such scenario Harry's death will be good punishment for Snape. If he lives, I hope he keeps his kids as far from Snape as possible. :o) Send them to Durmstrang or Beaubaxton, Harry. :o) But, when push comes to shove, I am a little bit more optimistic than you, Dzeytoun. I still have faith that grudging respect may develop between Harry and Snape at the end. From red_rider4 at lycos.com Mon Oct 4 21:37:08 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (hester_griffith) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:37:08 -0000 Subject: JKR update re: Colin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > > JKR's new update includes a statement about Colin Creevey having > never developed pictures from his camera before the exposed film was > ruined from the basilisk, but if memory serves me right didn't he > develop pictures of Harry and ask him to autograph them which led to > further tormenting from Draco. Hester: I don't remember if the film was ever developed. I do remember Colin asking to take the picture and then Harry could sign it when it was developed and Lockheart stepped in and made everything worse. I know electronics don't work in hogwarts, but he could have had a basic "old-fashioned," if you will, camera. I have one of those. You really have to know about f-stops and such, but it's great not to have to worry about batteries going dead. My only complaint is that it's so bulky. Sinse there is nothing electronic (just mirrors and levers) about it, it would work in Hogwarts. JKR may have thought of that when she wrote it, but forgotten since then. It has been quite a while. Hester From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 21:37:16 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:37:16 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > Again, just in case, spoiler below (though surely everyone's seen the > site now??? ;-): > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > A > L > E > R > T > > JKR said, quote: > "So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of > course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was > one year old." > > She's specifically indicated that the "last" was when Harry was left > with the Dursleys, which means that the previous letters had to have > come before Harry ended up on the Dursley's doorstep...Unless I'm > misreading her quote. Well that is her quote but I think we have another incident of her misremembering what she's written or not giving us all the information. Unless of course it wasn't him, but someone else who wrote to the Dursleys anything regarding Harry... IE Minerva... I most certainly could be mistaken. distaiyi From redlena_web at yahoo.com Mon Oct 4 22:26:06 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:26:06 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114767 > Dungrollin: > Did she squash 'em all? > What about that delightfully enigmatic 'No... Petunia's not a > *squib*'? (my emphasis, and paraphrased to boot.) > > I must admit that I'm leaning towards Petunia being the late- > developer, and DD having done something clever to excuse > her from class. RedLena: As intriguing as some people's theories have been to read, I don't think Petunia's going to turn out to have any magic powers. My support for this opinion comes from JKR's talk at the Edinburgh Book Festival this August (find full transcript here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80). In answer to the question, "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?" JKR says "No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." Granted she does cloud the issue with all the "but--" business but she does explicitly say "[Petunia] is a Muggle." And, afaik, that by definition means she's not magical. > Dungrollin: > PS what odds are you giving on Petunia's house? I can't see > how she'd fit anywhere, perhaps the hat spat her out again. RedLena: My above opinion about Muggle Petunia aside, *if* she *were* a witch and sorted into a Hogwarts house, I'd expect her to be put into Hufflepuff. Here's why... she's not brave enough to be a Gryffindor, she's not smart enough to be a Ravenclaw, and she's clearly not a pureblood which seems to cut Slytherin out of the running. Though I'd expect she'd be unlikely to be very popular in any case. -- RedLena, who likes to hypothesize even when she doesn't believe a theory From jeterluver2 at aol.com Mon Oct 4 22:27:10 2004 From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:27:10 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114768 Jen wrote: > So JKR was asked, "Do you like Sirius Black?" and her response was, > well, less than glowing. She specifically points out all his flaws > in record time, including his penchant for "spouting bits of > personal philosophy" but not always living up to them (i.e. how he > treats Kreacher). > > What happened to Sirius being one of her favorite characters? That > she couldn't wait to get to POA and write about Lupin & Sirius? Will Lupin next on the chopping block?!? > Basically she distills Sirius down to a 'slightly unbalanced' >person with one great quality--feeling great affection for James, >which he then transferred to Harry. I love Sirius, but I understand completely what Rowling was trying to say. The man lost 12 years to Azkaban, and naturally didn't have time to grow up. Sirius is a good man, but yes he has faults. He reminds me of one of my cousins, who I love more than anything (he's one of my very favorite people) but don't always agree with the things he does or says. He has faults, and he does things that make you want to wince somtimes, but it doesn't mean you love them any less. She was in tears after killing him off, and I really think she did love him, but she's trying to point out that he's not totally innocent. Just because he's not totally innocent or doesn't always do the right or smart thing (such as being disappointed in Harry just because Harry was thinking of his safety-OP 14) doesn't mean he's not worth loving and I think that's what Jo's trying to point out. Marissa From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 01:52:27 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:52:27 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114769 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > > Alla: > > Could you educate me, please, a little bit? I know about those > Middle Age plays, but in a very general terms. > Wisdom nurtures Love which will defeat Hate sounds like a rather > standard interpretation to me, but is it what usually was supposed > to happened with Bitterness according to the plot line? > > > If it is true , I doubt that everything in Potterverse would fit to > the slightest degree. > > Was Wisdom, for example supposed to make mistakes and admitting to > them in those plays? The history of Morality Plays are extremely long and complex, and shoots into the development of Christian Liturgy on one hand the developoment of modern drama on the other. There were literally thousands of different variations, although the main moral messages, based on Biblical Themes, remained constant. Bitterness (or Hardness of Heart, as it would have probably been put) rejecting Love would play out in the context of a subtype of morality play focusing on the Judgement of Souls. In this type of play different people dominated by different traits (Good Deed, Wealth, Hard Heart, Humility, etc) meet a personified form of Divine Love. Their response to this meeting determines their fate in the final scene of the play, when they appear before God and are judged. You don't have complex characterization in morality plays, as the characters are archetypes or caricatures, as some people argue the HP characters are. The characters don't change in the course of the play (after all, the subject is how certain traits lead to certain fates) and they often don't speak at all, but perform in pantomime while the play is narrarated from off-stage. Actually, I don't think HP really corresponds very well to any fixed analogy. Certainly some moral themes wind through the books, however, and I find, so far, that the themes smack more of a Morality Play than a Passion of Christ (talking in general terms, not about the Mel Gibson movie). Dzeytoun From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 5 01:52:55 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:52:55 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114770 Alla: > I am not sure I agree that we will not get any new backstory. She > PROMISED us more about the reasons for the mutual hatred between > Sirius and Snape and she better live up to it. :o) > > I am VERY interested in Prank backstory :o) and I think we will > learn it eventually. Jen: Ooh, I forgot about that promise! The explanation of the Prank should be pretty juicy, and I fully expect to find out Snape pulled a few underhanded and vicious deeds just like James/Sirius pulled on him. JKR *did* make an interesting point that Sirius could not see the good points in Snape; it makes me wonder what exactly Sirius was privvy to at Hogwarts that fueled his one-sided view of Snape. What we saw in the Pensieve scene made Snape look like the hapless victim of the Marauder's bullying--was there anything he did besides 'just exist'? Was he always the one on the defensive? Alla: > Yes, after today I am finally saying good buy to ESE!Lupin in my > mind. > > Remus is one of her favourite characters, she would LOVE to meet > him, she thinks that he is more MATURE that Sirius, whom she likes > even though she does not like some of his traits. Jen: JKR is really giving Lupin a lot of good press recently, both in the Edinburgh appearance and today. It makes me more suspicious though, instead of less--is this another cat and mouse game? Just as she characterized Sirius today in very gray terms, she could come back and talk about how Lupin's maturity, good teaching skills, and easy-going demeanor made him the perfect villain and 'so fun' to write. I hope not, of course. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:02:21 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:02:21 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: snip. > Actually, I don't think HP really corresponds very well to any fixed > analogy. Certainly some moral themes wind through the books, > however, and I find, so far, that the themes smack more of a Morality > Play than a Passion of Christ (talking in general terms, not about > the Mel Gibson movie). > Alla: Thank you very much, Dzeytoun. I do appreciate the information about morality plays. I also think JKR mixes a lot of different genre in the books and she blends it quite well for the most part, at the same time I do see a lot of cristian themes, but the same time as SSS said these themes a re quite similar for many moral systems. From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 02:08:49 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:08:49 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Dzeytoun: > > I sense that you see in this (and I may be wrong) a kind of > > Christian parable with Harry being a sort of martyr/Christ > > figure. Certainly that is one way to interpret things. > > > SSSusan: > Well, yes & no. I happen to find many Christian themes & images > within the books, yes, and they please me. But one of the things > that I find cool about JKR is that she's written these books in such > a way that they're NOT screaming "Christian books!" at people, > making them feel that if they're not interested in such things, > there's nothing within for them. > > Besides, even if I happen to find things that seem "Christian" to > me, those things *aren't* exclusively "Christian." I mean, what > I've been arguing is that I believe Harry will likely find a means > of setting aside his dislike, anger, hatred, disrespect [choose your > term of preference] for/towards Snape in order to focus on > what "matters more" to him: working for the Order, learning all he > can to prepare himself to face down Voldemort, working for the side > of Good [or for the greater good, if that term appeals more]. I > believe he will do this, rather than focus on what might seem > more "just," personally, which would be to continue to be hateful > and angry towards Snape, to continue to defy him, to continue to not > try very hard in his classes in order to somehow show Snape that > he's not going to take his "abuse." > > This type of decision, to put one's own self lower on the priority > scale than the greater good is *NOT* a Christian-only tenet. In > fact, I'm thinking it's a pretty widespread way of seeing things, a > very common part of many people's value systems. I would say that > taking the more "selfish" route of demanding to be treated in X kind > of way, with that being more important than ANYTHING else [as you've > said], is a much more *uncommon* view. > > By the way, I do want to mention that nowhere have I argued that if > Harry manages to set aside his hatred and "I'm not going to do what > HE says" attitude regarding Snape, because he's made a conscious > decision that the Order and the defeat of Voldy are more important, > that that means he suddenly respects Snape. I *hope* for a grudging > respect eventually, for the things Snape has risked & the things he > has done on Harry's behalf, but he HAS been a jackass to Harry & > Neville in class, and I don't expect Harry to instantly develop > respect for the kinds of tactics he has used. I merely ["merely," > as if it'll be easy! :-)] want Harry to CHOOSE to become mature and > outward-focused, to CHOOSE to be above snarkiness, pettiness and > personal vendettas. Yes, doing so would be a "Christian" move in > one world, but it would also be considered "right" in many, many > other moral belief systems. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Yeah, I guess that's true. A lot of it, I suppose, comes down to basic differences of personality and experience. The very idea of doing what you propose has always struck me as so totally ludicrous that it isn't even worthy of consideration. And my experience has universally been that to act in the way you propose (and I've seen it tried, many times) only creates worse situations that are much harder to deal with. Therefore I have never seen that behavior as mature, only foolish, unworkable in the longer run, and in a way selfish, as it amounts to avoiding the situation and leaving an enormous mess for somebody else to clean up later. I wouldn't bet that we'll ever see a resolution of the Snape/Harry conflict in Canon, and if it goes the way you propose I would say its enormously poor writing and worth throwing all seven books out the window. Or, to put it another way, I strongly suspect the only "resolution" will come after the death of one or the other. Anything else just wouldn't be very true to the characters. Of course, after OOTP, my faith in JKR's ability to remain true to her characters is minimal. Dzeytoun From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:22:35 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:22:35 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > And my experience has > universally been that to act in the way you propose (and I've seen it > tried, many times) only creates worse situations that are much harder > to deal with. Therefore I have never seen that behavior as mature, > only foolish, unworkable in the longer run, and in a way selfish, as > it amounts to avoiding the situation and leaving an enormous mess for > somebody else to clean up later. > Alla: OK, Dzeytoun, this time came. You lost me and I am not being sarcastic at all. :o) Could you please explain to me (only please, please without yelling) how Harry's ignoring Snape for greater good will be selfish behaviour. I am absolutely lost. Suppose in a pure cristian tradition Harry decides to LOVE and FORGIVE his ENEMY and I am not quite sure that Snape can be categorised 100% as his enemy, just absolutely pathetic and damaged human being, who enjoys playing sadist. I HONESTLY want to know why you categorise such behaviour as selfish. See, I am not a cristian, therefore in my belief system I don't go as far as love your enemy (I am trying to reach realistic goals in my self-development and this one is not very realistic for me), but I am most certainly trying not to hate my enemies and hopefully forgive them. What's wrong with that? From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 02:23:31 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:23:31 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114774 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > > > > An aside - Mr and Mrs Evans. Both died within a short time-span - > between the wedding and GH (again according to the Lexicon). Is this a > coincidence? As Lady B. puts it "To lose one parent is unfortunate, to > lose two looks like carelessness." > I've a couple of possibilities to offer here - either: > > 1. It was Mr and Mrs Evans that died in the car crash and Petunia used > this event as the basis for the tale she tells Harry, > or > 2. It wasn't chance that caused them to shuffle off this mortal coil, > it was enemy action. > > Just one very, very oblique clue here; Petunia reacts to the name > Voldemort and to the mention of Dementors. Where has she heard these > before? Voldy possibly from DD's letter after GH, or possibly not. It > could have been the reason given for an earlier bereavement.... or two. > > > > Expansion- > One question that never seems to get asked is - why is Petunia so anti- > magic, anti-Potters, anti-Harry? Generally it's been assumed that it's a > combination of jealousy, spite and fear of the unknown. > > But if it's not... if she has a real reason to fear magic.... like the loss > of her parents....it's a whole new concept of Petunia. Every time she > looks at Harry she might see the reason her parents died. > > Hanging on this could be Petunia as late-magic-developer. She's been > in denial (hate that phrase, but never mind, just this once), there's been > a block. But if it looks like her present family is in danger from the same > source - > Petunia could blossom. > > Kneasy Well, the problem with this is that JKR has said clearly that Petunia is a *Muggle* Which means she is definitely *not* a half-blood, a witch, or a squib. This took place at the Edinburgh Book Fair, where she said "Petunia is a Muggle, but..." Dzeytoun From figgys26cats at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 01:02:17 2004 From: figgys26cats at yahoo.com (Kathleen Hunt) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] stopper death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041005010217.61059.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114775 Finwitch wrote: > What else is that Stopper of Death- potion doing than keeping them alive? Beatnik24601 replies: > I've heard a lot of people referencing this quote from Snape (about wizards ability to 'brew fame, bottle glory, even stopper death" from PS/SS), and seeming to interpret it as meaning 'stopping death'. However, I always thought that Snape meant 'stopper' the bottle of death (i.e. put a cork in the flask which contains 'death'). In other words, he was talking about ability to brew poisons (which brings up a whole other myriad of issues, but, anyway...), rather than brew some sort of cure for death, or elixir of life (altho, this would be relevant to the plot of PS/SS). Kathleen Hunt: Thanks for making me really think about this phrase. Putting a stopper on death, could that means beating death completely? We all know that was LV goal defeating death. Could Snape have helped him with that? and What do you think LV did to defeat death? Ok, I'm going to sound like Ron. I still don't fully believe that Snape is on the right side. I need prove of what he has done. I have no faith in him because of how he treats Harry. Kathleen Hunt From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:40:53 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:40:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius / Stubby Bored Man? References: Message-ID: <004e01c4aa84$bca40f90$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 114776 From: "mhbobbin" < > > > > Mac wrote: > > > Lots of characters in the books and lots of HPfGU posters read > > > Sirius very differently than I had always done, namely they see > > him dark: I saw him misunderstood and good: He's James' best mate, > > > Harry's godfather, even DD trusts him (or does he?) - flawed, > > > reckless, but esentially good. snip > > Hannah: > I agree there is more to Sirius than meets the eye. Something made > DD mistrust him even before GH, and apparently not even question his > guilt afterwards. Something also made Lupin, one of his best > friends, believe he was a spy before and after GH. There's > the 'prank' and the issue of why he was never expelled. snip again > mhbobbin: > Boardman. Bored Man. I don't mean the whole story as reported in The > Quibbler is legitimate. But what would have prevented Sirius from > sneaking out of Grim Old Place to sing with The Hobgoblins. He was, > after all, a Bored Man. And this particularly far-fetched article > is mentioned twice. First, when Kingsley gives the paper to Arthur > thinking Sirius would find it interesting. Second, when Harry picks > up Luna's magazine. > charme: Bored man is right :) This appears to be Sirius' modus operandi, time and time again. Remember, the Snape Pensieve scene in OoP where James picks on Snape? One of the reasons that happened was Sirius was "bored." Let's match that with Snape's total conviction later that Sirius tried to *kill* him by manipulating him to WereLupin! in the Whomping Willow shack (Sirius sent him there knowing full well how dangerous it was), plus both DD and Lupin appeared not to trust him until the revealing in PoA. I always get the thought "one is judged by the company one keeps", and this too may have been a problem for a reckless Sirius, which means that associations with DE's in his activities probably wasn't out of the question - right, wrong or indifferent. He himself might have appeared "in the middle" and not on either side, in which case combining that perception with Sirius "devil may care let's party and not be bored" lifestyle may have caused the phrase "loose canon" to come to the logical minds of Lupin and DD. I thought the interaction between Snap eand Sirius at GP toward the latter part of Christmas break was quite telling, and I don't take DD statements to Harry after Sirius' demise at the DoM to heart WRT Sirius not being provoked by Snape's insinuations. Sirius, whitefaced and angry, wanted to put down with Snape once and for all. IMO, Sirius most likely did sing with The Hobgoblins, and in OoP at Christmas in GP again, there's canon that Sirius was walking the halls singing "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs." No one else (other than Peeves) has been referred to has specifically "singing," have they? charme From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 02:42:24 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:42:24 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > OK, Dzeytoun, this time came. You lost me and I am not being > sarcastic at all. :o) > > Could you please explain to me (only please, please without yelling) > how Harry's ignoring Snape for greater good will be selfish > behaviour. > > I am absolutely lost. Suppose in a pure cristian tradition Harry > decides to LOVE and FORGIVE his ENEMY and I am not quite sure that > Snape can be categorised 100% as his enemy, just absolutely > pathetic and damaged human being, who enjoys playing sadist. > I HONESTLY want to know why you categorise such behaviour as selfish. Actually, I wasn't talking about Harry there. I was referring to a couple of real-life situations where I had to step in and deal with extremely messy and complicated affairs that would have been much easier on EVERYONE had they been confronted earlier. But the people involved who should have been doing the confronting said "I thought it I just ignored it and acted with civility it would be all right." As a result, the situations blossomed and deepened to the point that multiple people had to become involved in each case, and the cost both financially and emotionally to clean up the mess was several times what it would have been had they confronted the problem in a timely manner. Dzeytoun > > > See, I am not a cristian, therefore in my belief system I don't go > as far as love your enemy (I am trying to reach realistic goals in > my self-development and this one is not very realistic for me), but > I am most certainly trying not to hate my enemies and hopefully > forgive them. What's wrong with that? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:47:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:47:55 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114778 Dzeytoun: > Actually, I wasn't talking about Harry there. I was referring to a > couple of real-life situations where I had to step in and deal with > extremely messy and complicated affairs that would have been much > easier on EVERYONE had they been confronted earlier. Alla: OK I understand that, but I was specifically talking about Harry. So, you don't think that if Harry ignores Snape for the saek of saving WW from Voldemort, it would be selfish behaviour on his part? From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:54:11 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:54:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now *that* is interesting References: Message-ID: <008b01c4aa86$97e567b0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 114779 From: "dzeytoun" > > Well, the problem with this is that JKR has said clearly that Petunia > is a *Muggle* Which means she is definitely *not* a half-blood, a > witch, or a squib. This took place at the Edinburgh Book Fair, where > she said "Petunia is a Muggle, but..." > charme: I'm on the Kneasy bandwagon with this one - she IS (current state) a *Muggle* but the question is, what *could she become?* Desperate times may call for unprecedented action, or in Petunia's case, *reaction.* charme From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Oct 5 02:55:26 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:55:26 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114780 Dzeytoun said: And, as Alla has said in her post, therein lies a major weakness in the plot. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are so far off stage it's hard to react emotionally to them as a threat at all. Casey says: So you don't count the murder of Cedric, which we saw, as more evil than Snape's verbal abuse? Sorry, in my book Voldemort is far worse than Snape. Kethryn now - Ok, I am going to have to object to this particular sentiment expressed in the above paragraph which, to me, seems to be a rather judgemental thing to say. In particular, the "potentially lethal" games the kids are "allowed" to play by their parents. Hello? You think football isn't potentially lethal? How about baseball? Ever been hit in the head with a ninty mile an hour fastball? Did you hear about the girl who was watching a hockey game two years ago with her family and died when a stray puck hit her in the head? Casey again: Children playing in sports have all kinds of precautions, helmets, padding and such. Quiddich is played 20 - 40 or more feet in the air, with no protection from a fall. No helmets to protect against bludgers and such. As far as that RL little girl, she was a spectator not a participant. Those hockey players have a hell of a lot of gear on. (Go Redwings, if they ever play again.) No one can be protected 100% from a freak accident. I would hate it if Harry used the term "snivel" toward Snape. It would make him as cruel and vicious as Black (someone I loathe). I would like to think Harry was above that. Same with the DA scenario. The idea that Harry, talented and powerful as he is, has more knowledge in DA defense than Snape is very wrong, IMO. He may be better than someone like Lockhart, but not a Lupin or, especially, a Snape. Alla: All true , Dzeytoun, and as I said if Snape does not see Harry for Harry at the end, not Harry as James, I am all for Snape's humiliation. I think Harry saving his life will be perfect,ESPECIALLY if Harry will do it with the best intentions in mind - not wanting to humiliate Snape , but to keep him alive. Casey: Just as Snape has already tried to save Harry's life, with no acknowledgement or thanks from Harry for that act. From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 02:56:08 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:56:08 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114781 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Dzeytoun: > > Actually, I wasn't talking about Harry there. I was referring to > a > > couple of real-life situations where I had to step in and deal > with > > extremely messy and complicated affairs that would have been much > > easier on EVERYONE had they been confronted earlier. > > Alla: > > OK I understand that, but I was specifically talking about Harry. > So, you don't think that if Harry ignores Snape for the saek of > saving WW from Voldemort, it would be selfish behaviour on his part? Not selfish in this instance, no -- providing that he does not just dust off his hands and walk away, leaving Snape for some other poor soul to deal with. Now, another problem I have with this whole argument is that we know Harry only has two years left to deal with Voldemort. Harry doesn't know that. If he DID know, then I would not be opposed to the idea of him taking an "I'll deal with YOU later," attitude toward Snape and temporarily focusing elsewhere, providing he still makes it very clear that he will not accept Snape's abuse as warranted or justified. Then he could focus his energies on the abusive git and put him in his place. I do have an enormous problem with the idea that NOT knowing this, Harry should just start smiling at Snape's abuse and say it's for the greater good. For all anybody knows, as of now, the final confrontation with Voldemort may well be thirty years in the future. Dzeytoun From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:57:27 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:57:27 -0000 Subject: Snape, the Potters and LV. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114782 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "girl_next_door704" wrote: > > > Hi, > I don't know if this topic has been discussed in this group or > not, it's quite a simple theory about why Voldemort was reluctant to > kill Lily in Godric's Hollow. > > Neha S. Doddie here: Although I do like to think that there may be some Lily conspiracy....I think that the moment LV heard about a prophecy and the portion he heard from it. (he probably thought a muggle would be his downfall--given his family, how rich they were, what they had done(or rather, not done to) him over the years and thought it a "muggle" thing...rahter than a "nasty family/abusive family/broken family thing... I do believe that killing muggles had been LV's "thing" since he heard what his father did to his mother. Then, he heard his part of the profecy...Horrific for LV as his greatest nemesis was NOT a muggle born..hence the "get out of the way silly girl"...He would say that to Lilly because of his prejudices....apparently a an heir to a wizard born muggle and a wizard means more than voldemort may think...hence he backed off the profecy...(because he is definitely not a geneticist!) Only Voldemort knew his true origins, hence killing muggles wouldn't help him...(since killing his family did not)! The only dichotomy in this is that Harry is able to see Lily in the Snape pensive scene... We have to ask if this is because Snape liked/loved lilly OR; if Malfoy had commissioned him to spy on who the heirs of the one "who can vanquish" might be created from...perhaps Snape had more knowledge on who the ONE may be before he even came to school.. What if Snape's education was paid for by the Malfoy family?!?!? What if it wasn't snape, or Pettigrew but rather Lucious Malfoy who was thrown from the Pub on the day the prophecy was made. I makes sense that DD would believe what happened at the end of COS and not be alarmed if he did not already know that Lucious Malfoy had been tossed from the pub that day???!!!?!?!?! Lucious is on the board of governors for the school...he has a great deal, if not complete(as the books have shown us) CONTROL of any appointments to the school thus far.... I sincerely hope than DD appoints a DADA teacher sooner, rather than later during Harrys sixth year at school. While Lucious is in Azkaban!!! Unfortunately for Harry...I believe after the fifth book...DD may not be around so much at Hogwarts...probably less so than if at all in the last..(((heavy sigh)))) It is really frustrating for the reader to read through all these books, yet only see Harry learn character lessons during one or three meetings out of the year. Since he learns more from them than DD could ever do...I feel like a novice hiker on a 10 day hike through the Grand Canyon...only one cliff, with a glimpse of one gully... What worse, is that no matter what the ending...I think I will feel the same...(heavy sigh) Just a sickle's worth, Doddiemoemoe From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 5 02:58:07 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:58:07 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114783 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > It wouldn't be very satisfying to me if Harry was noble enough to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew for killing his parents and then took out his wrath on Snape for insulting them. To paraphrase something Ron never said, he'd really need to rethink his priorities. Dzeytoun: > But he wasn't going to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew, Pippin, he was going to send him to Azkaban. That's hardly forgoing vengeance, or justice as the case may be. Now, it's true he believed that there are certain places you shouldn't go for justice/vengeance, and I'm sure that he still believes that. Which is probably going to be a big deal for him as he wrestles with having to kill Pettigrew.< You write as if justice and vengeance were the same thing. Harry was willing to turn Peter over to justice, even such imperfect justice as the wizarding world affords. He was not willing to have Sirius and Lupin to become killers just for revenge. I would not like to see Harry become a public humiliator just for revenge either. It wouldn't cure Snape, or at least it hasn't yet--and how on earth could JKR top the boggart scene anyway? Dzetyoun: > But just as he was ready to appropriately punish Pettigrew by sending him to Azkaban, I expect him to appropriately punish Snape for his behavior. < Where do the books indicate that it is appropriate for someone who does not have lawful authority to punish anyone -- isn't that what we're complaining about when we say Snape abuses his power? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 03:04:27 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:04:27 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: I would not > like to see Harry become a public humiliator just for revenge > either. It wouldn't cure Snape, or at least it hasn't yet--and how on > earth could JKR top the boggart scene anyway? Alla: The point then would not be curing Snape, Pippin. The point will be effective "payback" and I would argue that Harry saving Snape would BE effective payback, since Snape's pride will BE hurt. I will NEVER advocate revenge in RL, but some kind of revenge in fiction - sure. Pippin: > Where do the books indicate that it is appropriate for someone > who does not have lawful authority to punish anyone -- isn't that > what we're complaining about when we say Snape abuses his > power? > Alla: Well, it looks like Snape's "crimes" are not those which are punishable under WW law, they are more, I'd say crimes of morality. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 03:07:49 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:07:49 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: >> > Not selfish in this instance, no -- providing that he does not just > dust off his hands and walk away, leaving Snape for some other poor > soul to deal with. Alla: Don't you think that Snape's worst enemy is Snape? Maybe left to himself he will suffer more? Dzeytoun: > snip. >> I do have an enormous problem with the idea that NOT knowing this, > Harry should just start smiling at Snape's abuse and say it's for the > greater good. For all anybody knows, as of now, the final > confrontation with Voldemort may well be thirty years in the future. > Alla: Actually, this is a VERY good point. You are right, I kind of started thinking that Harry also knows that the time of final confrontation comes and has to devote everything to the fight. I have to think about it, but on the other hand the War already started, so Harry has to know that it may happen soon. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 03:22:14 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:22:14 EDT Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry Message-ID: <144.3564be40.2e936d66@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: >> > >Julie sez: > >I definitely can't agree with your assessment. >Snape falls in the second category. He's definitely a miserable git, >but he's yet to do anything evil, even to Harry or Neville. (Verbal abuse >doesn't quite qualify, IMO). Dzeytoun writes: > I will disagree with this strongly. Verbal abuse most definitely > does qualify as evil. Julie sez: I think we have a different definition of evil. Verbal abuse is wrong, mean, and a bad thing. But it's not necessarily evil. After all, we've all committed verbal abuse at one time or another. If you have sisters or brothers, you've probably done it multiple times! Not to mention the things husbands and wives often say to each other. Saying mean things to hurt another's feelings is something humans (and wizards) resort to in anger, fear, prejudice, etc. It's not nice or kind, but it happens. Now, continual and deliberate verbal abuse intended to push someone down and destroy their self image is a little different. That is criminal abuse. Snape rides the edge on this one, but it's still questionable if he's "abusive" as a person, rather than an occasional user of abusive methods. Even with Neville, I think Snape is motivated more by his inability to tolerate incompetence and total lack of empathy for others, than he is by any actual intent to emotionally damage or destroy Neville. He's a miserable git at times, but he's not evil. Umbridge, on the other hand... Julie also wrote: > > And, yes, we don't know what he did > >when he was a DE, but until we do, we can't conclusively say if > >he's done anything evil. Voldemort, OTOH, has killed repeatedly, > >including Harry's parents, Bertha Jorkins by torture, had a child > >-Cedric-killed on his orders, as well as attempting to kill two > other > >children (Harry and Ginny). He's also directed the DEs to torture > >and/or kill hundreds (maybe thousands) of other wizards. Even if > >we haven't *seen* these things, we know them to be true, unless > >we believe the whole WW is delusional. Evil is as evil does, and > >Voldemort has done plenty of evil things. Dzeytoun writes: > But, even granted all this is true, IF we had to make a judgement on > what we have SEEN, well... > And, as Alla has said in her post, therein lies a major weakness in > the plot. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are so far off stage it's > hard to react emotionally to them as a threat at all. > > Snape, on the other hand, is very much on stage and it's quite easy > to react to his evil (and yes, I think he is on the balance an evil > person, albeit one who probably works for the "good" side). > > > > > >IMO, there's really no comparison between Voldemort and Snape > >when it comes to matters of evil, even if Snape is the much more > >complexly drawn character. > > > > And yet we really as yet have no basis for such a comparison, based > on what has actually been SHOWN to us. > > > Dzeytoun > Julie says now: But it has been SHOWN. We've seen Voldemort try to kill Harry, we saw him order Pettigrew to kill Cedric, we heard him admit to torturing and killing Bertha Jorkins, we heard him admit to killing Harry's parents. Even if you don't accept the whole of the WW's word on Voldemort's past acts against hundreds of innocent wizards, we have indeed been shown some of his "present" acts. So we can make a comparison. Snape is a bitter, mean, occasionally abusive git, while Voldemort is a torturer and murderer. In matters of evil, Voldemort wins hands down. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 03:23:12 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:23:12 EDT Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) Message-ID: <97.4f71f642.2e936da0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114787 > I wouldn't bet that we'll ever see a resolution of the Snape/Harry > conflict in Canon, and if it goes the way you propose I would say its > enormously poor writing and worth throwing all seven books out the > window. Or, to put it another way, I strongly suspect the > only "resolution" will come after the death of one or the other. > Anything else just wouldn't be very true to the characters. Of > course, after OOTP, my faith in JKR's ability to remain true to her > characters is minimal. > > Dzeytoun > > I do hope to see a resolution to the Harry/Snape conflict in canon, and some sort of grudging respect between the two, during or after which Snape will most likely die. But that doesn't have to be the case for me to accept it. In fact, I'd like Snape to live, and move on to some other post in the WW besides teaching children, but I suspect he's a goner. BTW, JKR is remaining true to her characters as she sees them. Probably none of us will see them exactly as she does, just as we disagree amongst ourselves on that subject. If you're lacking faith in JKR's writing, it's faith that her vision of the characters ultimately will match your vision. In fact, her vision ultimately may not match many of ours, in small or large ways, but it's her world. We're just lucky to be visiting ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 03:25:44 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:25:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Learning From Snape References: <20041004170740.18339.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011201c4aa8b$002d6e90$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 114788 From: "DawnnieC" As a person who has over 14-years experience working in the special education field as well as several as a counselor I can tell you from personal experience that the quickest, most efficient way to diffuse a particularly volatile (mean, bullying, arrogant) personality is to respond with civility. When you do that, the power shifts from the bully to the target (for lack of a better word). charme: While this is typically true in a one on one scenario where each party is equal, there is a difference when someone in a position of authority and power (an adult) treats a child/teenager (as a subordinate or charge) in an insulting and demeaning fashion in front of his/her peers. The power cannot shift to someone who is not empowered with the same authority to begin with under your example, therefore I'd submit that perhaps Harry *needs* to talk to Minerva and allow her to mediate between Snape, Harry and perhaps Dumbledore to deal with the perception Harry has. This is the way Harry regains the "power" you allude to in your statement above, IMO. Speak of Dumbledore, this is as much his fault as it is Snape's. (Sirius' too - Harry's only seen/heard Sirius' side of the story) DD is the administrator of this school, and surely does know (as he appears to *know* everything else) Snape rather abuses his power as a professor in this manner. This is why JKR alludes to DD taking Snape on as Potions Master rather than DADA Professor - "Let's see how you get on there" I believe she said. I know I won't be popular for this post....:) I'll dodge the incoming.... charme From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Mon Oct 4 22:28:59 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:28:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4161CEAB.5000702@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114789 Valky: > I can really relate to Luna myself, and I think it shows that you're > excitable and imaginative, Gabriel, which I am too. And also, on the > really plus side, that you are able to be true to yourself, a lot of > people like Luna are labelled gullible but I disagree with that. > People like Luna are not so much gullible as they are curious. > I think it says that you're a person who doesn't limit themself or > impose boundaries that don't necessarily have to be there, and thats > a good thing. > > Gabriel now: I like that idea. I've never really rejected a concept unless I found it really disturbing or it involved hauntings, the Yeti, Bigfoot, aliens, AND Elvis... Although it also works in that I get labeled as sort of an oddball at school. A harmless oddball, but definitely odd. I found Luna in OotP and my reaction was sort of, "She's so very me!" Speaking of character and characters, I wonder what it says if you like Florence. ^_^ Or Mrs. Norris. I'm reasonably fond of both Mrs. Norris and Crookshanks, just on the basis of their catness. I wouldn't want to *have* a cat like Mrs. Norris, but I do like her, just a bit. - Gabriel Fey, who's really supposed to be doing her French homework From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 03:33:24 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:33:24 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <144.3564be40.2e936d66@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Julie says now: > > But it has been SHOWN. We've seen Voldemort try to kill Harry, we > saw him order Pettigrew to kill Cedric, we heard him admit to torturing > and killing Bertha Jorkins, we heard him admit to killing Harry's parents. > Even if you don't accept the whole of the WW's word on Voldemort's > past acts against hundreds of innocent wizards, we have indeed been > shown some of his "present" acts. Alla: As you stated correctly, HEARD is the key word. Someone else is telling about the murders was not very convincing to me. The only scene in HP series , where I was convinced of Voldemort evil because of the way he acted was Graveyard scene in GoF. That was VERY GOOD writing. Anything else, sorry, not scared. When I have to convince myself that the villain is a villain when somebody tells me about his bad acts, I don't consider it to be a very strong writing. Julie: So we can make a comparison. Snape is a bitter, mean, occasionally > abusive git, while Voldemort is a torturer and murderer. In matters of > evil, Voldemort wins hands down. > Alla: I would agree, if you change "occasionally abusive" to "constantly abusive" :o). I just wish JKR wrote more persuasively about Voldemort. > > From kjones at telus.net Tue Oct 5 02:12:16 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:12:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41620300.4020706@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114791 Mac wrote: > PoA introduces Sirius - an extremely ambiguous character but who we > are supposed to love, like Harry (and James). > > > > Harry's view of Sirius by the end of PoA and through much of GoF > and OotP is of adulation. No wonder he's clutching at straws since > he has NO-ONE, literally, to love or that he can consider really > cares about him apart perhaps from DD, but then maybe not him even. > So why must Sirius have an entire book (PoA) and then be so > suppressed and even 'necessarily' killed? Where does it fit? > > > > Lots of characters in the books and lots of HPfGU posters read > > Sirius very differently than I had always done, namely they see > him dark: I saw him misunderstood and good: He's James' best mate, > > Harry's godfather, even DD trusts him (or does he?) - flawed, > > reckless, but esentially good. Dumbledore also said that Sirius' actions were not those of an innocent man. Sirius was the one who talked James into making Pettigrew his secret keeper. I don't think that Pettigrew had the guts to successfully be a spy for a year before Voldemort fell In GoF Voldemort tells his deatheaters that his servant is at Hogwarts. At that time, there is Sirius, "sitting in the pumpkin patch". There are always two. Sirius' brother was killed for joining and then backing out. Sirius was never bothered, even as a friend of James Potter. In GoF the dark mark on Pettigrew was described as red. I do not recall seeing it described as red anywhere. This leads me to think that this was because it was freshly done and still painful rather than a twenty year old mark. Voldemort also refers to him as worthless and a traitor and said that Pettigrew had only returned to him because he was afraid of his old friends. He also described Pettigrew as a "poor" wizard. It interests me enormously KJ From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 03:41:02 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:41:02 -0000 Subject: Stopping Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > > Oh, and here's another random thought--eductional decree number 26, > banning all teachers from giving students information not "strictly > related to the subjects they are paid to teach" is in effect by the > time Snape refuses to teach Harry Occlumency anymore. And Dumbledore > is gone. I'm not totally sure, in Snape's place, that I would be > entirely willing to *break the law* to teach a student I didn't like, > and who didn't like me. Doddiemoe here: Death eathers escaped, dementors not under misitry control...why would snape continue teaching Harry Occlumency after he already found out the information he needed to know during said "Lessons"... SWhat if Harry get sent to aunt marge's after what snape saw?!?!?!?!?!?(and how knows what sort of memory modifacation was performed upon her)????!!!!! Perhaps DD was listening to Harry, Ron, Hermione...and giving his own investigation?!?!? DD may be able to trust Snape not to betray him(dumbledor), however snape may be devious enough to betray Harry, Ron, Hermione...and anyone else he does not see as being physically tied(relations) to Dumbledor. Perhaps DD gave snape the job to see how well he did...hence the delay from when Harry was in DU's office until the time Snape sent help. Snape, like DD is a leguimens...I would not be surprised if dd beheaded Kreacher and gave him a plaque on the wall of his ancestors...after what happened...I would be even less surprised if Snape turned up first and told kreacher what to tell DD..(remember Harry told snape first during the office scene of oop)...I don't believe dd when he says that old grudges stuff... I do believe that DD trusts Snape...but I don't believe that is what he should do....thus far in the books...we are coming to the point where dd is right or he's not...aside from wooly socks...he's been pretty much gray...the few aspects we should consider, Harry's peers...one of them is right at least one time during all the books..We as the reader never see DD's pov BECAUSE just too many of the players are SPECULATING, or have family business of their own is going on. I find it rather interesting that DD trusts when snape/lv/bl etc...involve themselves in wizarding today...but makes no sense as gto what any of the kids say.. Doddie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 03:42:23 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:42:23 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius In-Reply-To: <41620300.4020706@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114793 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: >> Dumbledore also said that Sirius' actions were not those of an > innocent man. > > Sirius was the one who talked James into making Pettigrew his > secret keeper. > > I don't think that Pettigrew had the guts to successfully be a spy > for a year before Voldemort fell > > Alla: Do you think Peter was lying in the POA then? I think JKR's today answer squashed DE Sirius theory, but that is just me, of course. For all his greyness, she callshim loyal and one who loved James as a brother . I doubt that he would go and betray someone whom he loved like brother. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 5 03:52:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:52:19 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114794 Dzeytoun: > > > I sense that you see in this (and I may be wrong) a kind of > > > Christian parable with Harry being a sort of martyr/Christ > > > figure. Certainly that is one way to interpret things. SSSusan: > > Well, yes & no. I happen to find many Christian themes & images > > within the books, yes, and they please me. But one of the > > things that I find cool about JKR is that she's written these > > books in such a way that they're NOT screaming "Christian > > books!" at people, making them feel that if they're not > > interested in such things, there's nothing within for them. > > > > Besides, even if I happen to find things that seem "Christian" > > to me, those things *aren't* exclusively "Christian." I mean, > > what I've been arguing is that I believe Harry will likely find > > a means of setting aside his dislike, anger, hatred, disrespect > > [choose your term of preference] for/towards Snape in order to > > focus on what "matters more" to him: working for the Order, > > learning all he can to prepare himself to face down Voldemort, > > working for the side of Good [or for the greater good, if that > > term appeals more]. I believe he will do this, rather than > > focus on what might seem more "just," personally, which would be > > to continue to be hateful and angry towards Snape, to continue > > to defy him, to not try very hard in his classes in order to > > somehow show Snape that he's not going to take his "abuse." > > > > This type of decision, to put one's own self lower on the > > priority scale than the greater good is *NOT* a Christian-only > > tenet. In fact, I'm thinking it's a pretty widespread way of > > seeing things, a very common part of many people's value > > systems. I would say that taking the more "selfish" route of > > demanding to be treated in X kind of way, with that being more > > important than ANYTHING else [as you've said], is a much more > > *uncommon* view. > > > > By the way, I do want to mention that nowhere have I argued that > > if Harry manages to set aside his hatred and "I'm not going to > > do what HE says" attitude regarding Snape, because he's made a > > conscious decision that the Order and the defeat of Voldy are > > more important, that that means he suddenly respects Snape. I > > *hope* for a grudging respect eventually, for the things Snape > > has risked & the things he has done on Harry's behalf, but he > > HAS been a jackass to Harry & Neville in class, and I don't > > expect Harry to instantly develop respect for the kinds of > > tactics he has used. I merely ["merely," as if it'll be easy! :- > > )] want Harry to CHOOSE to become mature and outward-focused, to > > CHOOSE to be above snarkiness, pettiness and personal > > vendettas. Yes, doing so would be a "Christian" move in > > one world, but it would also be considered "right" in many, many > > other moral belief systems. Dzeytoun: > Yeah, I guess that's true. A lot of it, I suppose, comes down to > basic differences of personality and experience. The very idea of > doing what you propose has always struck me as so totally > ludicrous that it isn't even worthy of consideration. And my > experience has universally been that to act in the way you propose > (and I've seen it tried, many times) only creates worse situations > that are much harder to deal with. Therefore I have never seen > that behavior as mature, only foolish, unworkable in the longer > run, and in a way selfish, as it amounts to avoiding the situation > and leaving an enormous mess for somebody else to clean up later. SSSusan: Do you realize how very INSULTING your comments appear, Dzeytoun? Why can you not just disagree with someone without inserting words such as "reprehensible," "ludicrous," "foolish," and not "worthy of consideration"? You're not the only one to have experienced life, to have been a teacher, to have worked with youth. I really wish you would find a more courteous way of disagreeing. Dzeytoun: > Or, to put it another way, I strongly suspect the > only "resolution" will come after the death of one or the other. > Anything else just wouldn't be very true to the characters. SSSusan: Again, why is it that YOUR view is the one which is "true" to the characters and other people, who have disagreed with you, have views which aren't "true"? It's just wrong to say that, because we're talking about people's *opinions* about what is true to a character. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 03:53:19 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:53:19 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: <97.4f71f642.2e936da0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > BTW, JKR is remaining true to her characters as she sees them. > Probably none of us will see them exactly as she does, just as > we disagree amongst ourselves on that subject. If you're lacking > faith in JKR's writing, it's faith that her vision of the characters > ultimately will match your vision. In fact, her vision ultimately may > not match many of ours, in small or large ways, but it's her world. > We're just lucky to be visiting ;-) > Oh, that's true. As I've said before, it is the power and privilege of a writer to do whatever he or she wants. However, readers will continue to say whatever they want, and to believe that some things are realistic and others not, some writing good and other writing terrible. That is the power and privilege of the reader. Dzeytoun From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Oct 5 04:08:55 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 22:08:55 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius In-Reply-To: <41620300.4020706@telus.net> Message-ID: <007101c4aa91$0a4a5540$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 114796 Dumbledore also said that Sirius' actions were not those of an innocent man. Sirius was the one who talked James into making Pettigrew his secret keeper. I don't think that Pettigrew had the guts to successfully be a spy for a year before Voldemort fell In GoF Voldemort tells his deatheaters that his servant is at Hogwarts. At that time, there is Sirius, "sitting in the pumpkin patch". There are always two. Sirius' brother was killed for joining and then backing out. Sirius was never bothered, even as a friend of James Potter. KJ Sherry now On reading what JKR says about Sirius on her web site, I don't see how she can end up making Sirius the traitor. Even while listing his faults, reckless and all that, she says that his strongest positive trait is his loyalty, loyalty to James and then to Harry. If that is how she describes him, as being loyal to James and then to Harry, I hope she won't turn around and make it end up that he was the traitor and spy. What kind of loyalty to James would that be? Sherry G From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 05:04:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:04:56 -0000 Subject: Sirius can be wrong (Was: Lucius - Full blood ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114797 > kmc wrote:) > > Sirius is one of the characters who states that Lucius is full- > blood. Please show me an occasion when Siruis believed what he was > saying but was wrong. > I agree it would be a great story line but it just is not supported > by cannon. Carol responds: Although I agree completely that Draco can't possibly be the half-blood prince (chiefly because of Lucius's view of the pureblood ethic as indicated in CoS, the tapestry and the Black family's approval of Narcissa's marriage, and [if we can count deleted scenes that agree with the text as published] Draco's grudging respect for Theo Nott as another pureblood whose lineage is as good as his own), I don't think that Sirius's never being wrong can be counted as evidence in this debate. (I do think he would know that the Malfoys, like the Lestranges, are purebloods despite their French names, though!) Nevertheless, Sirius has been wrong on a number of occasions, most notably in thinking that Lupin, not Pettigrew, was the traitor. He wrongly suspects Karkaroff as the person who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire, and he wrongly leads Harry to suspect Snape's motives in teaching him Occlumency, in large measure sabotaging the lessons before they begin. BTW, there's an interesting new tidbit on JKR's site that relates to this question: JKR says that Sirius has* excellent principles but doesn't always act on them, and she cites his treatment of Kreacher and his refusal to believe there's any "latent good qualities" in Snape as examples. (Ammunition for Snape supporters here!) To return to the point, Sirius isn't always right, but I see no reason to doubt that he knows Lucius Malfoy is a pureblood. Carol * JKR uses present tense in her discussion of Sirius, but I think that's to avoid having to use a Dark Mark spoiler icon for readers who don't know that he's dead. From chrissilein at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 05:17:36 2004 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:17:36 -0000 Subject: JKR Sirius and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114798 Hi, JKR made the following statement about Sirius and Severus "the way he (Sirius) acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there..." (FAQ section, text only, about the books) Sounds like there are latent good qualities in Snape, then. Greetings From editor at texas.net Tue Oct 5 05:20:55 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 00:20:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry References: Message-ID: <005901c4aa9b$193d0a20$1958aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114799 > Dzeytoun writes: > > Snape, meanwhile, has subjected Harry to five years of non-stop abuse. > Yes, in many ways, Snape is MUCH more evil than Voldemort. > Granted, we keep being TOLD that Voldemort is a great and powerful > evil. But we really haven't see that. On the other hand, we keep > being TOLD that Snape is a good guy. But his evil is readily > apparent. > > On balance, if I had to choose which to send to the gallows on the > basis of what I've actually SEEN, I would definitely give Voldie the > pass and let Snape swing. Oddest thing, I don't get Dzeytoun's messages, only people's responses to them. Love that YahooMort. I am amused by this thread, because people assume that Snape's feelings toward Harry are as intense and focused as Harry's toward Snape. I don't know that this is the case at all. My husband mentioned, after reading the (at that time) three books, that Snape is a grown man and Harry is a child; any "struggle" between them is mostly in Harry's mind. Snape has higher priorities than making Harry's life awful; bedeviling Harry doesn't dominate his thoughts and dreams. Snape is a far larger factor in Harry's life than Harry is of Snape's. It was the first movie that made me really understand my husband's point on a visceral level. No, Snape doesn't like Harry. Yes, he's nasty and unfair to him. But he's nasty and unfair in general; when Harry's in front of him, then (due to the past) he's likely to get a more intense reaction, but I believe that when Harry's not in front of him, Snape thinks as little as possible about him. I still believe that Snape's nastiness is his "autopilot" mode, the way he operates when he's not really thinking about it. I think it's probably easy for him because of his past, and that it fits well with his nature--but I also still believe that it is deliberate, so that the memories he has of places and people will be appropriate when facing the skilled Legilimens Voldemort; so that the memories he must suppress are minimal and in a very few, controlled, locations. That, I think, is why Snape will not eat at Sirius' house; he cannot afford to have memories of the place or the people. And that is likely a factor (although probably not the only one) in his favoring Draco and being so unfair to Harry. I won't call Snape evil. I will call Lockhart evil. And I will call Umbridge evil. Like Voldemort is evil. Because intent counts. Snape's intention is to support the side of good. He is doing it with ill grace, for whatever reason, but he is doing the right thing. I think there is fertile ground for tragedy in the miscommunication between Harry and Snape, but I honestly don't believe that Harry has been the focus of anything like a five-year deliberate campaign on Snape's part intending to break Harry's spirit. Honestly. If a man as proud as Snape ever thought he was considering a child to be an *opponent,* he'd be appalled. Harry is simply an irritant and one factor in the great equation Snape is involved with. ~Amanda, onetime premier Snapologist, but you guys are amazing From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 05:21:24 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:21:24 -0000 Subject: Timing of the final confrontation (was RE: HP as Morality Play ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > > Actually, this is a VERY good point. You are right, I kind of > started thinking that Harry also knows that the time of final > confrontation comes and has to devote everything to the fight. > > I have to think about it, but on the other hand the War already > started, so Harry has to know that it may happen soon. Well, I don't know that it necessarily follows that the confrontation has a high probability of being soon just because the war has started. Granted, it's more likely now than it was before. But DD doesn't seem to believe it has a high chance of happening anytime in the near future, judging by the fact that he was/is placing no emphasis so far on any special training for Harry, other than the defensive case of Occlumency. His distancing of himself from Harry all year also bespeaks that he doesn't think Harry needs to worry about a final confrontation just yet -- or at least that isn't the chief thing to worry about. We don't know how much the Order knows about the contents of the prophecy, but we have little evidence that any of them were particularly worried about Harry having something crucial to do in the next couple of years. Only Sirius seems to have been uneasy, and that seems more to have been for Harry's safety and mental well being than anything else. At this particular juncture, my guess is that DD and the Order (those of them in the know, anyway) expect that the final battle is still some years down the road, and that Harry will have plenty of time to finish Hogwarts and complete training (probably Auror training) to meet the prophecy. I would not be surprised if they actually *discourage* Harry from going all out to prepare himself for battling Voldemort. I can easily see them *insisting* that Harry do such things as take Hogsmeade trips, play Quidditch, etc, arguing that, pressing as the needs of the WW are, Harry meeting Voldemort too soon would be an absolute disaster. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 05:30:03 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:30:03 -0000 Subject: JKR Sirius and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "LadyOfThePensieve" wrote: > > Hi, > > JKR made the following statement about Sirius and Severus > > "the way he (Sirius) acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot > conceive of any latent good qualities there..." (FAQ section, text > only, about the books) > > Sounds like there are latent good qualities in Snape, then. > > > Greetings That's very true. It's also interesting that she described these qualities as "latent," that is to say non-active and probably hard to detect. Evidently she doesn't consider his actions to this point to have revealed these good qualities. Which means there may be some hope of change in the great, greasy git after all. Dzeytoun From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 5 05:29:34 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:29:34 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114802 > Alla: > I think Harry saving his life will be > perfect,ESPECIALLY if Harry will do it with the best intentions in > mind - not wanting to humiliate Snape , but to keep him alive. > > Casey: > Just as Snape has already tried to save Harry's life, with no > acknowledgement or thanks from Harry for that act. Valky: That's not fair Casey! Harry *really* did want to acknowledge what Snape did. He *was* grateful, but Snape never exactly gave him the chance to show it. The next time Harry sees Snape after he discovers that Snape saved him their eyes meet and Harry *knows* Snape still hates him as much as ever so he keeps his distance. It's not fair to say that Harry did not want to acknowledge it when clearly he didn't because he couldn't. Whether he wanted to or not doesn't come into it, but I sincerely believe Harry would have walked right up and thanked Snape personally had Snape ever appeared open to it. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 05:50:46 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 01:50:46 EDT Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry Message-ID: <87.17be4041.2e939036@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114803 > Julie wrote: > So we can make a comparison. Snape is a bitter, mean, occasionally > >abusive git, while Voldemort is a torturer and murderer. In > matters of > >evil, Voldemort wins hands down. > > > > Alla: > I would agree, if you change "occasionally abusive" to "constantly > abusive" :o). I just wish JKR wrote more persuasively about > Voldemort. > > > > I also wish JKR would write Voldemort more persuasively. I agree hearing a recounting of his evil acts is hardly as scary as witnessing them. I just can't see a logical reason to dismiss the recounting though, other than assuming most everyone in the WW is delusional, which doesn't make sense. So I accept the legitimacy of his evil acts, even if second-hand accounts aren't particularly satisfying. Julie (who has a bit of Hermoine-itis when it comes to relying on logic and probability) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 05:57:09 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:57:09 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114804 CMC wrote: > One reported event from JKR's writing of OOP - that she collapsed in > tears after sending him through the veil, and telling her husband > that she couldn't take his suggestion to rewrite the scene, because > (quoting from memory) "If you're a children's novelist, then you have to be a ruthless murderer" - indicates to me that Sirius is genuinely dead. Even if Harry somehow visits Black in Veilville, Black is still dead and will not return - and very likely does not want to return - to an earthly existence. Carol responds: Excellent point, Caius! Think of the life Sirius Black led for the last fourteen years of his life--either a prisoner or a fugitive, or both (imprisoned in his mother's insane asylum of a house). He's still the most wanted fugitive in the WW, which doesn't know he's dead. A resurrected Sirius would have to go back to his tropical island, away from Harry and the Order and Grimmauld Place, not to mention any vengeful DEs who remain at large or escape from Azkaban, if he wanted any peace at all. Much better to join the Potters and go on to the next great adventure. Carol, who thinks that learning to cope with Sirius's death is an important lesson for Harry, much more important than any contribution the living Sirius made or could have made in helping him grow up From kewpiebb99 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 06:14:08 2004 From: kewpiebb99 at yahoo.com (dkewpie) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041005061408.85176.qmail@web40512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114805 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > The point then would not be curing Snape, Pippin. The point will be > effective "payback" and I would argue that Harry saving Snape would > BE effective payback, since Snape's pride will BE hurt. > > I will NEVER advocate revenge in RL, but some kind of revenge in > fiction - sure. Why? Because it'll make you feel better or something? I have the feeling that if this revenge scenerio really take place in future books, the popularity of Snape among fans will only be increased more than ever. Nothing makes an antagonist character more popular than him/her getting his/her dues, especially when it's done in such fashion like you or dzeytoun mentioned (payback for payback sake, like typical Hollywood movies, especially teenage or Disney films, where the baddies must pay their due by drop in water/crap dump over them/hit by a bus/fell on the ground..etc etc) Best example: Draco Malfoy. The over-the-top punishments he receive in every book only makes people feel sympathy for him. And JKR thinks it's all Tom Felton's fault? I've seen people saying Umbridge didn't get "enough" punishment at the end of Ootp, if she really receive severe punishment (ex: got raped, mutliated or something), I can see that there would be lots of Umbridge Apologists now. DK From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 06:25:53 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:25:53 -0000 Subject: Black magic -- effigy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cynicalsquare" wrote: > > I was just wondering whether the Muggle concept of using an effigy > and personal implements (eg. hair, toenails) to harm another person, > exists in the Potterverse. We have seen, in CoS, personal implements > used to make the Polyjuice Potion. To me, it looks as if the effigy > method is not used in the Potterverse; the Dark Arts are instead > applied directly, for instance via the unforgivable curses. Any > ideas? > > "cynicalsquare" bboyminn: Not sure exactly what you are getting at but I'll make a stab at an answer. We haven't seen effigies, as in VooDoo Dolls, but that doesn't seem to really fit into the story. That is, in my view, it doesn't fit the magical functions needed to tell this tale, but I don't think that means it doesn't work or isn't found in this magic world. Just that it isn't relevant to this particular story. I think part of the reason for this is that Voodoo dolls and other effegy-like tokens are part of African and possibly Asian magic. Voodoo as we know it, is actually a blend of French, African, and Island native American magic. On the other hand, based on my understanding of your use of the words 'personal implements', we have indeed seen this more than once. Let's not forget the Bone/Flesh/Blood magic that gave Voldemort his life back. And let's not forget the extreme reaction of both Sirius and Dumbledore when they found out that Voldemort used Harry's blood. I think they had that reaction because the use of what you call 'personal implements' and most particularly the use of blood is part of the darkest magic. One additional item that has not been discussed in the books, but JKR did comment on it, is that Magical 'Living' Portraits. According to JKR to give the portraits an accurate degree of the living character of the person depicted in the portrait, a piece of that person is embedded into the portrait (flesh, hair, blood, whatever). That would be one of the few examples where using tissue from a person for magic that isn't dark magic. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 06:30:03 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:30:03 -0000 Subject: Harry learning from Snape (was: stopper death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114807 Pippin wrote: > > That is one reason that Dumbledore is not going to sit Snape > > down -- the other reason is that as Dumbledore said in PoA, he > > has no power to make other men see the truth. Which is to say, > > that's one of the powers Dumbledore is too noble to use. If > > people share Dumbledore's views, it should be because they > > want to, not because Albus Dumbledore is good at being > > obeyed. Dumbledore has no more right to remake others in his > > image than Voldemort does. > Dzeytoun responded: > That is an utterly and absolutely absurd attitude. And if Dumbledore really does feel that way, he has no business being in charge of a > lemonade stand, much less a school or a war. > > Carol responds: Forgive me, but first you call Siriusly Snapey Susan's position "reprehensible," then you call Pippin's "utterly and absolutely absurd." Both SSS and Pippin are intelligent posters whose messages are almost always worth reading, whether or not we agree with them. Namecalling is not argument, nor does it prove your points. Please respond respectfully, using canon to support your arguments, which should relate to the characters and the text, not to the perceived "absurdity" of "reprehensibility" of other posters' views. (If you had carefully read SSS's other posts, you would know that she doesn't approve of Snape's teaching methods. Even I will admit that he's sarcastic and often unfair. His status as an Order member, which you seem to think is probational, is another matter. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that he is not performing his duties there to Dumbledore's complete satisfaction.) JKR has said in an interview that Dumbledore allows "bad teachers like Snape" to continue teaching at Hogwarts because they are part of life (I can find the exact quote if you need it). Certainly it can be argued that facing Snape prepares Harry for facing a greater enemy, Voldemort. And Snape, I think, know that--and in fact deliberately set himself up in a Voldemort-like role in the Occlumency lessons, telling Harry that by failing to control his anger, he was handing him (Snape) weapons. The WW is not the modern Real World; its standards are not our standards. Dumbledore is not the principal of a politically correct modern high school but the headmaster of a wizarding school whose pupils are about to face a war against a Dark Wizard and his murderous followers. Protecting their feelings and their self-esteem is the least of his concerns. Carol, with apologies to the List Elves for stepping in here, but two posts of this sort in a row could not be passed by in silence From sad1199 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 06:33:33 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:33:33 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <41608BE0.4070403@superluminal.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Fey wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > > > On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like > > certain characters, what does it say about us? > > > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about me? :o) > > > > Perhaps a love of Sirius says that you are loyal, energetic, but without > a terribly huge lot of forethought...or that you'd go for someone like > that. ^_^ > > Me, I'm desperately in love with Luna Lovegood. I wonder what *that* > says about me. > > - Gabriel Fey, who only gets the Weekly World News for the crossword > puzzle, really... sad1199 here: 1. Snape lover! I don't even really care that he's mean to Harry (who by the way can be a very typical teenage BRAT!) because when it comes down to it Snape has saved/helped Harry when necessary! But, in reality, I would be afraid of Snape. 2. I also love Lupin! It's the werewolf thing that gets me! 3. And, Hermione! I HAVE bushy brown hair! 4. And we cannot forget Fred and George! Two wild and crazy guys! (Does that age me or what!?!) Goodness, my list could go on and on and on...! And Alla please do not be offended but your fondness for Sirius (according to some shippers) would make Lupin VERY jealous! Have a Happy Snape LOVE Filled Day! sad1199 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 5 06:54:39 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:54:39 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' education (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041004.174902.1840.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114809 Kethryn: > > I am willing to bet money that Snape is a damn good teacher. Aura (I think): > Agree. I've had teachers like him, too. If you can get past being > terrified of them (like Neville needs to) and get past your fury (like Harry needs to), you'll be surprised to realize that you're actually learning from them. > Valky: This is true and noted in OOtP "Careers Advice" where in potions class after Harry has visited Snapes pensieve, Snape is ignoring Harry entirely as though he were invisible. Harry notes to himself that being left alone he is able to easily make what he believes is a potion worth an Exceeds Expectations grade. It seems he does learn from Snape. Someone recently used the term no-nonsense to describe Snapes teaching style too and I just wanted to say that I don't agree that applies to Snapes teaching approach. I actually think he carries on with a *lot* of nonsense. It's semantics really so no need to debate it, I just disagree with that. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 06:57:12 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:57:12 -0000 Subject: Timing of the final confrontation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: Dzeytoun: > At this particular juncture, my guess is that DD and the Order (those > of them in the know, anyway) expect that the final battle is still > some years down the road, and that Harry will have plenty of time to > finish Hogwarts and complete training (probably Auror training) to > meet the prophecy. I would not be surprised if they actually > *discourage* Harry from going all out to prepare himself for battling > Voldemort. I can easily see them *insisting* that Harry do such > things as take Hogsmeade trips, play Quidditch, etc, arguing that, > pressing as the needs of the WW are, Harry meeting Voldemort too soon > would be an absolute disaster. Geoff: On the other hand, we need to remember that it will probably be Voldemort's actions which drive the timing of this confrontation. The Wizarding World cannot make assumptions about how prepared he is or when he will move; that is the sort of action which wrong-footed the free world against Hitler in the mid-1930s. I would imagine that Dumbledore, among others, is perceptive enough to remember that Harry has faced up to Voldemort (including via Quirrell and Tom Riddle) four times in five years. Voldemort wasn't defeated in OOTP, he was forced into the open. He still retains his powers and although he didn't get the prophecy in the end this may, in fact, accelerate his wish to finish things off and take the risk of attacking Harry (as he has done previously) without knowing the potential dangers of what it holds. So anyone who is assuming that Harry has got stacks of time in which to train up may well be living in cloud cuckoo land. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 07:55:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:55:56 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114811 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: Jen Reese wrote: > Just to add another thought to this debate: I hope JKR doesn't > resolve the tension between Snape and Harry. Can there really be a > satisfying way for them to reach detente without compromising the > characters? Here are a few options, and none ring true for me: > > 1) Harry comes to realize that Snape (in his own way) has been > trying to help him all along. Harry grudgingly starts to trust Snape > and in return, Snape backs off a little. > 2) Harry takes the moral high-ground, not allowing Snape's > persistent heckling to affect him anymore, and resists the urge to > give back what he gets. Snape is thrown off-guard but basically > continues to treat Harry the same. > 3) Both realize how much is at stake in the WW and decide to become > friendly enemies for the greater good. > 4) Snape finally acknowledges Harry is not James, buries the > hatchet, and both go on to treat each other slightly better than > before. > 5) One or the other attempts a reconciliation, and the resulting > rejection causes tensions to increase. > > JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution > scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape is > toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of Book > 6. ;) > > Jen Reese Carol adds quickly: Not Book 6, since JKR has said (I think in the Book Day chat) that Snape will play an important role in Book 7. (I can hunt up the quote if you want it.) Carol, who doesn't want Snape to be toast in any book and votes for option 1 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 5 08:20:38 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:20:38 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: <005901c4aa9b$193d0a20$1958aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114812 > Amandageist: > My husband mentioned, after reading the (at that time) three books, that Snape is a grown man and Harry is a child; any "struggle" between them is mostly in Harry's mind. Snape has higher priorities than making Harry's life > awful; bedeviling Harry doesn't dominate his thoughts and dreams. Snape is a far larger factor in Harry's life than Harry is of Snape's. > Valky: Hi Amandageist! It's been so long since you dropped us an On Topic Pearl of Wisdom and it's really nice to hear from you. I agree with your husband, Harry is not a consequence in himself to Snape. Most likely when Harry is not around Snape isn't at all brewing anger about him. With the exception of perhaps the week after the pensieve incedent in OOtP which incedently had Snape *ignoring* Harry. Thats a good indication that if Snape *was* overcome with continual thoughts of Harry hate then he'd probably act like that most of the time, which he doesn't. > Amandageist: > I still believe that Snape's nastiness is his "autopilot" mode, the way he operates when he's not really thinking about it. I think it's probably easy for him because of his past, and that it fits well with his nature--but I also still believe that it is deliberate, so that the memories he has of places and people will be appropriate when facing the skilled Legilimens Voldemort; so that the memories he must suppress are minimal and in a very > few, controlled, locations. > > That, I think, is why Snape will not eat at Sirius' house; Valky: I couldn't agree more, recently I posted to Snape threads how I see that Snape has chosen to put on a nasty front. A front I have noticed falls down like a ton of bricks twice in HP history. Both times are when he is confronted with Sirius Black. To add my own POV to yours the way I see it Snape, the fascinating creature (but I think we are starting to peg him to the wall if I dare speak so soon ;P), is able to live in relative peace and think nothing of Harry until he is confronted with him. Because then he is facing a pain he cannot escape, not Harry, but James. I am speculating, and I am going to do a lot of that this week JKR so I hope you *ARE* watching, I shall write clearly ;D, and it goes thusly: Sirius is like a compound unscratchable inner itch, he irritates Snape so deeply. Snape doesn't feel he is at all inferior to Sirius and he never has and blow it Sirius is just lucky most of the time as far as Snape is concerned. Sirius was the one who wriggled out of the prank on a technicality, he's the one that Snape so wants to show up and take down with *two-hands!* tied behind his back. But more than that Sirius had the spot that Snape himself coveted, James' right hand. You see I think the wound that goes too deep for healing, and this is NOT A SHIP, is a broken heart. Let me first relate you a story. When I was five I complained to my mother that a child who sat behind me in class was throwing spitballs at the back of my head. My mother who is a very wise lady just laughed and said to me "Well actually, that means he *likes* you." Ok, now, not surprisingly I thought she was off her flamin rocker what on earth was she on about and fair dinkum the kid was pelting me with his germy saliva! Surely he was trying to make me suffer, right? Wrong! She asked him... and shyly he grinned and nodded. Snape attacked James all through his schooldays, by the end it was hate but in the beginning I am not so sure. Lupins shiny drop of insight: "James was everything Snape wanted to be Popular Good at Sports....." AHA! Lupin was on to something there but, maybe he hadn't had it quite right. Maybe Snape hadn't wanted to be James but instead just wanted to be James' friend. Now here's where I imagine it could *really* hurt forever. Imagine you were rejected by the person you admired for seven years learned to despise them, wondered what you ever saw in them, finally reposed satisfied in your judgement that they were scum and it didn't matter anymore and then one of the SOB's, the one you looked up to all those years ago, saves your life! You get up brush yourself off and say " Yeah right! I could've been grateful BUT YOU'RE A FEW YEARS LATE TO BE NICE NOW!!!" So I think what Snape sees in Harry is not just a James that he hates and thinks is scum, but a James that he is confused about, wishes never existed, someone who *could* have been his friend but blew it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 08:58:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:58:15 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114813 Jen Reese wrote: > Jen: This is all speculative, but the reason I think Snape *should* die in book 6 is because I suspect JKR is going to uncover the mystery of Godric's Hollow in this book. Snape is somehow involved with this plot, whether he was the eavesdropper, or was actually present at GH, or had some history with Lily, etc. So, once we get this crucial information and find out how Snape's past relates to his current job for the Order, well...it seems like his job is done. LV will certainly catch up with him soon, if Snape truly is the "one who has left forever." Maybe it will take two books to discover all this information, though, since JKR said books 6 & 7 are really one long book divided in two parts. Carol responds: You mentioned earlier that you think Snape will die in Book 6 and I replied that JKR has said that he'll play an important role in Book 7. Here's the quote, from a 1999 interview: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-connectiontransc.html [Reader comment:] There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape [JKR:]He, um, there's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't because it would ruin. I promise you, whoever asked that question, can I just say to you that I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read Book 7. That's all I'm going to say. Now whether you think, as I do, that he's going to redeem himself through some sort of (grudgingly) heroic action or whether you think he'll be revealed as ESE!Snape, he's going to survive into Book 7. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 09:29:22 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:29:22 -0000 Subject: Passing judgment on other posters (Was: Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114814 "djrfdh" wrote: > snip. > > > if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! > > > Alla: > > Really? You know I get VERY annoyed when other poster (not just you, > ANYBODY) starts to make judgements about myself as REAL person, > based on what I like and dislike in HP series. > > I would imagine quite a few Snape fans getting upset and I > understand them perfectly. > > Snape is a VERY interesting and well developed character. I can and > will go ballistic at him because of his abuse of Harry and Neville, > but I am also quite fond of him in many ways. :o) > > So, do tell what does it say about me, please? > > Even if the poster admires what Snape does, it does NOT necessarily > follow that such person admires abusive teachers in RL. > > I always take into consideration that many people argue something > just for the sake of arguing , for the fun of it. > I know I love doing that. > > Alla Carol adds: Thanks for saying that, Alla. As you undoubtedly know, I love Snape's mystery and complexity and I don't think he's nearly as evil as some people have painted him as being. And of course I don't approve of genuinely abusive teachers in RL. Nor do I appreciate the implication that I'm evil or my judgment is defective because Snape is my favorite character. I have as much right to like Snape as others do to hate him, or to like Sirius Black or James Potter. Let them like Lucius Malfoy or even Voldemort if they want to. They're fictional characters, not real people, and not one person on this list is likely to advocate genocide or even Muggle-baiting in RL. I've noticed a tendency lately for certain posters to state their opinions as if they were the absolute truth and to dismiss others' views as wrong or absurd. Please, if you're one of these people, listen to what Alla is saying here. We need an atmosphere of mutual respect in which opinions are recognized *as opinions* and supported, where possible, by canon. Sweeping generalizations and, above all, insinuations about other posters or the absurdity of their views just will not do. No one is the absolute authority here, and no one has the right to dictate--or criticize--others' views or tastes. It takes all the fun out of arguing--and that's why most of us are here. (Right, Alla?) Carol, expecting a Howler from the List Elves for stepping in twice and hoping they'll understand that her intentions are good From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 5 12:08:49 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:08:49 -0000 Subject: Bode and Croaker (Was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114815 Carol wrote: "Bode" surely has the samemeaning on both sides of the Atlantic, but "croak," being slang, may not. > Hannah: We do say 'croak it' in the UK, meaning 'to die.' From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 5 12:18:44 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:18:44 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius In-Reply-To: <007101c4aa91$0a4a5540$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114816 > Sherry wrote: > On reading what JKR says about Sirius on her web site, I don't see how she can end up making Sirius the traitor. Even while listing his faults, > reckless and all that, she says that his strongest positive trait is hisloyalty, loyalty to James and then to Harry. If that is how she describes him, as being loyal to James and then to Harry, I hope she won't turn aroundand make it end up that he was the traitor and spy. What kind of loyalty toJames would that be? > Hannah: I do agree that JKR's FAQ answer pretty much nails down the coffin lid on the Sirius was a DE theory, just from the way it's written (and I take it as meaning she does like him, though I know some posters feel she's indicating she doesn't). But can I point out that Sirius being a DE is a separate thing from Sirius being the secret-keeper traitor. There seems no doubt to me that Pettigrew was a DE, and was the traitor who betrayed the Potters. I think the theory was suggesting that Sirius was a DE *as well*. Hannah From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 12:45:36 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:45:36 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114817 Dungrollin: > PS what odds are you giving on Petunia's house? I can't see > how she'd fit anywhere, perhaps the hat spat her out again. RedLena replied: >>My above opinion about Muggle Petunia aside, *if* she *were* a witch and sorted into a Hogwarts house, I'd expect her to be put into Hufflepuff. Here's why... she's not brave enough to be a Gryffindor, she's not smart enough to be a Ravenclaw, and she's clearly not a pureblood which seems to cut Slytherin out of the running. Though I'd expect she'd be unlikely to be very popular in any case.<< HunterGreen: Hufflepuff, really? Hardworking, maybe. But loyal? Perhaps to her husband and son, but not at all to her family (her parents and sister). Fair play? Not at all. I'd see her more as a Ravenclaw. She seems to be very nosey and constantly thinking. She's not as dim as she appears. As for Dudley, hard to say. Not Hufflepuff, because he's not fair, hardworking or loyal, and not Gryffindor, because like Draco he acts brave but gets scared easily (walking around with his hands over his backside in GoF, being *terrified* after the Dementor incident in OoP), and not Ravenclaw, because he doesn't seem the brightest, nor interested in learning (a specific comment is made about him not touching books in PS/SS), and he can't be Slytherin because he's not pureblood, nor is he really that ambitious. Although he does seem to only care about saving himself, and he would use any means to achieve his ends, so it *could* fit, at least better than any of the others. However, Dudley is *not* magical, according to the Edinburgh Book Festival: "Q: Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye? A: No. [Laughter]. What you see is what you get. I am happy to say that he is definitely a character without much back story. He is just Dudley. The next book, Half Blood Prince, is the least that you see of the Dursleys. You see them quite briefly. You see them a bit more in the final book, but you don't get a lot of Dudley in book six?very few lines. I am sorry if there are Dudley fans out there, but I think you need to look at your priorities if it is Dudley that you are looking forward to. [Laughter]." Personally, I'm quite happy with that. I'd rather Petunia be the one with a hidden side than Dudley anyway. (personally, I interpret her comments about Petunia to be too vague to be sure of anything). I am quite intrigued by the fact that her and Dumbledore were exchanging letters, perhaps she was more interested in her sister than she let on. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 12:46:11 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:46:11 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114818 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol, who thinks that learning to cope with Sirius's death is an > important lesson for Harry, much more important than any > contribution the living Sirius made or could have made in helping > him grow up Wow. I think that's one of the *coldest* things I've seen anyone post on here lately. Learning to deal with the death of the person he loved more than anyone (note, who Harry loved, regardless of how we feel about the character) is more important or beneficial than, perhaps, learning what it's like to build a relationship of trust and love, even when the person in question *is* unquestionably damaged? It's better to just say 'Oops, well, he was quite a mess, wasn't it? Better for everyone not to have to deal with him!' than to go through the more difficult *yet* ultimately more constructive project of trying to rebuild a damaged soul, of trying to deal with things and not make them go away? If I may dip into an operatic comparison for a minute, Puccini's La Rondine, where the heroine leaves the hero at the end, is in many ways more a grownup opera than Verdi's La Traviata, which basically has the same plot--except she dies at the end. I'm not saying that it's easy for Harry to deal with death, by no means, but in many ways death is actually the more convenient answer, plotwise. Sirius gave Harry something that no one else in the series has, at least from Harry's POV--and when you're talking about emotions, each individual POV is all you have to go on. To reduce that to an object lesson about death and mourning is to ignore those contributions. -Nora adds, for the sake of being contrary: don't cite those 'good qualities' without the 'latent' qualifier From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 12:48:17 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:48:17 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114819 > Carol responds: > You mentioned earlier that you think Snape will die in Book 6 and I > replied that JKR has said that he'll play an important role in Book 7. > Here's the quote, from a 1999 interview: > > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099- connectiontransc.html > > [Reader comment:] There's an important kind of redemptive pattern to Snape > [JKR:]He, um, there's so much I wish I could say to you, and I can't > because it would ruin. I promise you, whoever asked that question, can > I just say to you that I'm slightly stunned that you've said that and > you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read Book 7. That's all I'm > going to say. > > Now whether you think, as I do, that he's going to redeem himself > through some sort of (grudgingly) heroic action or whether you think > he'll be revealed as ESE!Snape, he's going to survive into Book 7. Finwitch: Or not. Voldemort kills him and he becomes a ghost. And as a ghost, he finally reveals his true loyalties! Or he leaves a pensieve or a diary behind... No need for him to be *alive* for that at all. (in fact, there are ways for him to be redeemed/revealed as ESE if he dies!) I can't see Snape to suddenly open up and tell everything, but if he dies and leaves some personal belongings to Harry in a Will - along with a few comments - his true self will be revealed. As I see it, living Snape does what ever he can to hide his true self (but if he's dead, it can be found!) Finwitch From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 12:48:59 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 05:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Timing of the final confrontation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041005124859.32505.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114820 Dzeytoun: > At this particular juncture, my guess is that DD and the Order those of them in the know, anyway) expect that the final battle is still some years down the road, and that Harry will have plenty of time to finish Hogwarts and complete training (probably Auror training) to meet the prophecy. I would not be surprised if they actually *discourage* Harry from going all out to prepare himself for battling Voldemort. I can easily see them *insisting* that Harry do such things as take Hogsmeade trips, play Quidditch, etc, arguing that, pressing as the needs of the WW are, Harry meeting Voldemort too soon would be an absolute disaster. Geoff: On the other hand, we need to remember that it will probably be Voldemort's actions which drive the timing of this confrontation. The Wizarding World cannot make assumptions about how prepared he is or when he will move; that is the sort of action which wrong-footed the free world against Hitler in the mid-1930s. I would imagine that Dumbledore, among others, is perceptive enough to remember that Harry has faced up to Voldemort (including via Quirrell and Tom Riddle) four times in five years. Voldemort wasn't defeated in OOTP, he was forced into the open. He still retains his powers and although he didn't get the prophecy in the end this may, in fact, accelerate his wish to finish things off and take the risk of attacking Harry (as he has done previously) without knowing the potential dangers of what it holds. So anyone who is assuming that Harry has got stacks of time in which to train up may well be living in cloud cuckoo land. First of all, I want to appologize for not snipping any of the two above posts. They are both excellent and I agree with them both. The members of the Order have a conflicted job. First of all, they love Harry and want him to finally have a happy childhood. They want him to play and learn and have friends and fall in love and do all of the wonderful things that a teenager is supposed to do. But on the other hand, there is the real danger that LV poses. He is moving faster in some ways and slower in others than they are expecting and the Order is being kept a bit off center. They are doing a great job, but how do you keep up with a psychotic mind? Harry has to be prepared. Period. Even if the "big battle" is a while off, history of the past few years shows that the little battles are strengthening. I see DD working during the summer to get ready for the next year. The DA will be out in the open and the origional members will be the ones to help train the rest of the school with Harry over it all. What an army to back up Harry that will make. (Just look at what happened on the train when Malfoy and crew confronted Harry outside the car with some of the DA memebers). Also, they are going to need to take care of themselves in the coming months and years also, not just Harry. It was not just Order members that died last time. I also see some extra lessons for Harry with some if not all of the following: Snape, DD, Lupin, Moody, Tonks. In other words, lessons will be stepped up and a little bit of seriousness and maturity will over take the school but the fun will be more pronounced and more intense knowing that it may not last. I also see the twins as having a larger roll in what is to come. (I love the idea of them supplying the school with weapons by way of the joke shop!!) moonmyyst __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:18:13 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:18:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: snip. > Sirius gave Harry something that no one else in the series has, at > least from Harry's POV--and when you're talking about emotions, each > individual POV is all you have to go on. To reduce that to an object > lesson about death and mourning is to ignore those contributions. > > -Nora adds, for the sake of being contrary: don't cite those 'good > qualities' without the 'latent' qualifier Alla: Agreed, Nora. Even if I did not love Sirius as a character, I would love him for the fact that Harry had a "mixture of father and a brother" in his life for a while. I'd say it is very important. Weasleys love Harry, but this kind of love he cannot get from Weasleys. If in the future Harry gets a chance to have it again, i will be incredibly happy. If not, at least maybe Remus stop distancing himself from Harry. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 5 13:22:23 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:22:23 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114822 > Alla: > > As you stated correctly, HEARD is the key word. Someone else is telling about the murders was not very convincing to me. > > The only scene in HP series , where I was convinced of Voldemort evil because of the way he acted was Graveyard scene in GoF. > > That was VERY GOOD writing. Anything else, sorry, not scared. Pippin: Isn't that one of the problems when dealing with real evil?How many people have died, in Oswiecm and the gulags and Rwanda, because evil is beyond our imagination? I think it's very realistic that Harry's problems with Snape seem more real than the menace of Voldemort, or sad to say, Darfur. And, sorry, eyewitnesses to murder are seldom available, not if the murderer has anything to say about it. > > Alla: > I would agree, if you change "occasionally abusive" to "constantly abusive" :o).< Constantly? No. We don't witness all the potions classes or even all the occlumency lessons -- only the ones where Snape is particularly harsh. Pippin From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:30:01 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's FAQ - Sirius (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041005133002.80805.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114823 If you have not been to JKR's website in the last couple of days, you may not want to go any further.... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In the FAQ section under book info, there is a question about if JKR likes Sirius. She states that yes she does but that he is very fallable. When I read the answer, I had to go back and read it again. She talks about Sirius, himself, in the present, Lupin in the present, but James in the past. I kept having flashes come to mind of the posts that had to do with the "staging" of Sirius' death. Does anyone else get that feeling or am I just reading too much in to this? After all, (IIRC) JKR did say that Sirius will be playing a roll in the upcoming books and I have been listening to OotP in the van and am just past Career Advise. When I get to the end, I want to see for myself if DD ever says "Sirius is dead". I still cannot bring to mind those exact words. I keep thinking that he says "Sirius is gone" and things like that. I am probably wrong but am going to listen closely. moonmyyst --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:29:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:29:45 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114824 > Pippin: > > Isn't that one of the problems when dealing with real evil?How > many people have died, in Oswiecm and the gulags and > Rwanda, because evil is beyond our imagination? I think it's very > realistic that Harry's problems with Snape seem more real than > the menace of Voldemort, or sad to say, Darfur. > > And, sorry, eyewitnesses to murder are seldom available, not if > the murderer has anything to say about it. Alla: I don't know, Pippin. Since I grew up in the country, who lost twenty millions of the population during World War II(practically every family lost someone, jewish family like mine usually lost many), such evil was very vell known, visible and talked about. No, I don't think I agree that such humongous evil is usually beyond imagination. It may have been realistic that Harry's problems with Snape seemed more real than Voldemort in the beginning , but by now IMO they should have faded in the background. I think I stand by my opinion, JKR writes "evil side" of the good guys much MORE convincingly than full-pledged villains. Pippin: > Constantly? No. We don't witness all the potions classes or > even all the occlumency lessons -- only the ones where Snape > is particularly harsh. Alla: Fine, constantly on all classes we see. :) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 5 13:29:57 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:29:57 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114825 Alex wrote: > Snape's motivation, we know nothing about. We can debate (and have > been doing) the possible motivations for his behavior. But we can't > know. His actual motivations are a black box. If he's behaving the > way he does toward Harry because he *actively wants to cause lasting > harm*, then I'd say, absolutely, yes, he's abusive. But most of the > other motivations that have been suggested are, at worst, ambiguous > in terms of determining whether his behavior is abusive or not. If > he's just being an as**ole without considering the impact his > behavior might have, then *maybe* I could see calling him abusive. > If he's doing the best he knows how (perhaps using the pedagogical > methods that were in use when he was in school or that he was > exposed to at home), then I'd say no, not abusive. Same if he has > for some reason decided that sarcasm and humiliation are the best > ways to get through to Potter. KMC: > > > Snape is venting frustration with Neville not abuse. Alla: > > If the result of his "venting frustration" is that said student > > is scared of the said teacher more than anything , in my book it > > is abuse. Sophierom: > This thread has made me want to ask JKR: do you see any difference > between Umbridge's abuse and Snape's bullying/abuse/harsh teaching > methods (since we all disagree about what exactly to call Snape's > behavior)? How about the Dursleys' abuse and Snape's? Of > course, I can't ask Rowling, so I'll ask all of you instead. > > Obviously Umbridge is physically abusive with that evil quill, the > Dursleys are emotionally/verbally abusive, and Snape is potentially > verbally/emotionally abusive (I agree with those who argue that he > is at times abusive)...but is Umbridge's behavior worse than > Snape's? Because I admit to having a much stronger emotional > reaction to Umbridge than Snape. Same with the Dursleys. This > could be, simply, because Snape has a few redeeming qualities > (mainly, he's saved Harry's life and Dumbledore says he trusts > him). > > So, I guess I'm asking about motivation, which Alex brought up in > the original post. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we > believed that Snape does have slightly more noble motives than > Umbridge (who seems to wield crulety for the sake of being cruel) > and the Dursleys (who seem to act out of fear and > ignorance) ...does that make Snape's behavior okay? Do the ends > justify the means? SSSusan: How I wish we had answers to these kinds of questions! I think, from what I've read around here in the last year and a quarter, that most of us would say that Umbridge is definitely abusive, and many have qualified her as evil. With her, we really don't see anything redeeming or noble about her, no "good motive/bad method" kind of thing. The Dursleys' behavior has been a little more debatable. I have seen them as abusive; others have argued that it didn't go that far. Ultimately, for me, threatening to deprive a child of meals and locking him in a cupboard qualified as abuse, and JKR *has* identified Vernon as her least-favorite character. But, still, especially with Petunia, there is some consideration of the motivations for their behavior. Is it really all because the Dursleys are just nasty people who care about keeping the neighbors from talking about them? Or do they have real fear of the magical world *for a reason* and so their behavior is somewhat understandable, if still deplorable? With Snape, for as much information as we're missing about him, we do get MORE information than we get with either DJU or the Dursleys. We see him in action in the classroom, in the halls. We get lots of sneering and detention-giving. We see favoritism and apparent selective picking-on of particular students. We know he was into the Dark Arts as a kid and a DE, so we can imagine what he might have been capable of. Yet we know he chose to leave that behind. We know DD trusts him. We know he does follow orders. We know he did save Harry's life. WHY? Damn it, we don't know! So, yes, I think with Snape there's more there to fuel a firm opinion one way or the other, but there are also more layers of complexity and ambiguity concerning true motivation & beliefs, more questioning about what's REAL Snape and what might be a put-on for the purposes of maintaining a cover with the baddies. Frustrating in some ways, but fun, too. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 5 13:32:11 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:32:11 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114826 > > Alla: > > I would agree, if you change "occasionally abusive" to > "constantly abusive" :o).< > Pippin > Constantly? No. We don't witness all the potions classes or > even all the occlumency lessons -- only the ones where Snape > is particularly harsh. > > Valky: Except, Pippin, that in Careers Advice OOtP CH 29 Harry has a *new* experience in Snapes classroom which is a sizeable revelation to him. He discovers what it's like to be *left alone* by Snape. Read it for yourself to be sure, because to me it definately reads like a *first time ever* moment. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:41:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:41:00 -0000 Subject: SPOILERS. JKR site update Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114827 S P O I L E R S So funny. JKR changed her answer about Collin and added something about Dumbledore's letter to Petunia. What I found the most interesting is her last sentence in the answer about Collin (something about proofreading 20 chapters in a row :o)) Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:47:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:47:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's FAQ - Sirius (spoilers) In-Reply-To: <20041005133002.80805.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, K G wrote: >> In the FAQ section under book info, there is a question about if JKR likes Sirius. She states that yes she does but that he is very fallable. When I read the answer, I had to go back and read it again. She talks about Sirius, himself, in the present, Lupin in the present, but James in the past. > Alla: OOOO, good point. I missed that. Indeed when she describes Sirius' character, she says "IS", not "WAS", but she indeeds says "LOVED" James' like a brother. We know, we will see Sirius again in som form, me the optimist me still hopes to see him as a full pledged human, or even as someone suggested once as a vampire. :) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:47:44 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:47:44 -0000 Subject: Quidditch "potentially lethal?" In-Reply-To: <20041004212222.UISQ15118.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114829 Steve wrote : "I think quidditch is more dangerous 'to us' not to wizards. Broken bones and torn whatevers can end muggle athletes' careers. Wizards breaking bones isn't that big of a deal. Harry broke is arm in the quidditch match on Saturday. He had it deboned, and reboned by Sunday morning. " Del replies : Agreed. But the WW also has things like Cheering Charms and many kinds of potions that can undoubtedly heal emotional wounds. So if Quidditch-induced injuries are OK because they can easily be cured, could it also be that emotional injuries (such as those Snape is supposed to inflict on some students) are considered OK because they can relatively easily be cured too ? Steve wrote : " WW medicine, and wizard 'hardiness' (Neville's bouncing after being thrown out the window) make for the lack of fatalities in quidditch." Del replies : No fatalities in Quidditch ? I can't find any reference right now, but I think I remember reading that this isn't exactly true. Steve wrote : " Quidditch is the only sport that we know of right now; similar to the way we know nothing of Hogsmeade visits before Harry's 3rd year. Personally, I think there are other sports in the WW, maybe played by the students who didn't make the house teams. We might not know about them because Harry has not seen them. There's a charms club and a gobstones club, why not an after school sports program?" Del replies : It could very well be, but it doesn't change the fact that Quidditch is the only sport that seems to matter as far as competition is concerned. The Quidditch cup is a big thing, all students attend all matches. We are never told of any other sport competitions of that importance. If students wants to distinguish themselves on an athletic level, Quidditch is the *only* option they have at Hogwarts. Nobody but the fans will care if a student shines in another sport, but the whole school will greatly care if they shine at Quidditch. Del From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 5 13:53:04 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:53:04 -0000 Subject: JKR's FAQ - Sirius (spoilers) In-Reply-To: <20041005133002.80805.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114830 Moonmysst wrote: I want to see for myself if DD ever says "Sirius is dead". I still cannot bring to mind those exact words. I keep thinking that he says "Sirius is gone" and things like that. I am probably wrong but am going to listen closely. > > Hannah: DD does say it. Once when he says 'it is my fault Sirius *died*' (p727 OotP UK Hardback) (emphasis mine), once when Phineas Nigellus asks if Sirius is dead, and DD says 'yes' (p728 OotP UK hardback). He also talks about Sirius in the past tense throughout this scene. Pretty unequivocal in my mind. But then I'm sure some people will argue DD is wrong/ lying, which is of course possible. Hannah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:55:36 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:55:36 -0000 Subject: JKR's FAQ - Sirius (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114831 > Hannah: DD does say it. Once when he says 'it is my fault Sirius > *died*' (p727 OotP UK Hardback) (emphasis mine), once when Phineas > Nigellus asks if Sirius is dead, and DD says 'yes' (p728 OotP UK > hardback). He also talks about Sirius in the past tense throughout > this scene. Pretty unequivocal in my mind. But then I'm sure some > people will argue DD is wrong/ lying, which is of course possible. Alla: Not lying , Hanna, but keeping the truth from Harry. :o) Especially since we have at least one occasion of him doing so. Didn't JKR said that Dumbledore knows the true reason why he did not try to kill Voldie in MOM battle, but keeping it to himself. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 13:54:50 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:54:50 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "redlena_web" wrote: > > RedLena: > As intriguing as some people's theories have been to read, I > don't think Petunia's going to turn out to have any magic powers. > My support for this opinion comes from JKR's talk at the > Edinburgh Book Festival this August (find full transcript here: > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80). > > In answer to the question, "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?" JKR says > "No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a > Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. > You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to > Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. > She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am > giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." > > Granted she does cloud the issue with all the "but--" business > but she does explicitly say "[Petunia] is a Muggle." And, afaik, > that by definition means she's not magical. Finwitch: Squibs don't have magic either (as far as wizards are concerned), but they can see Dementors, and some of them can do simple spells (as shown by the Kwick-spell course, and Mrs Figg in OOP). Squibs are, by simplest definition, non-magical people born in wizard family. Yet they have little magic. There are wizards & witches born of Muggles. I think that squib-like abilities born of Muggles are much more common than witches or wizards. Wizard would consider this "Muggle-born squib" as a Muggle. (Why would they deem otherwise?) I think that this is sort of person very likely to be successful in his/her career. For one thing, I think that Hermione's parents are such, both being dentists with the firm - (and such a pair is most likely to produce a witch, I'd say). And since Lily is Muggle-born witch, and her sister is a Muggle - well, I'd say that she has *some* ability, just not enough to be a witch herself (and she *does* keep her house miraculously clean). Oh and it seems that Petunia alone has been in contact with Dumbledore before she took Harry in, but not after that... > > Dungrollin: > > PS what odds are you giving on Petunia's house? I can't see > > how she'd fit anywhere, perhaps the hat spat her out again. > > RedLena: > My above opinion about Muggle Petunia aside, *if* she *were* a > witch and sorted into a Hogwarts house, I'd expect her to be put > into Hufflepuff. Here's why... she's not brave enough to be a > Gryffindor, she's not smart enough to be a Ravenclaw, and she's > clearly not a pureblood which seems to cut Slytherin out of the > running. Though I'd expect she'd be unlikely to be very popular in > any case. Finwitch: Petunia... is she brave? I think so - at least when she's defending Dudley against Harry's magic. (Never underestimate the mother) Or facing down Vernon after that Howler. I don't know how we should see the way they explain away all Dudley's misdeeds? Loyalty? (and that doesn't include anyone with magic) Smart - well, I don't know where that would come up, considering how little of her we see. But I think she shows great intellect in explaining away all unpleasant things - just because she pretends not to see magic is no indication of being stupid... Ambitious - well, as a house-wife and mother who spends most of her time spying on neighbours... not for herself, anyway - unless tip-top conditioned house counts. She'll use any means to ignore magic... I think the sorting hat wouldn't know where to put her. Finwitch From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Oct 5 14:08:19 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:08:19 -0000 Subject: SPOILERS. JKR site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114833 dumbledore11214wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > > > So funny. JKR changed her answer about Collin and added something > about Dumbledore's letter to Petunia. > > What I found the most interesting is her last sentence in the answer > about Collin (something about proofreading 20 chapters in a row :o)) > > > Alla Becki here; OOOOOH Alla! I agree! I noticed that too. Do ya think that it is 20 more chapters after the book fest? (the one that she says she is halfway finished?) And about her clarifications, that is what I thought about Collin's camera. Not all cameras take batteries. Becki ( Jo, are you lurking out there? How about that book? We are getting pretty desperate around here, analyzing sentences and words now. We need some fresh meat. Thanks for the updates!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 14:10:30 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:10:30 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041005061408.85176.qmail@web40512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114834 Alla Oy, another version of "what does it say about me?" if I dislike the character, Tell me, if I am ready to put up a slogan "Die, Kreacher, die", does it mean that I support death penalty in RL? (I will help you - NO, I don't) dkewpie wrote: >> > Why? Because it'll make you feel better or something? Alla: Yes, "OR SOMETHING". Dkewpie.: > > I have the feeling that if this revenge scenerio really take place in future books, the > popularity of Snape among fans will only be increased more than ever. Nothing makes an > antagonist character more popular than him/her getting his/her dues, especially when it's > done in such fashion like you or dzeytoun mentioned (payback for payback sake, like > typical Hollywood movies, especially teenage or Disney films, where the baddies must pay > their due by drop in water/crap dump over them/hit by a bus/fell on the ground..etc etc) > Best example: Draco Malfoy. The over-the-top punishments he receive in every book only > makes people feel sympathy for him. And JKR thinks it's all Tom Felton's fault? I've seen > people saying Umbridge didn't get "enough" punishment at the end of Ootp, if she really > receive severe punishment (ex: got raped, mutliated or something), I can see that there > would be lots of Umbridge Apologists now. > ) First: I am not sure how my desire to see the villain or semi-villain is connected with increased popularity. If you show me where I in my posts EVER objected to ANY character poularity, I would appreciate it. Second: My preferable option for Snape would be develop grudging respect for Harry at the end and vice versa, but wait, I said it many, many times already. I want CARMIC payback for what Snape put the kids through, if he does not change at the end and whether it increases his popularity or not, I don't really care, especially because I really like him as a character myself AND I really like PART of his personality. Draco's popularity? It pussles me, I confess, but mainly because he is such a 2-D character. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 5 14:11:54 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:11:54 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114835 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > > I don't know, Pippin. Since I grew up in the country, who lost twenty millions of the population during World War II(practically every family lost someone, jewish family like mine usually lost many), such evil was very vell known, visible and talked about. No, I don't think I agree that such humongous evil is usually beyond imagination.< It's not beyond imagination if it's happening in your country. But in my country during WWII, my Jewish family, which included a very prominent man who could have commanded attention, was afraid to talk about the relatives who had gone missing in Germany, because they didn't want to encourage the anti-Semitic elements in my country who were already trying to paint the conflict as a Jewish war. So they were silent, and that made it easier for the Fudges in my country to pretend that these things couldn't really be happening. IMO, JKR is addressing herself to that audience, the one that's afraid to speak out, and the one who can cocoon itself away from evil because it isn't happening to them, while getting mightily upset over the boss or the teacher in their daily life whose worst sin is that he's a jerk. We've been promised that Voldemort will be greater and more terrible than before, and I think he will be. But that means JKR has to leave herself somewhere to go in the next two books, and she also has to work within the constraints of the form she has chosen--the graphic representation of rapes and murders is not going to suit the tone of the books (sorry, Kneasy),so we're spared that, while we get very graphic and painful accounts of schoolyard misery. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 5 14:17:53 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:17:53 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: <20041004.171418.1840.1.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114836 Aura: > I think this was an older question, but I noticed that Jo answered > a q, "What is your advice for kids who are being bullied." Her > answer is an emphatic, "TELL SOMEONE." So in regards to the "abuse" > debate that's been going on, it is apparently Jo's opinion that > Harry was wrong not to tell anyone about Umbridge's detentions, and > that Neville probably should talk to someone about the anxiety > Snape has been causing him. (BTW, I agree with the people who said > that Harry isnt' being particularly abused by Snape, but Neville > is.) It still irritates me, though, that the Dursley's abuse is > ignored and protected by the books. SSSusan: I found it interesting that JKR answered that question *not* in the "About the Books" category, but in the "Other Stuff" category. I think, as many have pointed out here, Hogwarts is very definitely not like modern Western education (esp. not like modern American public schools). It's also been discussed here that there isn't exactly a counseling system in place at Hogwarts, at least not that we see. Students seem to be expected to be pretty tough and to "buck up" and just take a lot. JKR's answering this question *is* interesting in light of recent discussions around here, but I do think it's noteworthy that she's pulled it to the "Other Stuff" section. I think she's writing to today's children, living in RL, not *necessarily* equating it to what our crew is dealing w/ in her fictional WW. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who hopes this doesn't sound as if she's defending bullies or anything. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 5 14:21:05 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:21:05 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > > Carol, who thinks that learning to cope with Sirius's death is an > > important lesson for Harry, much more important than any > > contribution the living Sirius made or could have made in helping > > him grow up > > Wow. I think that's one of the *coldest* things I've seen anyone > post on here lately. Learning to deal with the death of the person > he loved more than anyone (note, who Harry loved, regardless of how > we feel about the character) is more important or beneficial than, > perhaps, learning what it's like to build a relationship of trust and > love, even when the person in question *is* unquestionably damaged? > It's better to just say 'Oops, well, he was quite a mess, wasn't it? > Better for everyone not to have to deal with him!' than to go through > the more difficult *yet* ultimately more constructive project of > trying to rebuild a damaged soul, of trying to deal with things and > not make them go away? > "Killer' Rowling had something to say about that - Albert Hall 2003, "I do think that what I was trying to do with the death in this book was to show how arbitrary death is. This is a death where you didn't get a death-bed scene, it happens almost accidentally and that is one of the cruel things about death. And of course they are in a war situation where that really does happen - one minute you're talking to a friend and the next minute he's gone. And it's so shocking and inexplicable - but where did they go? I found it upsetting to write because I knew what it would mean to Harry who briefly" (Steven Fry interrupts at this point.) Realism in fantasy. No fluffiness here. So Sirius goes and Harry is going to have to learn to deal with it. Remember, she has said before that one of the main themes of the books is death. I wonder who'll be next for the arbitrary Black Spot? Kneasy From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 14:33:09 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:33:09 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114838 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Realism in fantasy. No fluffiness here. > So Sirius goes and Harry is going to have to learn to deal with it. > Remember, she has said before that one of the main themes of the > books is death. > > I wonder who'll be next for the arbitrary Black Spot? To run the risk of sound cross: well, I knew THAT, Kneasy. I was, or at least I think was, playing with the hypothetical of the first poster's attitude towards the effects of it all. In other words, I do think it's clear (or fairly clear) what JKR did and why--but I still think it's a somewhat skewed perspective to say "Oh, well, learning experience for Harry, buck up!" and consider that to be it-- without a consideration of how valuable what has been lost could have been. JKR refers to that obliquely herself, with the 'what it would mean to Harry' thing. Snape is going to make it to book 7, of course, but I don't put money on him coming out alive. Lucius and Bella--toast. Dumbledore--well, he's had a 'KILL ME, PLEASE' sign on him for ages now. Lupin--she really likes him, so he might make it. Wormtail--also toast. Draco-- well, she'd have to do something with him, first... Ah, JKR. Like Puccini, you always torment the ones you love. :) -Nora sings along: Un bel di vedremo... From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 5 14:40:15 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:40:15 -0000 Subject: The other 'interesting' answer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114839 Hannah writes: I've just been re-reading JKR's amended answer to the 'what did DD mean by 'remember my last'?' FAQ. This question had been chosen by visitors to the site in a poll. She says that, of the three options, two had interesting answers (including the one chosen), one didn't. One of the other options was 'is Percy Weasley working for a secret boss/ organisation. I can't remember what the other was, but the answer to it is the 'interesting' one. I say this because I'm sure JKR said somewhere that Percy was acting on his own initiative, so I guess the answer to that would have been a fairly boring 'no.' So can anyone remember what the third question was, and what do people think the 'interesting' answer might have been? Hannah From sad1199 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 14:49:40 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:49:40 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041005061408.85176.qmail@web40512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dkewpie wrote: > > Best example: Draco Malfoy. The over-the-top punishments he receive in every book only > makes people feel sympathy for him. And JKR thinks it's all Tom Felton's fault? > DK sad1199 here: This doesn't have anything to do with the post as a whole but, what over-the-top punishments does Draco receive? I, personally, don't feel any sympathy for the rich spoiled brat now. Maybe I did a little in SS but now he just annoys me. It looks like he's going to grow up to be just as pompous and self-serving as Daddy. Just my opinion on the character in the books though. ...happy, caring, (Snape) loving... sad1199 From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 15:03:48 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:03:48 -0000 Subject: Ron and money (kinda Spoilers) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114841 OK, it doesn't divulge anything really, but just in case some people don't want to know about JKR's insights on her website, here goes : S P O I L E R Dear JKR ! I loved it when I read her comments about Ron and the Leprechaun gold ! Some posters here have been so tough with Ron for daring to complain about being poor, but JKR is on his side on that one. She says that "he cannot imagine how it must be not to notice a pocketful of gold disappearing", not that he's being jealous or greedy or anything, he's simply baffled. She even uses the word "poignancy" to describe the emotions Ron feels during the Niffler scene, and that's a strong word. She even concludes by saying that she "wanted to show, through Ron, how hard it is sometimes not to have any money when other people do". *She* doesn't judge him to be a bad boy for complaining about money once in a while, in fact she calls him her "past self". Oh, and there's her answer about what she's bought with her money, and she says the best thing that has come out of her wealth is "abscence of worry". As someone whose mother was always quite tight, I know that kids feel it when their parents are worried about not having enough money to pay for things. Obviously, all the Weasley kids are aware of their parents' sometimes uncomfortable money situation, judging by the way they react (the Twins open their own shop while still at school, Ron is always avoiding to point out that his parents don't have much money, and so on). That could also explain in part Percy's outburst at his father, if he discovered that getting higher up in the MoM hierarchy isn't that hard, but that his father refused to take the necessary steps, and so kept them *all*, wife and kids included, in a constant state of anxiety, apparently *needlessly* (we know better, but Percy is only 20 and extremely naive). We have to remember that JKR has got *tons* of questions she can choose to answer to, and yet she chose those 2, about money and what it means to have some or not. I think it says something about her opinion of Ron. Couple that to the fact that she states Ron is her third favourite character, right behind Harry and Hermione, and I think she's made it quite clear that her view of Ron is very different from the one some posters here hold (jealous Ron whose greediness will make him turn evil). Del, who likes Ron very much, even though he's so clueless about, well, pretty much everything :-) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 5 15:15:01 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:15:01 -0000 Subject: The other 'interesting' answer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Hannah writes: > I've just been re-reading JKR's amended answer to the 'what did DD > mean by 'remember my last'?' FAQ. This question had been chosen by > visitors to the site in a poll. She says that, of the three > options, two had interesting answers (including the one chosen), one > didn't. One of the other options was 'is Percy Weasley working for > a secret boss/ organisation. I can't remember what the other was, > but the answer to it is the 'interesting' one. I say this because > I'm sure JKR said somewhere that Percy was acting on his own > initiative, so I guess the answer to that would have been a fairly > boring 'no.' > So can anyone remember what the third question was, and what do > people think the 'interesting' answer might have been? It was questioning the whereabouts of Pettigrew in book 5 IIRC, and it was the one I voted for. Since the rat doesn't do anything on his own initiative these days I thought it might be vaguely interesting to find out what he'd been sent off to do. If, as you surmise the answer really is "interesting" then she's pulled a fast one on us - because I can't find any clues anywhere. Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 15:45:02 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:45:02 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114843 I've been thinking about that one for a while. There seems to be a general agreement that Harry is very compassionate. That has always troubled me, because I just don't see that. What I see is what Hermione saw : Harry has a saving people thing. Let's take a few examples. In PS/SS, Harry doesn't care much when Hermione breaks down after hearing Ron's hurtful comment about her. She doesn't show up for the Halloween Feast, but so what ? He knows she's crying in the toilets, but he doesn't care about going to get her and making her come to the Feast. But then suddenly she's in danger of being killed by the Troll, and *then* he cares. In CoS, Harry doesn't care much about Ginny looking pale, sick and troubled. She obviously wants to talk to someone, but Harry doesn't care about getting her in a quiet place and asking her what's bothering her. But then suddenly she's taken to the Chamber of Secrets, and *then* he cares. But what does he care about, exactly ? Does he care about Ron and Percy's obvious pain ? No. Does he care about Ginny's emotional well-being after the ordeal is over ? No. The *only* thing he cares about, and he tells us so, is that she might die. Let's take another example in GoF. The Second Task. Harry gets to the Merpeople town, and finds the hostages. He then decides to wait to make sure they are all rescued. But *why* does he do that ? Does he care about the people who would get hurt if Cho, Hermione and Gabrielle died ? NO ! In fact, if he did think of them, he would realise that there's no way the hostages are going to be let to die if they are not rescued. DD made it very clear that he didn't want any player in the TWT to die, so why would he allow *innocent* people who never asked to be part of the show to die ?? But no Harry doesn't think about that, he's only obsessed with one thing, and once again he tells us so : "I don't want them to die !". And finally let's skip to the end of OoP, and the infamous Sirius dream. Harry wants to go to the DoM, but why ? Once again he tells us so : he doesn't want Sirius to *die*. Sure, he's bothered by Sirius being tortured, but this is not his *primary* concern. He doesn't want to end Sirius's pain, he wants to prevent him from dying. Oh, and let's not forget Luna. At the very end of OoP, when Harry meets Luna and she tells him about people stealing her things, Harry wants to help her. But one thing that always bothered me is that Luna isn't expressing any feeling of pain, she's speaking very matter-of-factly. So how could Harry's reaction be interpreted as compassion (suffering with) ? It can't, because it's not. Harry is not suffering for or with Luna, he's feeling *pity* for her, and that prompts him to get into his saving-people mode again. He wants to rescue Luna from her bad comrades. Those examples show IMO that Harry does not have an impressive dose of compassion, but really a saving-people complex. I can understand where that came from (starting with his parents dying), but it doesn't change that fact. It is interesting, however, that OoP ends with 2 events that teach Harry that his saving-people thing is not necessarily always a good thing. First, it ultimately leads to Sirius's death. Second, Luna doesn't accept it. I would also like to add a couple of examples of Harry not showing compassion when he could (and should, IMO) have. First, there's the Forbidden Forest incident in CoS. Ron is arachnophobic, and yet Harry drags him in the FF in the pursuit of spiders. They get bigger and bigger, and more and more numerous, and yet Harry never suggests that either Ron goes back alone, or they go back together and Harry comes back again alone. Ron is *terrified* ! I was suffering so much for him that it made me quite mad at Harry. Second example is in OoP, with Sirius. Sirius makes it very clear that he enjoys Harry's company, that it is the only thing that brings some light and joy in his miserable life. But when Sirius gives Harry a safe and easy way to contact him, Harry refuses to use it ! And why ? Because he doesn't want to risk Sirius taking risks by leaving Grimmauld Place : his saving-people complex again. Instead of feeling Sirius's pain and loneliness and doing something to relieve it, which he would have done if he had felt compassion for Sirius, he chooses to "save" Sirius. What makes Harry save people is not compassion, it's his saving-people complex, which not only is not based on compassion, but quite often goes against what compassion would recommend. Just my opinion, of course. Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 5 16:00:29 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:00:29 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius (& Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114844 Jen: > JKR *did* make an interesting point that Sirius could not see > the good points in Snape; it makes me wonder what exactly Sirius > was privvy to at Hogwarts that fueled his one-sided view of Snape. > What we saw in the Pensieve scene made Snape look like the hapless > victim of the Marauder's bullying--was there anything he did > besides 'just exist'? Was he always the one on the defensive? SSSusan: Jen has been a little bummed about the information that JKR provided about Sirius. I, being a moderately big fan of Sirius, was actually quite pleased with what we found out there. Remember the endless debates about whether the Azkaban experience could be used as an "excuse"/rationale for why Sirius was reckless and rash and somewhat immature? Seems JKR is telling us it IS a part of it. I like having that confirmed as part of her view of Sirius. There has also been debate about whether Sirius really despised Kreacher. Clearly, he did. And JKR calls him on this double standard with that. She also calls him on telling Harry no one is totally good or evil, yet being unwilling or unable to consider the possibility of anything good within Snape. I like having some of these things answered or fleshed out. And I feel that I can still easily remain a fan of Sirius'. Why? Because no one is wholly good or evil! [Oh, well, except maybe Lordy Voldythingy?] Sirius is an excellent example of this, and, while it maybe doesn't make him more loveable, it does make him more "complete" and more real in my mind. He's a mixture of "negatives" -- recklessness, blind to his own faults, arrogant, bitter -- and "positives" -- affectionate with a chosen few, loyal, brave. Another complex character--what's not to like about that? :-) Alla: > > Yes, after today I am finally saying good buy to ESE!Lupin in my > > mind. > > > > Remus is one of her favourite characters, she would LOVE to meet > > him, she thinks that he is more MATURE that Sirius, whom she > > likes even though she does not like some of his traits. Jen: > JKR is really giving Lupin a lot of good press recently, both > in the Edinburgh appearance and today. It makes me more suspicious > though, instead of less--is this another cat and mouse game? Just > as she characterized Sirius today in very gray terms, she could > come back and talk about how Lupin's maturity, good teaching > skills, and easy-going demeanor made him the perfect villain > and 'so fun' to write. I hope not, of course. SSSusan: I keep waiting for Pippin to comment on JKR's use of the words "seems much older and more mature" [emphasis on "seems"]. I adore Lupin; he's one of my 3 or 4 absolute favorite characters, so I don't *want* to be suspicious of him, but I couldn't help but point out that she didn't say he IS more mature; only that he "seems" so. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com Tue Oct 5 16:08:02 2004 From: nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com (catimini15) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:08:02 -0000 Subject: The other 'interesting' answer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114845 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > It was questioning the whereabouts of Pettigrew in book 5 IIRC, and > it was the one I voted for. > > Since the rat doesn't do anything on his own initiative these days I > thought it might be vaguely interesting to find out what he'd been > sent off to do. If, as you surmise the answer really is "interesting" > then she's pulled a fast one on us - because I can't find any clues > anywhere. > > Kneasy The old stooped wizard at the front desk of St. Mungo's with the hearing trumpet (OotP : chapter St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries). Could the hearing trumpet be a transfigured silver hand ? It is one of my favorite theories... Wormtails says himself - to Lord Voldemort - ?you know that I can disguise myself most effectively !? (GoF : chapter The Riddle House). I am sure somehow that he is not refering to his animagus ability in this quote. I had voted for Wormtail's whereabouts too but I am happy with the explanations regarding DD's last letters ! ;-) Nadine (catimini15) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 16:09:33 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:09:33 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > I've been thinking about that one for a while. > > There seems to be a general agreement that Harry is very > compassionate. That has always troubled me, because I just don't see > that. What I see is what Hermione saw : Harry has a saving people thing. Alla: Dell, could you please, please, tell me what your definition of compassion is? I honestly want to know. As some people on the list know I start getting frustrated when I don't understand where other person is coming from and I often don't understand where you are coming from. So, please help me. I am not being sarcastic. To me desire to save people is ALWAYS a good thing and often equals compassion. Before I start commenting on your examples, I have ageneral comment to make. In all of them, you make a distinction that Harry does not care first and then cares when he thinks that person is dying. But everything is happening fast in those situations. I don't think Harry really has time to make the distinction in his mind. Del: > Let's take a few examples. > > In PS/SS, Harry doesn't care much when Hermione breaks down after > hearing Ron's hurtful comment about her. She doesn't show up for the > Halloween Feast, but so what ? He knows she's crying in the toilets, > but he doesn't care about going to get her and making her come to the > Feast. But then suddenly she's in danger of being killed by the Troll, > and *then* he cares. Alla: Harry only HEARS about Parvati telling Lavender "that Hermione was crying in the girls' bathroom and wanted to be left alone" - PS/SS, p.172, paperback, on their way to the Feast. When Hermione is absent from class, Harry does not know she i. She is not his close friend or even acquintance yet. Why is he supposed to be worried? So, on his way to the feast Harry hears that Hermione was crying and at the feast Quirrel tells about Hermione and Harry rushes to help. Why is it not compassionate? Was he not supposed to help her? Del: > In CoS, Harry doesn't care much about Ginny looking pale, sick and > troubled. She obviously wants to talk to someone, but Harry doesn't > care about getting her in a quiet place and asking her what's > bothering her. But then suddenly she's taken to the Chamber of > Secrets, and *then* he cares. But what does he care about, exactly ? > Does he care about Ron and Percy's obvious pain ? No. Does he care > about Ginny's emotional well-being after the ordeal is over ? No. The > *only* thing he cares about, and he tells us so, is that she might die. Alla: Same question. How do you know that Harry does not care about Ron and Percy's pain? Was he not supposed to rush at Ginny's help? Del: > Let's take another example in GoF. The Second Task. Harry gets to the > Merpeople town, and finds the hostages. He then decides to wait to > make sure they are all rescued. But *why* does he do that ? Does he > care about the people who would get hurt if Cho, Hermione and > Gabrielle died ? NO ! In fact, if he did think of them, he would > realise that there's no way the hostages are going to be let to die if > they are not rescued. DD made it very clear that he didn't want any > player in the TWT to die, so why would he allow *innocent* people who > never asked to be part of the show to die ?? But no Harry doesn't > think about that, he's only obsessed with one thing, and once again he > tells us so : "I don't want them to die !". Alla: Contradiction, Del. First you say that Harry does not care about girls dying and then you cite his "I don't want them to die" Harry did not have much time to think to figure out that girls are not really going to die and judges actually recognised that. Besides, what do you mean Dumbledore does not want contestants and other participants to die? Of course, he does not, but it does not mean that they cannot. Remember "the death toll mounted so high that the tournament was dsicontinued" - GoF, p.187, paperback. Yes, I'd say it was pretty reasonable of Harry to think that girls faced REAL danger Del: > He doesn't want > to end Sirius's pain, he wants to prevent him from dying. Alla: You lost me. I think Harry wants to do both. > . Del: > What makes Harry save people is not compassion, it's his saving- people > complex, which not only is not based on compassion, but quite often > goes against what compassion would recommend. > > Just my opinion, of course. Alla: How does it go against what compassion would recommend? I LOVE Harry's "saving people thing". Actually, I would simply call it being a hero, but that is just MY opinion, of course. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 16:10:34 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:10:34 -0000 Subject: Grande guignol endings (was Quesiton for Snapeophiles ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > We've been promised that Voldemort will be greater and more > terrible than before, and I think he will be. But that means JKR > has to leave herself somewhere to go in the next two books, and > she also has to work within the constraints of the form she has > chosen--the graphic representation of rapes and murders is not > going to suit the tone of the books (sorry, Kneasy),so we're > spared that, while we get very graphic and painful accounts of > schoolyard misery. > Carolyn (always hopeful): Then again, there's this interview answer - Dateline, 2003: Q:You said when the last book came out that the death of one character was quote, 'the beginning of the deaths.' Yikes! A:Yeah, that's nice, isn't it. There's going to be a blood bath [laughter]. Q:Warm and fuzzy.What does that mean? A:It's a war. Essentially a war has broken out again and when I say the beginning of the deaths, I mean the deaths that are meaningful, I suppose, to the reader. From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Tue Oct 5 16:21:48 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:21:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron and money (kinda Spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114849 Del wrote: S P O I L E R Dear JKR ! I loved it when I read her comments about Ron and the Leprechaun gold ! Some posters here have been so tough with Ron for daring to complain about being poor, but JKR is on his side on that one. She says that "he cannot imagine how it must be not to notice a pocketful of gold disappearing", not that he's being jealous or greedy or anything, he's simply baffled. She even uses the word "poignancy" to describe the emotions Ron feels during the Niffler scene, and that's a strong word. She even concludes by saying that she "wanted to show, through Ron, how hard it is sometimes not to have any money when other people do". *She* doesn't judge him to be a bad boy for complaining about money once in a while, in fact she calls him her "past self". Oh, and there's her answer about what she's bought with her money, and she says the best thing that has come out of her wealth is "abscence of worry". As someone whose mother was always quite tight, I know that kids feel it when their parents are worried about not having enough money to pay for things. Obviously, all the Weasley kids are aware of their parents' sometimes uncomfortable money situation, judging by the way they react (the Twins open their own shop while still at school, Ron is always avoiding to point out that his parents don't have much money, and so on). That could also explain in part Percy's outburst at his father, if he discovered that getting higher up in the MoM hierarchy isn't that hard, but that his father refused to take the necessary steps, and so kept them *all*, wife and kids included, in a constant state of anxiety, apparently *needlessly* (we know better, but Percy is only 20 and extremely naive). Lady Macbeth replies: That was one of the comments that I was really pleased with too. Though I left open the possibility that Ron's "greed" would make him switch sides, I felt more sympathy for Ron than a lot of people. I think that he's feeling the weight of his parents' financial situation WAY too early - my parents did an excellent job of hiding it from me. But, they were of the opinion that my brothers and I should grow up thinking that people who had more than us were spending their money wastefully to be show offs, rather than realize that they were sinking further and further into debt for the things we DID have. And, unfortunately, my husband and I are in the same situation my parents were in. (These things have a way of perpetuating themselves from one generation to the next - hopefully the college education I'm sinking my family into debt for will get me a better job and get my family out of that loop.) I absolutely felt for Ron when he told Harry it must be nice to not notice a whole pocket full of gold missing - I was (because of my situation) reading the undertone of "It must be nice to not worry where dinner's coming from. It must be nice to not worry where the rent money is coming from..." Because, like Ron had been doing, as soon as I'm given money I start making plans for what it needs to be used for. Bills, dinner, medical expenses - those are the worries of my life, and probably Ron's life. Harry, on the other hand, doesn't seem to worry about those things. As someone referenced in the "abuse" thread, while the Dursleys never gave him love, they gave him food, shelter and clothing, and he saw by the loads of money that they spent on Dudley that they would never want for ANY of those "needs" - they even had money to fritter on Dudley's "wants". So, when a pocketful of gold disappears for Harry, it's a nuisance that's not particularly noticeable or hurtful - when it disappears for Ron, it's the money for the next month that's gone. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 16:23:25 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:23:25 -0000 Subject: Peter's whereabouts ( was The other 'interesting' answer ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114850 Hannah asked : "So can anyone remember what the third question was, and what do people think the 'interesting' answer might have been?" Kneasy answered : "It was questioning the whereabouts of Pettigrew in book 5 IIRC, and it was the one I voted for. Since the rat doesn't do anything on his own initiative these days I thought it might be vaguely interesting to find out what he'd been sent off to do. If, as you surmise the answer really is "interesting" then she's pulled a fast one on us - because I can't find any clues anywhere." Del replies : I voted for that one too, precisely because I couldn't find *any* clue as to what Peter's been doing all year. It seems strange to me that he should disappear from the picture so completely and so suddenly. He was introduced as a very major character at the end of PoA (betrayed the Potters, framed Sirius), and he played a major role in GoF (brought LV back from Albania and resurrected his body), so it doesn't make sense that he should suddenly disappear. Of course, one could say that LV doesn't need him anymore now that he's got his DEs back, but I'm not so sure. So if we assume that LV didn't simply kill him off, where has Peter gone ? He doesn't appear in any of Harry's visions, he's not at the MoM. Maybe he is preparing the next stage in LV's plans ? If so, we might discover that whatever he did during OoP will have a major impact on what happens in HBP and Book 7. But as Kneasy said, it is rather strange that we can't seem to find *any* clue about him. Knowing JKR, she *would* give us a lead, however faint... Del From editor at texas.net Tue Oct 5 16:49:42 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:49:42 -0000 Subject: Passing judgment on other posters (Was: Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114851 Carol adds: > Thanks for saying that, Alla. As you undoubtedly know, I love Snape's > mystery and complexity and I don't think he's nearly as evil as some > people have painted him as being. And of course I don't approve of > genuinely abusive teachers in RL. Nor do I appreciate the implication > that I'm evil or my judgment is defective because Snape is my favorite > character. I have as much right to like Snape as others do to hate > him, or to like Sirius Black or James Potter. Let them like Lucius > Malfoy or even Voldemort if they want to. They're fictional > characters, not real people, and not one person on this list is likely > to advocate genocide or even Muggle-baiting in RL. > > I've noticed a tendency lately for certain posters to state their > opinions as if they were the absolute truth and to dismiss others' > views as wrong or absurd. Please, if you're one of these people, > listen to what Alla is saying here. We need an atmosphere of mutual > respect in which opinions are recognized *as opinions* and supported, > where possible, by canon. Sweeping generalizations and, above all, > insinuations about other posters or the absurdity of their views just > will not do. No one is the absolute authority here, and no one has the > right to dictate--or criticize--others' views or tastes. It takes all > the fun out of arguing--and that's why most of us are here. (Right, Alla?) > > Carol, expecting a Howler from the List Elves for stepping in twice > and hoping they'll understand that her intentions are good Howler someone for stressing politeness and observance of the rules? I wasn't aware we had Kreacher on staff, but you never know. Carol, a timely reminder, especially when coupled with an actual canon post (unlike, say, *this* one), is likely more appreciated than denigrated. This list has always had a strong self-policing element; the listmembers know what culture and tone they prefer. ~Amandageist From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 5 17:01:14 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:01:14 -0000 Subject: Grande guignol endings (was Quesiton for Snapeophiles ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114852 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Then again, there's this interview answer - > > Dateline, 2003: > > Q:You said when the last book came out that the death of one > character was quote, 'the beginning of the deaths.' Yikes! > A:Yeah, that's nice, isn't it. There's going to be a blood bath > [laughter]. > Q:Warm and fuzzy.What does that mean? > A:It's a war. Essentially a war has broken out again and when I say > the beginning of the deaths, I mean the deaths that are meaningful, I > suppose, to the reader. Sounds promising, but I expect it's a bit of an exaggeration. Deaths yes, blood no. I don't see gore-splattered scenery or eviscerated victims forming part of the canon. Though if she's seeking suggestions I'd be happy to oblige. 'Meaningful' - hmm, I've learned to be cautious where JKR's words are concerned; so often they are accurate but not necessarily in the way you'd expect. 'Meaningful' as in a good plot reason for the deaths, or as in characters that fans may have become attached to? Or both? Remember last year? That JKR comment saying Harry would have a new pet? That'd narrow the hit-list down a bit - but I've already reviewed the runners and riders in 81563 "Pets-U-Like". Still think Fang'd make a good replacement for Sirius. Throw in a couple of Weasleys, Luna (please!), Draco, a handful of Aurors, plus a few assorted DEs and it could all be very entertaining. Kneasy From khinterberg at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:11:05 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:11:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's character Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114853 Reading JKR's comment about how no one is wholly good or wholly evil, I got to wondering how this plays out in Harry. He cannot be wholly good or evil, what composes the different sides of his personality when looking at it this way? khinterberg From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:20:30 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:20:30 -0000 Subject: JKR FAQ - Spoiler re Colin's Camera Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114854 S P O I L E R Wasn't JKR wrong about Colin's camera? She said something like "Who said it worked?" and that he hadn't gotten any film developed. I remember in COS Colin shows Harry the picture Colin took of Harry with with Lockhart, and Harry was pleased that his photographic self was putting up a fight. What gives? Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:30:48 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:30:48 -0000 Subject: JKR update re: Colin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hester_griffith" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > > > > JKR's new update includes a statement about Colin Creevey having > > never developed pictures from his camera before the exposed film was > > ruined from the basilisk, but if memory serves me right didn't he > > develop pictures of Harry and ask him to autograph them which led to > > further tormenting from Draco. > > Angie here: I posted elsewhere before I saw this. The question was how could Colin's camera work, being a Muggle camera and JKR said something like, "Who said it worked?" Well, respectfully, she did. I remember in SS, Colin showed Harry the pic he took with Lockhart and Harry was pleased to see that his photographic self was putting up a fight. So, I don't understand her comment at all. Except maybe she's human like the rest of us! From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:33:21 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:33:21 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. I - PS/SS (very long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114856 After reading all of these posts on Snape lately, I find myself blinking in amazement at some of the extreme responses he's garnered. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; he is a fascinating character. But, being an admitted Snape-phile, I was rather shocked to read that there were those out there who considered Snape more evil than Voldemort and hoped that he died some sort of horrible death by the end of the series. As I said, I'll admit openly to liking the character of Snape. Note, this doesn't mean I like all of his actions, nor do I want to make excuses for him. But, I did want to clarify, for myself, the things we see him do in canon. And so, in a grand effort to avoid my own work, I've gone the first book and picked out every scene with Snape. I've tried to give a short, objective summary, but then I've also included my own take on the behavior. I hope to do this with the next four books as well, time permitting. We'll see. Of course, the way I see and catalogue these scenes is based on my own vision of him as an embittered, mean man who, despite all this, could still find some redemption in the end. Naturally, there are those who disagree. But, I do hope that in future discussions of Snape, perhaps we can refer to specific canon points as evidence. How we interpret these points will lead us our conclusions. So, here it goes. All references are from American editions: PS/SS: Chapter 7, p. 126 - Harry first notices Snape, a "teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin." When Snape looks directly into Harry's eyes, Harry feels " a sharp, hot pain" shoot across his scar. Although the pain disappears quickly, Harry found it hard "to shake off ...the feeling [he'd] gotten from the teacher's look - a feeling that he didn't like Harry at all." Harry asks Percy about Snape, and he learns that Snape teaches potions, though he really wants the DADA position. As Percy puts it, Snape "knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts." Harry continues to watch Snape, but Snape doesn't look at Harry again. Chapter 7, p. 130 - Harry dreams he's wearing Quirrell's turban, and Draco Malfoy, who is laughing at him, turns into "the hook-nosed teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold - there was a burst of green light and Harry woke, sweating and shaking." So, our first intro to Snape is meant to cause suspicion, naturally. Whereas Quirrell comes off as the timid teacher, Snape appears quite evil. Of course, we later learn that appearances are deceiving, but I can't help but think that such a bad first impression (both for Harry and for us, the readers) is very difficult to overcome. Chapter 8, p. 133 - Harry and Ron discuss Snape. When Harry asks Ron what they've got on their schedule that day, Ron replies, "Double Potions with the Slytherins...Snape's head of Slytherin House. They say he always favors them - we'll be able to see if it's true." So, apparently, Snape's favoritism is not something that develops just because Harry is in Gryffindor. There is precedence for it. Makes me wonder what Snape would have done if Harry had succumbed to the sorting hat and become a Slytherin! Chapter 8, pp. 136-140 - First potions lesson. As Harry sees it, "Snape didn't dislike Harry - he hated [italics] him." When he calls Harry's name at roll call, Snape pauses and says, "Ah yes...Harry Potter. our new - celebrity [italics]." We learn that Snape's eyes "were black like Hagrid's, but they had none of Hagrid's warmth. They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels." We are also told that Snape has "the gift of keeping a class silent without effort." After Snape's infamous first-year speech, he calls on Harry, asking him about different potions ingredients. When Harry can't answer, "Snape's lips curled into a sneer." Hermione is trying to answer these questions, but Snape ignores her, instead continuing to ask Harry. When Snape says to Harry, "Thought you wouldn't open a book before coming, eh, Potter?", Harry "forced himself to keep looking straight into those cold eyes. He had[italics] looked through his books ... but did Snape expect him to remember everything ...?" When Snape asks Harry yet another question that he doesn't know the answer to, Harry responds. "'I don't know,' said Harry quietly. 'I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?' A few people laughed; Harry caught Seamus's eye, and Seamus winked. Snape, however, was not pleased." Snape then tells Hermione to put her hand down. He tells the class the answers to the questions he asked Harry, then tells them to copy down what he just said. Then, he took off one point "for your cheek, Potter." Snape then puts them into pairs and has them work on potions. "He swept around" the room "in his long black cloak," "criticizing almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like." When Neville "somehow managed to melt Seamus's cauldron into a twisted blob," Neville and Seamus's potion seeps across the floor, "burning holes in people's shoes....Neville, who had been drenched in the potion when the cauldron collapsed, moaned in pain as angry red boils sprang up all over his arms and legs." Snape calls Neville and "Idiot boy!", clears away the potion, then asks Neville if he added porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire. When Neville whimpers in response, Snape tells Seamus to take him to the hospital wing. Snape rounds on Harry and berates him for not helping Neville. He also takes away another point. "Thought he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, did you?" Snape asks Harry. Harry considers this "so unfair" that he's about to argue, but Ron stops him, muttering "I've heard Snape can turn very nasty." Harry leaves potions, "his spirits ...low. He'd lost two potions for Gryffindor in his very first week - why[italics] did Snape hate him so much?" Ron tries to cheer Harry up, saying that "Snape's always taking points off Fred and George." A few things struck me here: 1. Snape only takes of two points. This seems rather restrained, compared to what I can remember from later behavior. 2. Harry is also restrained. His response to Snape is a little cheeky, but well within the bounds of politeness. He responds "quietly" to Snape's unfair questioning. 3. Neville really was, in this case, a danger to himself and to the class. Snape was obviously pretty mean ("Idiot boy!"), but he sends him to the hospital wing fairly quickly. (A side note, not related directly to this scene: we learn, in later parts of the book, that Neville is not only bad at potions, but also at charms - a class in which Harry doesn't want to partner up with Neville because he's so bad - and flying - where he breaks his wrist.) 4. Snape is a fairly competent potions teacher, at least in this scene. He has "the gift" of keeping the class quiet ("Like McGonagall" a quote I didn't add, but is on page 136). 5. Still, he is blatantly unfair, as Ron predicted, not only calling out Harry, but also making Malfoy his teacher's pet from day one. (Some people have speculated that this is motivated by a need to keep the Malfoys believing that Snape is still loyal to Voldemort; this scene can't prove this theory one way or the other.) Ron, however, seems to think nothing of Snape's favoritism, indicating that Snape's "always taking points off Fred and George." Of course, one has to wonder what Fred and George are up to in potions! :-) Chapter 8, p. 141, 142 - Hagrid's hut. Hagrid calls Filch "that old git," but tells Harry not to worry about Snape. "Hagrid, like Ron, told Harry not to worry about it, that Snape liked hardly any of the students. 'But he seemed to really hate[italics] 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." (141) Then, as Harry leaves Hagrid's hut, he's just heard about the Gringott's break-in, and he asks himself "And did Hagrid know something about Snape that he didn't want to tell Harry?" Of course, we know that this is misdirection, to some extent. JKR wants us to associate Snape's hatred of Harry with the mystery of the Gringott's break-in, but having read later books, I'm assuming that Hagrid's failure to meet Harry's eyes has to do with the hatred between Snape and James Potter, which Hagrid would surely have known about. Still, I find this scene interesting because on JKR's site, she responded to a question about bullying by saying, go tell someone, go tell a teacher or an adult. If we see Snape's actions in this scene as bullying, Hagrid (and even Ron) don't seem to agree. Chapter 10, pp. 173, 177-178: Troll incident. As Ron and Harry make their way to the girl's bathroom to get Hermione, they see Snape, making Harry wonder why he's not with the rest of the teachers searching the dungeons. Then, after fighting the troll, Snape, McGonagall, and Quirrell come into the bathroom. Snape looks at the troll while McGonagall scolds the boys. Then "Snape gave Harry a swift, piercing look." Other than a quick reference to Hermione's lying to a teacher being as unlikely as Snape "handing out treats," Snape doesn't figure into the rest of this scene. Some have argued that Snape's piercing look was an attempt at Legilimency. Also note, Snape's bloody knee (movie contamination) isn't in this scene. Chapter 11, 181-183: The trio is outside, and they see Snape "limping" across the yard. Snape scolds Harry for having the library copy of Quidditch Through the Ages outside. He takes off five points and takes the book from Harry. Harry mutters angrily to Ron in response to Snape's actions, and Harry also wonders why Snape's limping. That evening, Harry goes to find Snape so that he can get the book back. He goes to the staffroom, and, after knocking and getting no response, decides to go inside and look for his book. "A horrible scene met his eyes.... One of [Snape's] legs was bloody and mangled. Filch was handing Snape bandages. 'Blasted thing,' Snape was saying. 'How are you supposed to keep your eyes on all three heads at once?'" Harry tries to leave the room unnoticed, but Snape catches him, screams at him to get out, and Harry runs to tell Ron and Hermione what he's seen. Ron believes Harry; Hermione is skeptical. Chapter 11, 190-191: Harry's playing his first match, broomstick goes wack. Hermione looks through binoculars, sees Snape. "He had his eyes fixed on Harry and was muttering nonstop under his breath." Hermione believes he's jinxing Harry's broom. Hermione hurries to where Snape is standing, knocking over Quirrell in the process. She sets the hem of Snape's robes on fire. Chapter 11, 192-193: In Hagrid's hut, Ron says "It was Snape." But Hagrid again replies "Rubbish." When they accuse Snape of trying to steal the PS, Hagrid again says, "Rubbish." And later, when Hermione says that she knows she's right, Hagrid says "hotly," "Snape wouldn' try an' kill a student!" Chapter 12, 194: As it nears Christmas, certain parts of Hogwarts become extremely cold: the corridors and the classrooms, but "Worst of all were Professor Snape's classes down in the dungeons, where their breath rose in a mist before them and they kept as close as possible to their hot cauldrons." I find this somewhat noteworthy because what Harry (or narrator, rather) is complaining about here is the temperature of the classroom. Also, there's a mention later about how Malfoy taunts Harry in potions class, but nothing about Snape. So, what I take from this (perhaps wrongly) is that Snape's classes are going about the same as always - he's probably continuing to show favoritism, continuing to make mean comments to Harry or Gryffindors, but not anything extreme enough to make it into the story. Chapter 12, 196: Malfoy insults Ron's family, and Ron dives at him. Snape catches them and takes 5 points away from Ron, even after Hagrid sticks up for Ron. Ron is incensed with Malfoy, and Harry says that "I hate them both ... Malfoy and Snape." Chapter 12, 207: Harry, in his invisibility cloak, is running from Filch in the Restricted Section. Harry overhears Filch tell Snape that, "You asked me to come directly to you, Professor, if anyone was wandering around at night, and somebody's been in the library - the Restricted Section." Snape goes with Filch to look for the culprit, but they pass by Harry without noticing him. I read this, combined with the scene where Filch is helping Snape bandage his knee, as Snape trying to keep an eye out for Quirrell!Mort. I do wonder, though, why he didn't go to the Hospital Wing when his knee was hurt - does he not trust Poppy Pomfrey, and if not, why does he trust Filch? Chapter 13, 216-217: brief mention of Snape, when Wood tells Quidditch team that Snape is refereeing the next match. Hermione and Ron urge Harry to get out of the match, fearing for his safety. Chapter 13, 220-221: Again, brief mention, as Harry decides to play. He says he wants to show the Slytherins that he's not too scared to face Snape. Chapter 13, 221: "Harry didn't know whether he was imagining it or not, but he seemed to keep running into Snape wherever he went. At times, he even wondered whether Snape was following him, trying to catch him on his own. Potions lessons were turning into a sort of weekly torture, Snape was so horrible to Harry. Could Snape possibly know they'd found out about the Sorcerer's Stone ... he sometimes had the horrible feeling that Snape could read minds." So, Snape is getting meaner - or being consistently mean - to Harry in class. At the same time, he's following him around, either trying to keep him from being caught by Quirrell!Mort alone, or trying to keep him from nosing around about the Stone, another surefire way to get hurt. Chapter 13, 222-224: Quidditch match where Snape is referee. Dumbledore has come to watch the game, and Harry feels confident now that he was safe from Snape. Snape "was looking so angry...'I've never seen Snape look so mean,'" Ron told Hermione. Snape awards two penalties to Hufflepuff, one because "George Weasley had hit a Bludger at him," the other "for no reason at all." Harry, searching for the snitch, almost runs into Snape, but Snape turned "just in time" to see Harry catch the Snitch, perhaps faster than anyone in school history. As the match ends, Snape lands, "white-faced and tight-lipped," and after Dumbledore congratulates Harry, "Snape spat bitterly on the ground." If James Potter was a Quidditch hero, I can imagine just how "bitterly" Snape spat! Chapter 13, 225-227: As Harry leaves the Quidditch locker room, he catches Snape sneaking off to the Forbidden Forest. Following him on his broomstick, Harry climbs into a tree and sees Quirrell and Snape talking. Snape interrogates him about the Stone and tells him, "We'll have another little chat soon, when you've had time to think things over and decided where your loyalties lie." Harry tells Ron and Hermione what he heard. This scene has led many to wonder how Snape could be a spy if Quirrell!mort knew that Snape was working against him. I have no thoughts on this, just thought I'd bring that up. Chapter 14, 228: "Snape was sweeping about in his usual bad temper, which surely meant that the Stone was still safe." Chapter 14, 232: Hagrid tells the Trio that several professors have made enchantments to protect the stone, including Snape. He rebukes them again for suspecting Snape. Harry figures that Snape must know how to get past all the enchantments except Fluffy and Quirrell's. Chapter 15, 246: Harry overhears Quirrell whimpering, "no - no - not again, please," and assumes that Snape is threatening him. He tells Ron and Hermione, and they all figure that Snape now knows how to get to the Stone. Chapter 15, 260: Harry, after detention in the Forbidden Forest, finds out from Firenze that Voldemort is probably on the rise again. He assumes that Snape is working for Voldemort and tells Ron this. Chapter 16, 262: Harry and his fellow students find classes more stressful as exams approach. Talks about their exams in Flitwick's class, McGonagall's class, then says that "Snape made them all nervous, breathing down their necks while they tried to remember how to make a Forgetfulness potion." Chapter 16, 268-269: After Harry realizes that Hagrid accidentally told the mysterious man in the cloak how to get past Fluffy, he tries to get McGonagall to do something about the Stone. After she dismisses his concerns, Snape comes up behind the trio and tells them they'd better watch their step and that if they are caught wandering around at night again, they'll be expelled. Chapter 16, 284-85: Hermione and Harry are at Snape's protection. Hermione believes this "brilliant" as it doesn't have to do with magic but with logic. Chapter 17, 288-90: Harry is in shock when he realizes that it's Quirrell, not Snape, who's been behind it all. He's especially stunned to find out that Snape wanted to save his life, not take it, during the Quidditch match. Quirrell says, "Why do you think he wanted to referee your next match? He was trying to make sure I didn't do it again ...All the other teachers thought Snape was trying to stop Gryffindor from winning, he did[italics] make himself unpopular." Also mentions that Snape tried to stop him from getting the stone during Halloween (Troll scene), and Quirrell was disappointed that Fluffy "didn't even manage to bite Snape's leg off properly." Harry tries to keep Quirrell talking, asking about the Snape's confrontation in the forest. Quirrell responds, "He suspected me all along. Tried to frighten me - as though he could, when I had Lord Voldemort on my side ..." Then Harry says, "But Snape always seemed to hate me so much." "Oh, he does," Quirrrell responds. "Heavens, yes. He was at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each other. But he never wnated you dead[italics]." That last sentence is telling, to me. For those who think Snape is worse than Voldemort, I would point to this idea: Snape hates Harry but doesn't want to kill him. It's hard to ignore the distinction JKR sets up beginning in Book 1 between Snape and Voldemort. Chapter 17, pp. 299-300: Harry asks about Snape; Dumbledore corrects him with , "Professor[italics] Snape, Harry." Harry responds with a "Yes, him - Quirrell said he hates me because he hated my father. Is that true?" Dumbledore then goes on to compare James/Snape's relationship with Harry/Draco's and says that James "did something Snape could never forgive ... He saved his life....Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt ....I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace...." So, Dumbledore shoots down (if you believe him) any abstractly noble reasons for Snape's protection of Harry. It's a truly Slytherin motive, I suppose: save Harry, pay off life debt, hate in peace. And the comparison to Draco is telling; there's been a thread about Draco's place in the story, some indication that he's no longer a true foe for Harry, not now that Voldemort has become powerful. Perhaps this quote could also suggest that Harry's struggles with Snape, while interesting, stressful, troubling, are not nearly in the same league as his struggles with Voldemort. Chapter 17, 306-307: When Dumbledore awards those last minute points, Snape shakes McGonagall's hand "with a horrible, forced smile" on his face. Then Snape catches Harry's eye, and "Harry knew at once that Snape's feelings toward him hadn't changed one jot. that didn't worry Harry." I sometimes wonder if Harry had gone up to Snape, thanked him for his help that year ... or if Dumbledore had told the story about Snape and James's relationship a little differently, if things might not have gotten so bad between Harry and Snape. It's hard to say. But I am struck by that line: "Harry knew at once that Snape's feeling toward him hadn't changed one jot. That didn't worry Harry." What about Harry's feelings toward Snape? I'm always surprised, when I read this book, that he's not a bit more graetful for Snape's behavior, or that he doesn't feel a bit ashamed about the assumptions he jumped to about Snape. I think a lot of it, actually, has to do with what he finds out from Quirrell and Dumbledore: that Snape hated/hates Harry's father. Harry is, after all, a boy, a boy who never got to know his father, who idolizes what little knowledge he has of his father (mirror, etc.). So, i can see how this piece of information, told in the way it was, would be enough to keep Harry from changing his opinion about Snape. And as for Snape changing his opinion about Harry - the boy's adventurous streak (which we all love - it's the plot, after all!) - causes Snape a great deal of trouble and confirms (perhaps unfairly) Snape's opinion that Harry is a carbon-copy of his father. So, book 1 has ended, and the feud continues, unchanged by the events of that story. And thank goodness, too, or what else would we have left to discuss? Still, at this point in the series, at least, I'm convinced that Snape is mean, unfair, but not really abusive, and certainly not evil, not in the way of Voldemort. Sophierom - who now wonders if she'll get to the other books - that took a long time! But it was kind of fun! Just don't tell my dissertation adviser I stopped doing research for a few hours to do this! :-) From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 5 17:36:39 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:36:39 -0000 Subject: JKR update re: Colin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114857 Just makes me wonder if someone else is answering for her. It seemed like something hard to forget. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hester_griffith" > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" > wrote: > > > > > > JKR's new update includes a statement about Colin Creevey having > > > never developed pictures from his camera before the exposed film > was > > > ruined from the basilisk, but if memory serves me right didn't > he > > > develop pictures of Harry and ask him to autograph them which > led to > > > further tormenting from Draco. > > > > Angie here: > I posted elsewhere before I saw this. The question was how could > Colin's camera work, being a Muggle camera and JKR said something > like, "Who said it worked?" > > Well, respectfully, she did. I remember in SS, Colin showed Harry > the pic he took with Lockhart and Harry was pleased to see that his > photographic self was putting up a fight. So, I don't understand > her comment at all. Except maybe she's human like the rest of us! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 17:47:38 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:47:38 -0000 Subject: Grand guignol endings (was Quesiton for Snapeophiles ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > > > Then again, there's this interview answer - > > > > Dateline, 2003: > > > > Q:You said when the last book came out that the death of one > > character was quote, 'the beginning of the deaths.' Yikes! > > A:Yeah, that's nice, isn't it. There's going to be a blood bath > > [laughter]. > > Q:What does that mean? > > A:It's a war. Essentially a war has broken out again and when I say the beginning of the deaths, I mean the deaths that are meaningful, I suppose, to the reader. Kneasy: > Sounds promising, but I expect it's a bit of an exaggeration. Deaths > yes, blood no. I don't see gore-splattered scenery or eviscerated > victims forming part of the canon. Though if she's seeking suggestions I'd be happy to oblige. > > 'Meaningful' - hmm, I've learned to be cautious where JKR's words are concerned; so often they are accurate but not necessarily in the way you'd expect. 'Meaningful' as in a good plot reason for the deaths, or as in characters that fans may have become attached to? Or both? > Carolyn Seems like both; more quotes FWIW: CBS News, 1999 Q: as all children's books go, most - there will be a happy ending? A: Depends on whether or not your favourite character dies because there are going to be deaths. AOL chat, 2000: Q: Will Voldemort's evil ways rise again, such as Muggle killings? A: Well, his temper hasn't exactly improved while he's been away, has it? So I think we can safely say, yes. Canadian Broadcasting Co, 2000 Q: Now that you know they expect it, do you give it to them? A: No, I decided...It's not that I sat down with a list and decided to write, 'You're going, you're going, you're going.' There are reasons for the deaths in each case, in terms of the story. So that's why I'm doing it. Q: Because it's hard to draw the line here, isn't it? Because someone could read your book and say 'well, there's murder...' A: People die, but do you care when they die? Do you absolutely have a sense of how evil it is to take another person's life? Yes, I think in my book you do. I think you do. I think you see that is a horrific thing. I have enormous respect for human life. I do not think that you would read either of the deaths in that book and think, yeah, well, he's gone, off we go. Not at all. I think it's very clear where my sympathies lie. And here we are dealing with someone, I'm dealing with a villain who does hold human life incredibly cheap. That's how it happens: one squeeze of the trigger. Gone. Forever. That's evil. It's a terrible, terrible thing but you're right, I know where I draw the line. Other people will draw the line in a different place and they will disagree with me. Q:It seems like almost through your books you miss your mom and you're dealing with that conversation like Harry, just seeing the shadow but it can never come back. A:Dealing with bereavement is a strong part of the books. Dealing with loss. Yes. (snip) But it's a strong central theme - dealing with death, yeah, and facing up to death. Kneasy: > Throw in a couple of Weasleys, Luna (please!), Draco, a handful of > Aurors, plus a few assorted DEs and it could all be very entertaining. > Carolyn: Well, since we appear to have maternal death theme emerging, and she's apparently given it all a lot of thought, lets hope Molly Weasley is included in the roll call. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:51:39 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:51:39 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114859 Alla asked : "Dell, could you please, please, tell me what your definition of compassion is? I honestly want to know. As some people on the list know I start getting frustrated when I don't understand where other person is coming from and I often don't understand where you are coming from. So, please help me. I am not being sarcastic. To me desire to save people is ALWAYS a good thing and often equals compassion." Del replies : Thefreedictionary.com gave me those 2 definitions which are fine IMO : "a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering" "the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it " To me, compassion has to do with relating to the *suffering* of others. It's not about how horrible their circumstances are, it's not about whether their life is in danger, it's not even about whether they have a valid reason to suffer : it's about recognising that someone is suffering, validating that pain, and wanting to do something about it. That's why to me, wanting to save people and having compassion for them are not necessarily the same thing, and can even be at odds with each other. Wanting to save someone when that person is looking forward to dying because they are in too much pain, is not having compassion on them IMO. Even wanting to save someone just for the sake of saving them, without giving a care about what they feel and want, is not having compassion on them. On the other hand, putting an end to someone's suffering can be the most compassionate thing to do (but let's not get into an euthanasia debate, because I believe it could be acceptable only in very very specific situations and under drastic circumstances). For example, when my cat contracted a liver disease and started dying slowly in painful conditions, my heart went out to him, and I had him put to sleep. I didn't want to lose him, I would have given anything to keep him a bit longer (and I could have, because he could have lived several weeks longer if I had decided to submit him to a drastic treatment), but I realised and felt how much he was suffering, that his pain would only get worse, and that there was no hope of curing him. So I did what seemed best to me for him, which was putting an end to his suffering rather than keeping him alive. Alla wrote : " Harry only HEARS about Parvati telling Lavender "that Hermione was crying in the girls' bathroom and wanted to be left alone" - PS/SS, p.172, paperback, on their way to the Feast. When Hermione is absent from class, Harry does not know she i. She is not his close friend or even acquintance yet. Why is he supposed to be worried?" Del replies : He's not supposed to be worried, but if he was truly compassionate, he would *care*. I would. I did, in RL. When I hear that someone is obviously in some kind of pain, I can't help but care. In Harry's place, the Feast food would taste quite bitter to me, knowing that someone is crying her heart out in a bathroom. I might not actually *do* anything about it, because I don't always know what to do and I'm afraid of people's reactions, but I would *care*, I'd be sad for that person, it would spoil my own pleasure quite a bit. Alla wrote : " So, on his way to the feast Harry hears that Hermione was crying and at the feast Quirrel tells about Hermione and Harry rushes to help. Why is it not compassionate? Was he not supposed to help her?" Del replies : It's not compassionate because Harry didn't do it to alleviate Hermione's pain. Hermione's *life* came into the equation, but never Hermione's *pain*. But don't get me wrong : just because it wasn't done out of compassion doesn't mean it's a bad thing ! Of course not !! Compassion doesn't have to be the motive behind our every act. It's not in that case IMO, but that doesn't take anything away from the goodness of Harry's motive. Oh, and by the way, no he was not supposed to go to Hermione's help :-) It was a heroic thing to do, and he is to be admired for doing it, but he was not *supposed* to do it. It would have been perfectly acceptable if he hadn't done it. Alla wrote (about Ginny being taken to the CoS) : "Same question. How do you know that Harry does not care about Ron and Percy's pain?" Del replies : Because he tells us so. He does notice that Ron crumbles when learning about Ginny's abduction, and that Percy is in shock, but we are not told that his own heart goes out to them for that. He doesn't decide to go and rescue Ginny in order to alleviate the Weasleys' pain, but because he wants to save Ginny's life. Once again, the pain of other people, and the desire to reduce it, don't count in Harry's decision. It's only the fact that a life is at stake that matters. This is heroism, not compassion. It's just as good, but it's not the same thing. Alla wrote, about the Second Task : " Contradiction, Del. First you say that Harry does not care about girls dying and then you cite his "I don't want them to die"" Del replies : ?? Sorry, I don't follow you. What I said is that Harry cares about the girls dying, not about what their dying would do to other people. He cares about lives being at risk, not about any kind of pain anyone could feel. And where there's no care for pain, there can't be compassion, since compassion is *precisely* caring for someone's pain. Alla wrote : " Harry did not have much time to think to figure out that girls are not really going to die and judges actually recognised that." Del replies : Both Cedric and Viktor figured it out, though. Do you mean to say that they didn't care if the other hostages died ? I don't think so. They were both decent boys. If they had had any doubt that the hostages' lives were actually in danger, they would have helped Harry fight the Merpeople. Alla wrote : "Besides, what do you mean Dumbledore does not want contestants and other participants to die? Of course, he does not, but it does not mean that they cannot. Remember "the death toll mounted so high that the tournament was dsicontinued" - GoF, p.187, paperback. Yes, I'd say it was pretty reasonable of Harry to think that girls faced REAL danger" Del replies : No, I'm sorry, but it was completely unreasonable. Yes, the death toll had been terrible in the previous Tournaments, but that's precisely what DD wanted to avoid by creating the age limit. Moreover, the hostages were NOT participants ! They had not volunteered for that job, they had signed no contract, and they had no say in their own fate. So it is only logical that if DD would do his best to keep the volunteering contestants from serious harm, he would not even think of putting anyone else in a potentially dangerous situation. Especially not a foreign 8-year-old little girl !! Alla wrote : "I LOVE Harry's "saving people thing". Actually, I would simply call it being a hero" Del replies : And that's EXACTLY what it is !! It is heroism. It's not compassion. Harry wants to save lives, he doesn't want to relieve suffering. He doesn't suffer people's pain, and then wonder what could help them best. He only wants to take them out of the situation they are in, which is not necessarily the best thing to do. Let's take an hypothetic example. Let's imagine a kid living with his alcoholic mom. She doesn't physically harm him, but she doesn't take a good care of him either, and he's suffering emotionally because of that. A hero who would come to this house and see the harsh physical conditions the little boy is living in, would consider it his duty to make sure that this little boy is taken away from his mother. He would send him into foster care, which would only enhance the kid's suffering. But the hero would be satisfied that he's done his duty. On the other hand, a compassionate person would rightly identify the boy's main problem being his lack of emotional relationship with his mother, he would feel the little boy's pain at not being taken care of by his mother. He would also identify the mother's problem, the reason she's an alcoholic. And he would work on improving the boy-mother's relationship, on getting them closer to each other, at least emotionally. If the circumstances forced him to send the boy into foster care, he would recognise the boy's enhanced pain, and he would do everything in his power to reduce it, by arranging visiting as often as possible for example. Do you see the difference ? Del From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 5 19:08:44 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:08:44 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114860 Del wrote: > There seems to be a general agreement that Harry is very > compassionate. That has always troubled me, because I just don't seethat. What I see is what Hermione saw : Harry has a saving people thing. > > Let's take a few examples. > > In PS/SS, Harry doesn't care much when Hermione breaks down after > hearing Ron's hurtful comment about her. She doesn't show up for theHalloween Feast, but so what ? He knows she's crying in the toilets,but he doesn't care about going to get her and making her come to theFeast. But then suddenly she's in danger of being killed by the Troll,and *then* he cares. > > In CoS, Harry doesn't care much about Ginny looking pale, sick and > troubled. She obviously wants to talk to someone, but Harry doesn't > care about getting her in a quiet place and asking her what's > bothering her. But then suddenly she's taken to the Chamber of > Secrets, and *then* he cares. But what does he care about, exactly ?Does he care about Ron and Percy's obvious pain ? No. Does he careabout Ginny's emotional well-being after the ordeal is over ? No. The *only* thing he cares about, and he tells us so, is that she might die. > > Let's take another example in GoF. The Second Task. Harry gets to theMerpeople town, and finds the hostages. He then decides to wait to > make sure they are all rescued. But *why* does he do that ? Does he > care about the people who would get hurt if Cho, Hermione and > Gabrielle died ? NO ! In fact, if he did think of them, he would > realise that there's no way the hostages are going to be let to die ifthey are not rescued. DD made it very clear that he didn't want anyplayer in the TWT to die, so why would he allow *innocent* people whonever asked to be part of the show to die ?? But no Harry doesn'tthink about that, he's only obsessed with one thing, and once again hetells us so : "I don't want them to die !". > > And finally let's skip to the end of OoP, and the infamous Sirius > dream. Harry wants to go to the DoM, but why ? Once again he tells usso : he doesn't want Sirius to *die*. Sure, he's bothered by Sirius > being tortured, but this is not his *primary* concern. He doesn't wantto end Sirius's pain, he wants to prevent him from dying. > > > First, there's the Forbidden Forest incident in CoS. Ron is > arachnophobic, and yet Harry drags him in the FF in the pursuit of > spiders. > What makes Harry save people is not compassion, it's his saving- peoplecomplex, which not only is not based on compassion, but quite >often goes against what compassion would recommend. Hannah replies: Wow, Del, interesting post. I don't entirely agree, though I think you say some very perceptive things about compassion in this post and your response to Alla's. Harry is a teenager - in the first book, he's only just 11. He isn't terribly perceptive about people's emotions and finds it quite hard to relate to people emotionally. This is understandable, given his loveless upbringing, and his age. I don't think he's exactly uncaring, he's just got a lot going on in his mind and is a bit unobservant about peoples' feelings. I know what you mean about his 'saving people thing' but bear in mind the actual circumstances in each of the examples you cite. Rescuing Hermione from the troll - he had no idea they'd actually encouter the troll, he thought it was in the dungeons. He and Ron went to *warn* Hermione to get back to the common room. In CoS, he went to tell Lockhart what he'd found out about the Chamber, thinking Lockhart was about to set out on a rescue mission. He didn't set out to rescue Ginny himself, then events took over. In GoF 2nd task, Harry's crime is not incompassion, it's just not thinking things through. As Ron says, he's a bit dim for not realising there's no danger, but that's not the same as lacking compassion. He's in a pressurised situation, he's not in a postion to sit and analyse the emotional consequences for those who know the hostages. And in OotP, he doesn't just race off to rescue Sirius. He tries to find out if he's at home, and is told that *no one* is there. He goes to the hospital wing to alert McGonagall, and finds she's gone. He tries to tell Snape, and appears to be ignored/ misunderstood. He is left feeling that his only option is to go himself. I think what makes Harry save people is a complicated mixture of things, partly compassion, partly (in later books) a sense that it is somehow his role to save people (a 'saving people thing'), but mostly circumstance. I liked your examples about sometimes it being more compassionate *not* to save someone, but I would argue that Harry has not ever been in such a situation. All of the people he saved/ tried to save, needed saving. It wouldn't have been kinder to let Ginny die, or Hermione get clubbed by the troll, or to leave Sirius to be tortured to death, or to leave Cho, Hermione and Gabrielle to drown (as he thought). Is Harry compassionate? I would agree that it's not a major character trait of his. But OTOH I don't think he's incompassionate. He can be thoughtless, and insensitive, but since he's very young, is shown very little compassion by others, and has a lot to think about, I think we can forgive him. He does care about people, even if he doesn't always know how to show it. He'll get to be compassionate as he grows up and becomes more emotionally mature. Hannah From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 19:09:43 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:09:43 -0000 Subject: Occlumency questions/LV 's plans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114861 Warning: a heavy slog through canon ahead! > Dungrollin: > You appear to think that Dumbledore knew that LV realised Harry was > intruding into his mind just from how *Harry* changed. Annemehr: Well, yes, I admit I... well, I just took Dumbledore's word for it (foolish as I am). Having actually thought about it, I still believe it would have been enough, whether or not Dumbledore also had other sources of information. Dumbledore told Harry that he'd *seen* LV stir behind Harry's eyes when they'd had close contact, and these were just the two and only times Harry felt snaky urges against him. It must have been an obvious signal to Dumbledore that something had changed, that LV was getting to Harry. A good general would, of course, seek confirmation through other channels, though! Dungrollin: Well, > I'll admit is a possibility. But surely we can come up with > something more interesting... Annemehr: I thought Harry wanting to bite Dumbledore was interesting... :P Dungrollin: > I was more inclined to theorise about Snape and Dumbledore and the > Order and the spying on the DEs. All we get from the conversation at > St. Mungo's overheard on the old extendables is suspicions, > nobody appears to know anything for certain. In the first > Occlumency lesson Snape says `It seems so' in response to > Harry's question about whether LV realised Harry was reading his > thoughts. Then (possibly to avoid answering any more questions) he > says `It is enough that we know' which sounds a lot more > certain than previously. Annemehr: True. I would have no problem believing that Dumbledore had not yet shared everything he knows, or feels nearly certain of, with the rest of the Order by the time of that St. Mungo's visit, so I'm not sure if their uncertainty is any reflection on Dumbledore's thoughts at that time (and plot-wise, it gives Harry just a *little* information). Snape's repressive comment, and also Lupin's and Sirius' alarm when they learned the lessons had stopped, seem to prove the Order eventually did know what was at stake. Dungrollin: > > Dumbledore seems to have been waiting for this to happen (according > to Molly in St. Mungo's. And we know all about this damn > connection between Harry and LV in GoF. So why on earth didn't > he start with the Occlumency lessons in September? Why wait until > after Christmas? The decision to teach Harry Occlumency can't be > a result of Dumbledore's suspicions after snake.vs.Weasly, because > Dumbledore was already suspicious, and the Order take Dumbledore's > suspicions seriously (Lupin: `Dumbledore's got a shrewd > idea,' said Lupin, `and Dumbledore's shrewd ideas > normally turn out to be accurate' ? OotP, chapter 5.) What > new piece of information made him realise that LV *knew* Harry was > seeing into his thoughts, and where did it come from? Annemehr: First, Lupin's remark. *Dumbledore's* got a shrewd idea of what LV is planning -- not "we," but Dumbledore. Are you as suspicious as I am that Dumbledore is keeping a lot of things from the Order, and that they are at least partly just following orders? Do you think they know what the prophecy actually says, for instance? On the other hand, they have frequent meetings, and Snape gives detailed, important reports of ...whatever he's doing (like you, I was hoping it wasn't merely spying again). I'm just wondering, if DD dies, how much crucial info dies with him? Most interesting is what Dumbledore knows about this scar connection, and how. This knowledge he has seems to be guiding his whole strategy that year. What's he said about it so far in the books? It begins at the very beginning: PS/SS: ~Dumbledore says scars can be useful, and he wouldn't get rid of Harry's even if he could. CoS: ~If DD's not mistaken, LV gave Harry some of his powers when he gave him the scar. He agrees with Harry's "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" GoF: ~DD knows about Harry's dreams. ~DD explains to Fudge that he believes Harry's scar hurts him when LV is near him, or when he feels a particularly strong surge of hatred. OoP: ~Suddenly, the silent treatment. ~At the end, DD explains that he had guessed fifteen years before that the scar was a sign of a connection between H and LV, that the scar pains beginning in PS/SS confirmed it for him, and that LV would eventually realise the connection and try to use it against Harry. (OoP UK p728 & p 729) So Dumbledore knew, or strongly suspected, a *lot* about that scar connection from the very beginning. How does he know all this? From studying the AK survivors, the saved-by-mother's-ancient-magic children, of the past? According to everyone else, there aren't any! Dumbledore seems to imply it was part of the prophecy that was the source of his knowledge: "[The eavesdropper] only heard the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as his equal. ..." -- OoP ch.37 (UK p. 743) How did Dumbledore come to that conclusion? Would "mark him as his equal" mean something to a wizard that we Muggles don't know about? Now, what about the timing of what Dumbledore does and doesn't do? I'm thinking, in hindsight, that the escape of Wormtail should have signalled DD that it was time to start preparing Harry more -- tell him the prophecy, and maybe begin Occlumency (not a ridiculous idea, for a boy who'd just learned to conjure a serious Patronus). The only trouble was, it was the end of term. He could have told him the prophecy, I suppose, and then sent him to Privet Drive, but he may have convinced himself to wait until next term. The next term, of course, saw Harry dragged into the Triwizard Tournament. Did DD then drop any other plans (if he had any) in favor of getting Harry through the TT alive first? So, Harry did make it through alive, just barely... And now Voldemort is back, in his body, in Britain. Dumbledore talks to Harry that night for the last time in a long time. Apparently, this knowledge of the scar connection that DD has always seemed to have is telling him that a reembodied LV means danger that LV will begin to read Harry's thoughts -- it's mostly just a question of when. I guess DD had a choice between telling and teaching Harry things right away, to prepare him, or keeping Harry in the dark and cut off from DD himself, for Harry's safety. We know what DD chose, and I suppose that *not* having Snape teach Occlumency in September, which would have "opened [Harry's] mind even further to Voldemort," (OoP UK p734) was part of that protecting-Harry mode. Occlumency lessons, before Harry managed to master the skill, may have helped LV realise the connection even sooner than he did. Once LV had realised the connection, the plan changed and the lessons were on. I think. Now I just want to know what's to stop Voldemort from sending a hit-wizard in an invisibility cloak to Privet Drive to pick Harry off with an AK? 'Cause I don't understand that blood protection thing at all -- does the magic *know* whether an attacker is from Voldemort or not? Annemehr From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 19:25:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:25:00 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114862 > Del replies : > Thefreedictionary.com gave me those 2 definitions which are fine IMO : > "a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering" > "the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and > wanting to do something about it " > > To me, compassion has to do with relating to the *suffering* of > others. It's not about how horrible their circumstances are, it's not > about whether their life is in danger, it's not even about whether > they have a valid reason to suffer : it's about recognising that > someone is suffering, validating that pain, and wanting to do > something about it. Alla: OK, thank you. All people that Harry saved NEEDED saving as Hanna said, so I don't understand why it wasn not compassionate to save them. Ginny did NOT want to die in Chamber, Hermione would not be able to manage to save herself from troll, etc. Harry was reliving their suffering, was he not? Del: > Wanting to save someone when that person is looking > forward to dying because they are in too much pain, is not having > compassion on them IMO. Even wanting to save someone just for the sake > of saving them, without giving a care about what they feel and want, > is not having compassion on them. Alla: But that is not applicable here. As I said none of them wanted to die. As to giving all the care they need, I think you are being too hard on Harry. he really is trying to help people around him. He scres up sometimes, but he tries and that is enough for me. As he grews up he manages to do better and better, IMO> >> Del replies : > He's not supposed to be worried, but if he was truly compassionate, he > would *care*. I would. I did, in RL. When I hear that someone is > obviously in some kind of pain, I can't help but care. In Harry's > place, the Feast food would taste quite bitter to me, knowing that > someone is crying her heart out in a bathroom. I might not actually > *do* anything about it, because I don't always know what to do and I'm > afraid of people's reactions, but I would *care*, I'd be sad for that > person, it would spoil my own pleasure quite a bit. Alla: But he did not have TIME to digest the news yet, Dell. I as only asking why he was supposed to care when hermione was simply missing, when he did not know yet that she was crying. Two things happened fast together. I think Harry did care. > Del replies : > It's not compassionate because Harry didn't do it to alleviate > Hermione's pain. Hermione's *life* came into the equation, but never > Hermione's *pain*. Alla: How do you know that? I think it is reasonable to assume that hermione was afraid of the troll, so she was in pain. > Del replies : > He cares about lives being at risk, not about any kind of pain anyone > could feel. And where there's no care for pain, there can't be > compassion, since compassion is *precisely* caring for someone's pain. Alla: Well, I think he cared about the kind of pain people around those girls would feel if they DID die. I think ti was a very compassionate thing to do. We obviously differ on that one. > > Del replies : > And that's EXACTLY what it is !! It is heroism. It's not compassion. > Harry wants to save lives, he doesn't want to relieve suffering. He > doesn't suffer people's pain, and then wonder what could help them > best. He only wants to take them out of the situation they are in, > which is not necessarily the best thing to do. Alla: Sorry, Del , but you are trying to take away from Harry's character the trait I love him the most for. So, I have to dissent respectfully. Let's not talk in hypotheticals. Please give me ONE example from the books when saving people Harry tried to save was NOT the best thing to do (Please don't include Sirius, because that was TRICK from the beginning. Harry did not know that. ) > From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Tue Oct 5 19:27:15 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:27:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114863 Hannah wrote: Harry is a teenager - in the first book, he's only just 11. He isn't terribly perceptive about people's emotions and finds it quite hard to relate to people emotionally. This is understandable, given his loveless upbringing, and his age. I don't think he's exactly uncaring, he's just got a lot going on in his mind and is a bit unobservant about peoples' feelings. Lady Macbeth replies: And age 10-11 is when, according to Sociology standards, children are supposed to be entering this phase of understanding - compassion - in being able to identify with the feelings of others. It's why we have to tell TODDLERS things like, "How would you feel if she hit you?" or "How would you feel if someone broke YOUR toy?" Age 5-10, while they're in elementary school, comprises development of this skill - it's generally accepted that by age 11, they should be starting to hone that skill, not just beginning to learn it. Hannah wrote: He and Ron went to *warn* Hermione to get back to the common room. In CoS, he went to tell Lockhart what he'd found out about the Chamber, thinking Lockhart was about to set out on a rescue mission. He's in a pressurised situation, he's not in a postion to sit and analyse the emotional consequences for those who know the hostages. And in OotP, he doesn't just race off to rescue Sirius. He tries to find out if he's at home, and is told that *no one* is there. He goes to the hospital wing to alert McGonagall, and finds she's gone. He tries to tell Snape, and appears to be ignored/ misunderstood. Lady Macbeth replies: And in each case, the "logic" region of the adolescent brain took over, responding to the logical way of solving the situation - "if no one else will solve it, I will". As he gets increasingly older, he increasingly turns to others, but in the end he continues emotionlessly down the path of logic - it's another of the ways that the Voldemort the wizarding world remembers and Harry are alike - cold, logical steps rather than considering the emotional state of the others involved. (We see emotion starting to conflict with Voldemort as the books progress - this is an interesting twist in the comparison, but better left for a different discussion.) Hannah wrote: Is Harry compassionate? I would agree that it's not a major character trait of his. But OTOH I don't think he's incompassionate. He can be thoughtless, and insensitive, but since he's very young, is shown very little compassion by others, and has a lot to think about, I think we can forgive him. He does care about people, even if he doesn't always know how to show it. He'll get to be compassionate as he grows up and becomes more emotionally mature. Lady Macbeth replies: He's 15 going on 16 at the end of OotP - he should be MASTERING the skills of compassion (developmentally) rather than just starting to learn them. Yes, he has a lot of other things to think about - but so do the other characters. Harry himself forgets that when he goes off about what he sees as a flaw in one of them. His irritation with Ron's complaints about money, his anger at Percy's "betrayal", the absolute ANGER he displayed toward Hermione when she even SUGGESTED he had a "saving people thing" - those are just a few examples of his not considering the background of the people he's talking to. Yes, some of it he doesn't know. Some of it he has no experience with. But a truly compassionate person would take the time to get to know others, instead of knowing what's on the surface of their personas. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 5 19:27:41 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:27:41 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114864 > Valky: > That's not fair Casey! Harry *really* did want to acknowledge what Snape did. He *was* grateful, but Snape never exactly gave him the chance to show it. > The next time Harry sees Snape after he discovers that Snape saved him their eyes meet and Harry *knows* Snape still hates him as much as ever so he keeps his distance. < Can I just say this is something that really annoys me about Harry? I love him, honestly, and I really do like him much better as a person, though not as character, than I like Snape but really...I'm fifty-two years old. I've met a lot of good people and a lot of people who had, shall we say, a whole lot of room for improvement. But I've never met *anybody* I could size up in a single look. Pippin From steve51445 at adelphia.net Tue Oct 5 19:33:30 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:33:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Quidditch "potentially lethal?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041005193336.KMJO15118.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 114865 Steve wrote : " WW medicine, and wizard 'hardiness' (Neville's bouncing after being thrown out the window) make for the lack of fatalities in quidditch." Del replies : No fatalities in Quidditch ? I can't find any reference right now, but I think I remember reading that this isn't exactly true. Steve here: I can't find the references either, but I phrased it wrong. I meant not a total lack of fatalities, but relatively few compared to the dangerous nature of the sport. Anyone can die at any time doing anything. The WW medicine and hardiness would probably make quidditch as dangerous for wizards as muggle sports are to us. Sure people die playing football, hockey, and the like, but the numbers are low enough that I wouldn't classify them as dangerous. Cheers, Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 5 19:45:04 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:45:04 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114866 > > Valky wrote: > > That's not fair Casey! Harry *really* did want to acknowledge > what Snape did. He *was* grateful, but Snape never exactly gave > him the chance to show it. > > The next time Harry sees Snape after he discovers that Snape > saved him their eyes meet and Harry *knows* Snape still hates > him as much as ever so he keeps his distance. < > Hannah: Did he want to acknowledge it? Was he grateful? I don't know that he was, particularly. I don't think it really says that in canon. I blame DD, for giving Harry the 'your father saved his life' spiel, since that maybe gave Harry the idea that there was no need to be grateful to Snape, since he'd just been the means of evening up an old score (and bear in mind, Snape has gone on protecting Harry since then, so I doubt that wanting to 'pay James back' was all that was behind his rescue). I was surprised that no adult suggested to Harry that he should thank Snape. It's the sort of thing adults are usually pretty hot on. Why didn't McGonagall draw him to one side and say 'Potter, I think perhaps a note to Professor Snape might be courteous...' I can understand that Harry didn't want to go up to Snape personally and had no opportunity to do so. But couldn't he have just written something? Would Snape have treated it with utter contempt? Maybe. But perhaps it would have slightly improved Snape's opinion of Harry and had a postitive effect on their future relationship. Perhaps. Or is just wishful thinking from an ever hopeful Snape-o- phile? Hannah From drliss at comcast.net Tue Oct 5 19:56:42 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:56:42 +0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius (& Lupin) Message-ID: <100520041956.16614.4162FC79000A3AE8000040E622007481849C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114867 SSSusan: I keep waiting for Pippin to comment on JKR's use of the words "seems much older and more mature" [emphasis on "seems"]. I adore Lupin; he's one of my 3 or 4 absolute favorite characters, so I don't *want* to be suspicious of him, but I couldn't help but point out that she didn't say he IS more mature; only that he "seems" so. :-) Lissa: Actually, I've been thinking about that myself. Of course, I'm polar opposite from Pippin, and don't think that Lupin is remotely evil. However, I don't think he's as mature as he appears to be, either. Sirius and Remus are very much the yin and the yang of each other. It's one of the reasons I think they're good friends (and I think they work together so well as a ship). Where Sirius is reckless, Remus is cautious. Where Sirius is impulsive, Remus will stop and think. Where Sirius is quick to make things black and white, Remus is more willing to look at shades of grey. But where Sirius is willing to open his heart up and give affection freely, Remus is not. They aren't complete polar opposites, mind you. (I wouldn't say Remus isn't loyal, because he's sure one heck of a loyal friend to Sirius, to believe him after all those years. And he's certainly got guts.) But they do complement each other, not only in their strengths but their weaknesses. Sirius's life stopped at 22, but Remus's life did too, in a way. He wasn't shut up in Azkaban, but he lost his best friends and was condemned to 12 years pretty much alone, from what it sounds like from the little description we get. Remus seems to have pretty much closed off during those 12 years. When we meet him in PoA, he's polite, pleasent, and kind, but he makes no real effort to get close to Harry. Harry's the one who begs Remus to teach him the Patronus charm, and Remus certainly isn't volunteering information about Harry's parents. He's got to know that he's the strongest link Harry's got to his dad, and he does nothing about it. And while he cares for Harry, he certainly keeps his distance! (I mean, he could have at least sent a Christmas card in GOF) It's completely understandable- Remus has been badly hurt in his life and it makes sense for him to close off. But mature? Not really. It might seem that way; in fact, he can ascribe very noble reasons to it, if he so chooses. "I'm not getting close to Harry because I don't want to interfere with his relationship with Sirius." "I'm not getting close to Harry because he's my pupil and it's not appropriate." But I think the truth is Remus isn't getting close to Harry because he's not letting ANYONE get close to him, and not letting himself get close to anyone else. Hard to say because we only really know for sure about Harry (and it does seem like he is emotionally close to Sirius), but that's my take on it. So, I think "seems" more mature is probably a good description- even for Lupinites! Oh! Also, must say this: this member of Immeritus wasn't sharpening her knife ;) I was delighted she expounded more on Sirius, but I think I knew all that already anyway. Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 19:59:49 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:59:49 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114868 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > I've been thinking about that one for a while. > > There seems to be a general agreement that Harry is very > compassionate. That has always troubled me, because I just don't see > that. What I see is what Hermione saw : Harry has a saving people thing. > > Let's take a few examples. Annemehr: Well, you know me, we've tried to hash this out before -- and we could argue back and forth about whether Harry cares about peoples' pain, whether the narrator is sufficiently identified with Harry's POV to be taken as an indication of Harry's notice and concern, about how much a British schoolboy might be expected to go and ask people about their feelings, or whether he minds his own business, so to speak, until the stakes are high enough. I'd point out, among other things, that once Ginny was safely out of the Chamber, Harry cared about whether or not she got into trouble. Then we'd agree to disagree! ;) I did think of one example of Harry's compassion, with no question of life or death involved: when Harry met Neville on the Closed Ward. We're familiar with the scene, so I'll just pick out a few phrases: [Harry] cast around wildly for some means of distracting the others so that Neville could leave the ward unnoticed and unquestioned...Harry wanted to stamp on Ron's foot, but that sort of thing is much harder to bring off unnoticed when you're wearing jeans rather than robes...Neville looked around at the others, his expression defiant, as though daring them to laugh, but Harry did not think he'd ever found anything less funny in his life. (OoP, end of ch. 23) What about situations where there's no question of Harry doing any saving, whether or not life and death is involved? At the Burrow in GoF, he was startled to find out what Splinching was, and immediatedly asked whether the people were okay. Later, after seeing Dumbledore's pensieve, he spent a sleepless night thinking about what had happened to the Longbottoms and Barty Crouch Jr. (yes, I noticed that Harry didn't change his behavior toward Neville after that, and wondered why -- I might put it down to Harry's reserve, and note that he certainly did *care,* whether or not he felt there was anything he could do about it). After seeing Moody's photo of the old Order, Harry was horrified that so many of them had died shortly after -- is this compassion, or just a saving-people-thing frustrated? If *all* Harry could care about was just saving those people, and there's no saving to be done, I wouldn't think he would have felt anything at all, so I put his feelings down to compassion. I can believe, compassion *and* a saving-people thing, but I can't believe Harry has no compassion. Annemehr From nessaaldarion at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 11:29:17 2004 From: nessaaldarion at yahoo.com (laura) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:29:17 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > Well, the problem with this is that JKR has said clearly that Petunia > is a *Muggle* Which means she is definitely *not* a half-blood, a > witch, or a squib. This took place at the Edinburgh Book Fair, where > she said "Petunia is a Muggle, but..." now nessa It's already accepted that 'choice' is a major theme in the HP books. I believe that while Petunia is in fact a witch, she *chooses* to be a muggle, for whatever reason, so that JKR's quote would read, should she finish the sentence: "Petunia is a Muggle, but... **has magical powers**" I may be (probably am) incorrect, but JKR has never said that being magical excludes one from being a muggle. Witches and Wizards can't comprehend an individual not wanting, or not wanting to use, the powers given to them. They imagine that *every* magical individual would use the powers given to them, and gladly. The point I'm trying to make, very inarticulately, is that, Petunia doesn't use her powers, therefore is a muggle. nessa xxx From melclaros at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:04:44 2004 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:04:44 -0000 Subject: Why the dismay from JKR? (Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114870 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" wrote: > Like she said- it's the bad boy syndrome. Extremely exciting and > always ends in disaster and it makes no sense. Not with Snape it's not. If anyone fits the "Bad Boy" profile it's Sirius and she has no problem with his 'fandom'. I have a sneaking suspicion that JKR's objection to Snape Fans (who are not the same thing as Rickman-transferance victims) is that she's annoyed that we've discovered redeeming qualities in this nasty character before she was willing to let on that there are some. He is, indeed, a gift of a character. From entropymail at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:12:19 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:12:19 -0000 Subject: The other 'interesting' answer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > So can anyone remember what the third question was, and what do > > people think the 'interesting' answer might have been? > > It was questioning the whereabouts of Pettigrew in book 5 IIRC, and > it was the one I voted for. Kneasy: > Since the rat doesn't do anything on his own initiative these days I > thought it might be vaguely interesting to find out what he'd been > sent off to do. If, as you surmise the answer really is "interesting" > then she's pulled a fast one on us - because I can't find any clues > anywhere. Entropy : (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were shaped like serpents." Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld Place! Now that would be interesting! :: Entropy :: From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:14:18 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:14:18 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lady Macbeth" wrote: > Hannah wrote: > > Harry is a teenager - in the first book, he's only just 11. He > isn't terribly perceptive about people's emotions and finds it quite > hard to relate to people emotionally. This is understandable, given > his loveless upbringing, and his age. I don't think he's exactly > uncaring, he's just got a lot going on in his mind and is a bit > unobservant about peoples' feelings. > > Lady Macbeth replies: > > And age 10-11 is when, according to Sociology standards, children are > supposed to be entering this phase of understanding - compassion - in being > able to identify with the feelings of others. It's why we have to tell > TODDLERS things like, "How would you feel if she hit you?" or "How would you > feel if someone broke YOUR toy?" Age 5-10, while they're in elementary > school, comprises development of this skill - it's generally accepted that > by age 11, they should be starting to hone that skill, not just beginning to > learn it. Annemehr: But what about Hannah's point about Harry's upbringing? What sorts of things do you imagine *Harry* was told as a toddler? Or Dudley, for that matter? At primary school, where Harry had no friends, there was still no opportunity to learn social interaction, let alone develop any fledgling insights into the feelings of others. Dudley and the gang kept him isolated there. After starting Hogwarts, Harry is playing catch-up as far as learning how to deal with others. Just *sharing* some treats with a friend during his first ride on the Hogwarts Express was an entirely novel experience for him, after all. Annemehr From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Tue Oct 5 20:23:41 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:23:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114873 Annemehr: But what about Hannah's point about Harry's upbringing? What sorts of things do you imagine *Harry* was told as a toddler? Or Dudley, for that matter? At primary school, where Harry had no friends, there was still no opportunity to learn social interaction, let alone develop any fledgling insights into the feelings of others. Dudley and the gang kept him isolated there. After starting Hogwarts, Harry is playing catch-up as far as learning how to deal with others. Just *sharing* some treats with a friend during his first ride on the Hogwarts Express was an entirely novel experience for him, after all. Lady Macbeth replies: THANK YOU. I had read Hannah's point about Harry's upbringing, but it was increasingly being ignored in this thread. That's why I pointed out again that he is FAR BEHIND his peers in learning and using compassion - thus, even though he has moments of it, it is not what primarily motivates him. He is still running primarily off of his learned understanding of "right" and "wrong" - that's why he tends to see people two-dimensionally as well. McGonagall's all good, Snape's all bad, Sirius is all awesome, Hermione's all bookish, etc - no matter what any of them do to suggest otherwise. When Sirius lashes out at Kreacher, it's obviously Kreacher's fault. When Snape does something seemingly nice or responsible, it's because Dumbledore told him to, when McGonagall's snippy with someone, it's that someone's fault. I expect that over the course of the next couple of books, Harry's 2-D world is going to be shaken very violently, and he's going to be forced to do this "catch-up" in a very short amount of time. That's why it's important that instead of defending Harry's behavior it simply be UNDERSTOOD - because I think fans are going to be in for a radical change in him before all is said and done. The "angry teenager" of OotP is just the tip of the iceberg. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:35:54 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:35:54 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114874 Hannah wrote: "Is Harry compassionate? I would agree that it's not a major character trait of his. But OTOH I don't think he's incompassionate. He can be thoughtless, and insensitive, but since he's very young, is shown very little compassion by others, and has a lot to think about, I think we can forgive him. He does care about people, even if he doesn't always know how to show it. He'll get to be compassionate as he grows up and becomes more emotionally mature." Lady Macbeth replied : " He's 15 going on 16 at the end of OotP - he should be MASTERING the skills of compassion (developmentally) rather than just starting to learn them. Yes, he has a lot of other things to think about - but so do the other characters. Harry himself forgets that when he goes off about what he sees as a flaw in one of them. His irritation with Ron's complaints about money, his anger at Percy's "betrayal", the absolute ANGER he displayed toward Hermione when she even SUGGESTED he had a "saving people thing" - those are just a few examples of his not considering the background of the people he's talking to. Yes, some of it he doesn't know. Some of it he has no experience with. But a truly compassionate person would take the time to get to know others, instead of knowing what's on the surface of their personas." Del comments : Hannah, you've made me realise that I didn't explain one thing sufficiently : I'm not blaming Harry !! I was arguing against the opinion I've read many times on this board that Harry is very compassionate. No, IMO, he's not very compassionate. But this is not a crime ! He's got nothing to be forgiven for. At least most of the time. Most of the time, Harry is being a normal kind of teenager, the kind that doesn't care much about the feelings of people he doesn't care about in a particular way. There's nothing wrong with that, even though I personally woudn't want to be his friend. However, sometimes, and I agree completely with LadyMcBeth on that, he truly becomes incompassionate, in that he refuses to care about the feelings of the people close to him. Ron and Hermione, in particular. He was quite odious to them in OoP. Anytime they did something he didn't understand, he automatically jumped to the most offensive possible conclusion. He'd already done that in previous books, but not on such a long period. And that outburst at Hermione at the end, I just can't swallow. In my book, you don't treat your friends like that, especially friends who have followed you into mortal danger without a second's hesitation several times before. Hannah, you say he will become more compassionate as he grows up. I agree, but I don't see that happening before several years. At the end of OoP, he is still immature enough to put all the blame on Snape's back. The only way I see him maturing rapidly is if he is *forced* to do so, by a friend telling him clearly that they have a problem and that they expect him to share their pain. But then JKR knows Harry infinitely more than I do, so most probably he will evolve in a completely different way :-) Del From mnaperrone at aol.com Tue Oct 5 20:45:10 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:45:10 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius (& Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114875 > SSSusan: > I keep waiting for Pippin to comment on JKR's use of the words "seems > much older and more mature" [emphasis on "seems"]. I adore Lupin; > he's one of my 3 or 4 absolute favorite characters, so I don't *want* > to be suspicious of him, but I couldn't help but point out that she > didn't say he IS more mature; only that he "seems" so. :-) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Ally: Well, it's really not too mature to be afraid to stand up to your friends, which JKR has said is Lupin's big flaw. Wonder if we'll be seeing more of that and he really hasn't grown out of it? From mnaperrone at aol.com Tue Oct 5 20:51:35 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:51:35 -0000 Subject: Grand guignol endings (was Quesiton for Snapeophiles ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114876 > Kneasy: > > Throw in a couple of Weasleys, Luna (please!), Draco, a handful of > > Aurors, plus a few assorted DEs and it could all be very > entertaining. > > > > Carolyn: > Well, since we appear to have maternal death theme emerging, and > she's apparently given it all a lot of thought, lets hope Molly > Weasley is included in the roll call. Ally: Yeah, one or both of the Weasley parents is a goner, I agree, not to mention at least one of the siblings. If she wanted to be really cruel, she'd kill off one of the twins. But what about the Hogwart's staff? I don't think they will be spared. I think Hagrid or McGonagall will go, and if neither one of those do, it will be DD. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 21:18:13 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:18:13 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114877 Alla, you don't understand me. I am NOT trying to say Harry did something bad, or that he did good things for a bad reason. What I am objecting to is the opinion many people have voiced on this forum that he did it out of a specific reason : *exceptional* compassion. I am trying to explain that what was driving him was not immense compassion but heroism. Those are 2 different things, but both are most noble and rare ! Yes the people Harry saved needed saving, and it was a *heroic* thing to do for Harry to risk his own life to save them. But there was no compassion involved, which is not a crime ! Alla wrote : " Ginny did NOT want to die in Chamber, Hermione would not be able to manage to save herself from troll, etc. Harry was reliving their suffering, was he not?" Del replies : Yes, he *ended up* relieving their suffering, but that was not the *reason* he did it. He didn't go in the Chamber in order to stop Ginny from suffering from the possession, he didn't go to the toilets in order to stop Hermione from suffering out of... what, exactly ? No. He went to save their lives, period. Pure heroism. Admirable. But no compassion, which is OK !! Alla wrote : "As to giving all the care they need, I think you are being too hard on Harry. he really is trying to help people around him. He scres up sometimes, but he tries and that is enough for me. As he grews up he manages to do better and better, IMO" Del replies : I agree that Harry is OK. But I disagree that he is exceptionally compassionate, which IS what I'm arguing against, not Harry's personality itself. Alla wrote, about Hermione crying in the toilets during the Halloween Feast: " But he did not have TIME to digest the news yet, Dell. I as only asking why he was supposed to care when hermione was simply missing, when he did not know yet that she was crying. " Del replies : A very compassionate person would have cared right away after learning that Hermione was crying in the toilets. There's no digesting needed. A very compassionate person would have left the Feast right upon learning that Hermione was feeling miserable, to go and look for her. But all this means is that Harry is not a Very Compassionate Person, which is perfectly OK and normal !! I am only arguing against the opinion that Harry is exceptionally compassionate, so if I manage to demonstrate that he's averagely compassionate, no more and no less than any other average kid his age, then I've made my case. Alla wrote : " I think it is reasonable to assume that Hermione was afraid of the troll, so she was in pain." Del replies : Actually no, because Harry didn't think the Troll was in that area, and most definitely not in Hermione's toilets. Alla wrote : " Well, I think he cared about the kind of pain people around those girls would feel if they DID die." Del replies : Can you prove that ? Can you show me quotes in the canon where Harry actually thinks about what other people will feel if something happens to someone, that he *shares* their pain, and that he then acts with the specific intention of stopping or diminishing that pain ? Alla wrote : " Sorry, Del , but you are trying to take away from Harry's character the trait I love him the most for. So, I have to dissent respectfully." Del replies : What trait is that ? If it is heroism, then no I'm not taking it away. Harry is a true hero. But if that trait is exceptional compassion, then yes I'm afraid I'm trying to take it away. Let me put it another way : if my life was at risk, I'd love to have Harry around. But I would never dream of confiding my pains and sorrows in him, because he's shown repeatedly in my eyes that he can't relate to sufferings that he hasn't experienced himself. Alla wrote : " Let's not talk in hypotheticals. Please give me ONE example from the books when saving people Harry tried to save was NOT the best thing to do (Please don't include Sirius, because that was TRICK from the beginning. Harry did not know that. )" Del replies : But Harry *would* have known, if only he'd listened to Hermione, instead of *forcefully* intimidating her into silence, uncaring that she was honestly trying to help him. And there are no examples that I can think of when saving people was not the best thing to do. But most often it was not done out of compassion, but out of heroism, which is fine with me ! Del From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Oct 5 21:22:26 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:22:26 -0000 Subject: Stopping Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114878 Doddiemoe wrote: > Snape, like DD is a legilimens. Yb here: Actually, he isn't. He's an Occlumens, and a darn good one, according to Lupin: "Harry, I know you don't like Snape, but he is a superb Occlumens..." OotP, AmVer, p.527 >..I would not be surprised if dd > beheaded Kreacher and gave him a plaque on the wall of his > ancestors. Yb: Seems a little harsh for old Dumbles, doesn't it? But, Kreacher wasn't exactly in the best state of mind /before/ DD "persuaded" the information out of him. Well, Kreacher wasn't in a healthy sane state of mind at the /beginning/ of OotP. If Kreacher doesn't go to work for the Malfoys (being the only family he has left to serve), I'd imagine he'll stay in Grimmauld Place, happily hanging on the wall. I can see Molly, or Tonks, or even Lupin arranging to have Kreacher's "dearest wish" carried out. Moody might, as well. I don't see sweet old Dumbles doing that to him though, since DD kinda blames himself, not Kreacher, for Sirius' death. > ..after what happened...I would be even less surprised > if Snape turned up first and told kreacher what to tell DD.. > (remember Harry told snape first during the office scene of > oop)...I don't believe dd when he says that old grudges stuff... Yb: Nope, nope, nope. Kreacher told Harry that "Master has gone out" before Snape knew about Harry's vision/thingy. I'm pretty sure the Malfoys were the only accomplices in this matter. > I do believe that DD trusts Snape...but I don't believe that is > what he should do....thus far in the books...we are coming to the > point where dd is right or he's not. Yb: Meaning that we're starting to see that DD doesn't know everything? I agree completely. And it is very clear in the books that DD trusts Snape. I suppose JK is showing us that DD is too wise to judge a book by its cover, so to speak. I am also leaning towards not an evil!Snape, but a SYOS!Snape (Save Your Own Skin). He is a Slytherin, and ol' Phineas told us that that's a trademark Slytherin trait. I wouldn't be surprised that if push came to shove, Snape would haul buns and leave the good guys in the lurch. So maybe DD's trust isn't misplaced, but he's betting a lot of the ranch on a Slytherin's sense of altruism/take-one-for-the-team. Yb From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 21:32:51 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:32:51 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114879 Annemehr wrote : " I did think of one example of Harry's compassion, with no question of life or death involved: when Harry met Neville on the Closed Ward." Del replies : Uh, yes, sure, but honestly, you'd have to be Draco not to feel compassion during this scene. Ron, Hermione and Ginny all felt compassion for Neville at that time too. It doesn't demonstrate exceptional compassion. (I actually cried...) Annemehr wrote : "At the Burrow in GoF, he was startled to find out what Splinching was, and immediatedly asked whether the people were okay." Del replies : Again, quite a normal reaction, don't you think ? Annemehr wrote : "Later, after seeing Dumbledore's pensieve, he spent a sleepless night thinking about what had happened to the Longbottoms and Barty Crouch Jr." Del replies : This one is an interesting one, because if I remember well, his thoughts drift quite quickly from the Longbottoms and Crouch Jr to LV's responsibility in that matter, and then he feels *hate* towards him. To me, this is his natural instincts taking over again : he can't do anything about the victims, so he will instead concentrate on avenging them. Heroism kicking back in. Annemehr wrote : " I can believe, compassion *and* a saving-people thing, but I can't believe Harry has no compassion." Del replies : Wow, wow !! I never meant to say that Harry has no compassion at all ! I was just arguing against the opinions that a) he's got an exceptional amount of compassion, and b) that's what makes him save people's lives. Del From MadameSSnape at aol.com Tue Oct 5 21:43:36 2004 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:43:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Black magic -- effigy Message-ID: <142.3593096e.2e946f88@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114880 In a message dated 10/5/2004 2:27:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: I think part of the reason for this is that Voodoo dolls and other effegy-like tokens are part of African and possibly Asian magic. Voodoo as we know it, is actually a blend of French, African, and Island native American magic. Sherrie here: Actually, poppets are used in magick from many areas of the world. The making of poppets was one of the charges against several of the "witches" in Salem, e.g. That being said, I don't think image magic is much used in the Potterverse. As has been stated, the only thing we've seen that uses an identifier is the Polyjuice Potion. Though I can see, for instance, the possibility of, say, a locator spell using something of the person you're trying to find. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mysticowl at gmail.com Tue Oct 5 21:46:17 2004 From: mysticowl at gmail.com (arealin) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:46:17 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114881 > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > A > > L > > E > > R > > T > > > > JKR said, quote: > > "So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of > > course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was > > one year old." > > > > She's specifically indicated that the "last" was when Harry was left > > with the Dursleys, which means that the previous letters had to have > > come before Harry ended up on the Dursley's doorstep...Unless I'm > > misreading her quote. > > Well that is her quote but I think we have another incident of her > misremembering what she's written or not giving us all the > information. Unless of course it wasn't him, but someone else who > wrote to the Dursleys anything regarding Harry... IE Minerva... I most > certainly could be mistaken. > > distaiyi As always, JKR found a way out. She has no editted her answer and writes that both she and DD differentiate between the letters addressed specifically to Petunia and those addressed to the Dursleys. I suppose we can assume that all letters regarding Harry sent after his enrollment were addressed to the Dursleys. Alina. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 21:52:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:52:45 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114882 Mac asked: > > But why is there a whole book devoted to Sirius? (PoA) What was the purpose of this book? Was it just to acieve Pettigrew being outed as scabbers, have him escape and, moreover, in wizard's debt to HP? Carol responds: I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that the whole book is devoted to Sirius. To be sure, he's the title character (as the H-BP will be in Book 6), but he himself doesn't appear in it until the end except as a Grim-like dog in the distance, a photo in a newspaper, or a portrait/bedcurtain-slashing invader who terrifies the students and then disappears. In other words, he's a plot device like the Philosopher's Stone, the Chamber of Secrets, the Goblet of Fire, and the Order of the Phoenix--controlling the action to some degree (for example, preventing Harry from going to Hogsmeade without resorting to the invisibility cloak and Marauder's Map) and indirectly shaping Harry's responses to the information and misinformation Harry hears relating to him, but Sirius himself, as a character, is no more in evidence throughout most of the book than, say, Voldemort is throughout the series. He's a shadow and a threat but not a living, breathing character--until Harry and his friends finally confront him in the Shrieking Shack and we get one of JKR's astonishing reversals (which I should have been better prepared for, but I only guessed that Sirius was the dog). As for the purpose of the book, it certainly (as you suggsst) makes possible Voldemort's reembodiment by revealing Scabbers' true identity and setting up his escape, but it also provides our first hint of Harry's father's backstory (the MWPP/Snape connection, if you prefer); it introduces Dementors and gives Harry a chance to battle them; it gives him his first opportunity to consider killing a perceived enemy (Sirius) and choose not to do it (though I don't know how he'd have done it any way since he's not familiar with Avada Kedavra at that point), and a moment later oppose the murder of a real enemy on moral grounds. And, of course, it introduces us to Sirius and Lupin, future members of the Order, and (as a side issue) the predicament of werewolves in a world that (rightly) regards them as dangerous (at least during a full moon). So the overall purpose of PoA, it seems to me, is to move Harry a few steps further down the path toward his full magical, moral, and emotional development, as well as to introduce characters, creatures, and spells that will prove important later (even if their chief importance will be to help Harry deal with the death of people he loves). And, of course, to tell an entertaining story that will bear rereading even after the mystery is resolved and the title character's identity is reshaped by subsequent books into the godfather Harry loved and lost. ("As a father you shall be to me," said Merry. "For a little while," said Theoden.) Carol, who really doesn't see any resemblance between Sirius and Theoden other than as father-substitute, except for the (to me) incomprehenible joy of battle that both seem to experience Carol From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 22:02:09 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:02:09 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114883 > Annemehr wrote : > " I can believe, compassion *and* a saving-people thing, but I can't > believe Harry has no compassion." > > Del replies : > Wow, wow !! I never meant to say that Harry has no compassion at all ! > I was just arguing against the opinions that a) he's got an > exceptional amount of compassion, and b) that's what makes him save > people's lives. > > Del Annemehr: Awww... Okay, I see, in your examples you said Harry doesn't care *much,* that people's feelings aren't his primary concern. So you did leave room for some compassion. Sorry! By the way, I do have another example of a time when Harry really should have shown compassion but didn't: in PoA, the time he was about to sneak off to Hogsmeade, encountered Neville (who, just like Harry, was also forbidden to go), and he ditched him. Definitely one of Harry's worst moments. I'm just left with the question of what exactly the heroism is, if it's not motivated by compassion (not even a half-blind sort of compassion that only kicks in when extreme peril is involved). It's not thrill-seeking, otherwise the TWT would have been more thrilling. Could it be a sublimated reaction to his parents' murder coming out? Some form of his feeling that he's the only one he can count on, extended to a feeling that he's the only one he can count on to do what's necessary when people are in danger? I'm not ascribing these ideas to you -- I'm just trying to imagine motives to playing the hero that don't involve him caring about the potential victims. Can you elaborate? It's always been my attributing Harry's willingness to go into danger to save others that made me believe Harry was very compassionate. I figured he risked his own life because he cared so much about the life of the other. If you can explain how that might not be true, that he plays the hero for some other reason, I'll understand you much better, I think. :) Annemehr From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Oct 5 22:05:21 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:05:21 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Pettigrew (was Re: The other 'interesting' answer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114884 Kneasy wrote, in response to "What has Peter Pttigrew been up to?": > > Since the rat doesn't do anything on his own initiative these > > days I thought it might be vaguely interesting to find out what > > he'd been sent off to do. If, as you surmise the answer really > > is "interesting" then she's pulled a fast one on us - because I > > can't find any clues anywhere. Entropy replied: > (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the > walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both > the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were > shaped like serpents." > > Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld > Place! Now that would be interesting! Yb now: I checked "Fantastic Beasts" (on the hint of WWP's "New Clues" book) and found that the "scuttling" is probably due to a Bundimun infestation. They bring along a foul stench of decay, and Harry did notice a rotting smell when he walked in the house. So something that smells foul (and looks foul, by the description in FB) that can be taken care of by a Scouring charm (Scourgify, anyone?) is destroying the foundation of the Order, and should be disposed of immediately before the Order collapses. Sound like anyone we know and hate or love? BTW, I think ol' Rat-man was tailing Hagrid and Olympe. Hagrid mentions that they gave "the berk tailin' us" the slip. Sirius tells Harry that in that Snape's-worst-memory-pensieve scene, they were acting like "berks." Also, "tailing" may be a well-hidden hint. And most importantly, the "berk" lost Hagrid and Mme. Maxime in France. I don't think any ordinary bumbler could do that, that just reeks of worthless, wimpy old Peter. But if Peter was tailing Mme. Maxime and Hagrid, is that an interesting answer? Or is the interesting part about what Rat-man was doing after H&MM "lost" him? Diod they actually shake him, or do they just think they did? ~Yb, making more questions than she answered From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 22:21:55 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:21:55 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114885 Jen Reese wrote: > > > > JKR will probably come up with a more satisfying resolution scenario, but I'd prefer to see continued tension. Until Snape is toast, of course, which I'm betting will happen by the end of Book 6. > Pippin responded: > There's an old rule of story-telling: the villain dies in the last ditch. Since the conflict with Snape is the major source of dramatic tension, it can't be resolved much before the ending of Book Seven -- otherwise it would be like having Darth Vader die in the middle of Return of the Jedi or having Gollum die before Frodo gets to Mt. Doom. > > I figure Harry will have a choice between trusting Snape and someone who seems much more trustworthy. He will trust the wrong person, and Snape will suffer for it, but ultimately Snape will save Harry, thus paying back the debt to James. Whether Snape survives the conflict with Voldemort is irrelevant since at the end of Book Seven Harry will no longer be a Hogwarts student, and the conflict with Snape will have ended in any case. I think ol' Sevvie will still be around, though. He's tough. Carol adds: Just one teeny, tiny quibble with your post, which otherwise I agree with. Snape isn't the villain, or even "a" villain, as far as we can tell. Antagonist, yes--one who opposes the protagonist in some way (trying to get the kid to follow the rules, primarily!). But Voldemort is the villain, with Lucius Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, Wormtail, and a number of other lesser villains to keep him company. I think we can safely predict that your rule of story-teling will apply to Voldemort, who will die in the last chapter (not counting the epilogue, which JKR says will recount the future of the survivors). I think Lucius and Bellatrix are doomed as well, although JKR might surprise us. But there's really no reason for Snape to die. Let Percy be the Boromir of the story, repenting his folly as he dies bravely, and let Snape stay on as Head of Slytherin and either Potions master or DADA professor as his reward for service to the cause. Carol, who remembers an ancient post of yours in which JKR said more or less the same thing ("Don't worry about Snape. He's tough") to a group of Snape fans who correctly identified him as the one Voldemort believes has left forever From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 22:31:46 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:31:46 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114886 Annemehr wrote : " I'm just left with the question of what exactly the heroism is, if it's not motivated by compassion (not even a half-blind sort of compassion that only kicks in when extreme peril is involved). It's not thrill-seeking, otherwise the TWT would have been more thrilling. Could it be a sublimated reaction to his parents' murder coming out? Some form of his feeling that he's the only one he can count on, extended to a feeling that he's the only one he can count on to do what's necessary when people are in danger? I'm not ascribing these ideas to you -- I'm just trying to imagine motives to playing the hero that don't involve him caring about the potential victims. Can you elaborate? It's always been my attributing Harry's willingness to go into danger to save others that made me believe Harry was very compassionate. I figured he risked his own life because he cared so much about the life of the other. If you can explain how that might not be true, that he plays the hero for some other reason, I'll understand you much better I think. :)" Del replies : First off, I'm sorry you had to re-read my original message. I realised very quickly, based on several messages saying the same thing, that I did not clearly say that I believe Harry has indeed some compassion, a normal level of it, just not an exceptional amount of it. I knew what I meant, but I didn't express it clearly, sorry about that. Now, Harry's heroism. I believe it might be caused by several factors : 1. Circumstances. Harry repeatedly finds himself in situations where he can save people's lives, which is not a normal occurence in most people's lives. 2. Nature : Harry is pretty rash, he acts before he thinks, most of the time, and he's also very courageous and cool-headed in stressful situations. So when he sees someone needing to be saved, his natural instinct is to go and help them, and he isn't stopped by considerations of his own limitations or by simple fear. 3. "Nurture" : I believe the death of his parents accounts for a lot in Harry's heroism, as well as the way the Dursleys raised him. His parents were murdered, and Harry couldn't help them. That might have triggered an unconscious desire to prevent other deaths around him. You might even say that he's got some kind of unconscious compassion, in that he might want to prevent other people from suffering the loss he's suffered. Moreover, as you've pointed out, the Dursleys have taught him that he must take care of himself because nobody else will, so it would make sense that he would apply that reasoning to other people too. Other people have to take care of themselves, but if they can't, nobody will care for them. Well, he, Harry, will change that. However, it is one thing to want to save people (either literally or figuratively) and another to share their pain. Harry doesn't want people to die, because life is his own most precious possession. But he cannot and doesn't want to deal with people's feelings, because he doesn't even know how to deal with his own. In fact, like many teenagers, he is barely aware of the emotions that rule him, and he's even more oblivious of the fact that he can master those emotions. So how and why could he relate to other people's emotions, and how could he help them deal with them ? Did I answer your questions satisfactorily ? Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 22:35:45 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:35:45 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114887 > > Del replies : > Can you prove that ? Can you show me quotes in the canon where Harry > actually thinks about what other people will feel if something happens > to someone, that he *shares* their pain, and that he then acts with > the specific intention of stopping or diminishing that pain ? Alla: I thought I can, but I just read Annemehr's examples, which I concur with, but you are just dismissing them as NORMAL reaction, therefore I am afraid you are losing me again, Del. :) Harry feeling compassionate towards Neville and you are saying that only Draco Malfoy would have not felt compassion under such circumstances. No, I am pretty sure Draco Malfoy would not, but how does Harry's compassion becomes less meaningful? I am confused again Intent to relive other people's pain, right? That is your definition? So, do you only count something as compassionate deed when it is done in ABNORMAL cirumstances?. Does look like heroism to me. Here is another quote, but I am afraid you will again dismiss it as NORMAL reaction, Del. "He was working flat-out just to get through all their homework, though he madea point of sending regular food packages up to the cave in the mountain for Sirius; after last summer, Harry had not forgotten what it felt like to be continually hungry" - GoF, p.548, paperback. Harry knows that Sirius is hungry, so he makes sure to relive his suffering. Does it pass your muster, Del? From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 22:56:46 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:56:46 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114888 (Del mutters to herself : explain yourself clearly, girl, how do you want people to understand you otherwise ?) OK, Alla, I'll try again :-) 1. Harry has compassion. Yes he does, like most anyone else. He's touched by Neville's predicament at St Mungo's, like all the other kids present that day, and like most readers. He's suffering for Sirius when Sirius goes hungry, because he was hungry too just a few months before. Perfectly normal compassion. BUT I object to the idea that Harry has more compassion than "average". IMO he is not *extremely* compassionate. For example, he knows what it's like not to have any friends at school, but he doesn't mind inflicting that on Hermione in PoA. He doesn't care that her intent was noble, he doesn't care that it makes her sad, he doesn't care that she's over-working herself to death. He doesn't show any compassion. Even Hagrid reminds him that as a friend he *should* care, but still he chooses not to. It's understandable, it's normal, but it's a definite sign that Harry does *not* have an *extreme* amount of compassion, contrarily to what has been posited on this forum before. 2. Harry helps people in uncommonly heroic ways. He saves many people's lives at his own life's risk, for example. And this is good. BUT I object to the idea that Harry helps people because of extreme compassion. IMO he does it because he wants to save their lives, not because he feels their pain and wants to relieve it. He does it out of heroism, not out of extreme compassion. Does that help ? Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 23:07:52 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:07:52 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114889 Alla: I think I got you. So, Harry does have some amount of compassion (that is a relief to hear :o)), but not much than an average person, correct? How about that question? Does Harry, in your opinion has more compassion than any other character in the "Potterverse?" As for Hermione in PoA, I will take exception albeit not very strong about Harry "inflicting that on her" I wil grant you that Harry was supposed to make amends with her much earlier than he did, but are telling me that you expected Harry's INITIAL reaction to be any different? He gets a broom, which is a dream for any quidditch player with the competition so close and Hermione goes and tells McGonagall. Gee, how about at least talking to Harry first, Hermione? I think Harry had a right to be angry, although again I did expect him to get over his anger much earlier than he did. As for heroism, we just have to agree to disagree, because I cannot envision the hero who is not compassionate in my mind. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > (Del mutters to herself : explain yourself clearly, girl, how do you > want people to understand you otherwise ?) > > OK, Alla, I'll try again :-) > > 1. Harry has compassion. Yes he does, like most anyone else. He's > touched by Neville's predicament at St Mungo's, like all the other > kids present that day, and like most readers. He's suffering for > Sirius when Sirius goes hungry, because he was hungry too just a few > months before. Perfectly normal compassion. > > BUT > > I object to the idea that Harry has more compassion than "average". > IMO he is not *extremely* compassionate. For example, he knows what > it's like not to have any friends at school, but he doesn't mind > inflicting that on Hermione in PoA. He doesn't care that her intent > was noble, he doesn't care that it makes her sad, he doesn't care that > she's over-working herself to death. He doesn't show any compassion. > Even Hagrid reminds him that as a friend he *should* care, but still > he chooses not to. It's understandable, it's normal, but it's a > definite sign that Harry does *not* have an *extreme* amount of > compassion, contrarily to what has been posited on this forum before. > From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 23:24:37 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:24:37 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (Was Dept of Mysteries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114890 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Mac asked: > > > But why is there a whole book devoted to Sirius? (PoA) What was > the purpose of this book? Was it just to achieve Pettigrew being outed as scabbers, have him escape and, moreover, in wizard's debt to HP? > > Carol responds: > I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that the whole book is> devoted to Sirius. snip snip snip Sirius himself, as a character, is no more in > evidence throughout most of the book than, say, Voldemort is > throughout the series. He's a shadow and a threat but not a living, > breathing character--until Harry and his friends finally confront him in the Shrieking Shack and we get one of JKR's astonishing reversals (which I should have been better prepared for, but I only guessed that> Sirius was the dog). mhbobbin: I think PoA explores three primary themes in PoA: Harry finding his father within him (through meeting his friends and through being able to conjure the Prongs patronus); and the themes of Injustice and Betrayal in Harry's new world. To get there, as part of the overall puzzle, we are introduced to James' three best friends and their wilder rule-breaking sides. All three friends are crucial to the story line and are playing important roles--disappeared, dead, or whatever--through Book Five and, I expect, beyond. And their stories underline the central mystery of the story, which (IMO) is what really happened at Godric HOllow and what information does it give us towards the conclusion? Why did Sirius HAVE to die?(or leave the story for now) A partial answer is that it is consistent with everything else that happens to Harry in the story. Whatever is most important to Harry is compromised or removed from him, one by one, in OOtP: contact with DD--and then DD; Hagrid; Quidditch; the Cho crush; easy comaderie with Ron and Hermione; Hero-worship of Dad; and finally Sirius. Maybe JKR has a sense that her Hero cannot go forward until he stripped of all that he loves and is forced to grow up fast. mhbobbin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 23:32:44 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:32:44 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114891 Alla asked : " How about that question? Does Harry, in your opinion has more compassion than any other character in the "Potterverse?" " Del replies : Oooh, now, that's a good one !! Let me see... I'd say that Lupin probably has more compassion. But he's an adult, granted. And so are DD and McGonagall... Among the kids, now... Hermione is slightly unreliable : she can show tremendous amounts of compassion towards some people at some times (Neville, for example) and be quite mean towards other people (Rita, Luna, or even Lavender and her dead bunny...) But still overall, I'd say she's more compassionate than Harry. But that's just off the top of my head, I haven't really thought it through. Also Ginny maybe. Alla wrote, about the Broom Incident in PoA : "I wil grant you that Harry was supposed to make amends with her much earlier than he did, but are telling me that you expected Harry's INITIAL reaction to be any different?" Del replies : No, not at all. In fact, I said in my previous post that even when Harry willfully refused to relent, it was still perfectly normal and understandable, just not compassionate. Harry was *of course* very angry when Hermione told McGonagall, but he showed a total lack of compassion in this instance when he kept being mad at Hermione even after Hermione explained why she did it and after Hagrid pointed out to him how much Hermione was suffering. It wasn't just a matter of days, that situation lasted for *weeks*. Weeks of Hermione suffering miserably and Harry refusing to stop that pain. Understandable from a 13-year-old boy, but absolutely not compassionate. Alla wrote : " As for heroism, we just have to agree to disagree, because I cannot envision the hero who is not compassionate in my mind." Del replies : Really ?? Funny, I have no problem doing that. To me, the hero is just the one who dares putting things right at great personal risk, but it doesn't need to involve any compassion. If Snape vanquished LV just because he wants to proclaim himself as Harry's greatest antagonist, I would still consider him a hero, even though there wouldn't be the least bit of nice intentions or feelings in Snape's behaviour. Del From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Oct 5 23:43:29 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:43:29 -0000 Subject: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114892 Carol, who remembers an ancient post of yours in which JKR said more or less the same thing ("Don't worry about Snape. He's tough") to a > group of Snape fans who correctly identified him as the one Voldemort > believes has left forever Yb: Find the quote, pretty please! I'd always figured it was Snape, but I never knew JKR stated as such. ~Yb From dzeytoun at cox.net Tue Oct 5 23:50:38 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:50:38 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114893 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > > SSSusan: > I found it interesting that JKR answered that question *not* in > the "About the Books" category, but in the "Other Stuff" category. I > think, as many have pointed out here, Hogwarts is very definitely not > like modern Western education (esp. not like modern American public > schools). It's also been discussed here that there isn't exactly a > counseling system in place at Hogwarts, at least not that we see. > Students seem to be expected to be pretty tough and to "buck up" and > just take a lot. > > JKR's answering this question *is* interesting in light of recent > discussions around here, but I do think it's noteworthy that she's > pulled it to the "Other Stuff" section. I think she's writing to > today's children, living in RL, not *necessarily* equating it to what > our crew is dealing w/ in her fictional WW. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, who hopes this doesn't sound as if she's > defending bullies or anything. That's quite true. However, I think the reason it's in "other" and not "on the books" is because the question did not come to her as a question specifically about the books. That is, she wasn't asked "What do you think about bullying at Hogwarts?" but rather her opinion, in general, of what bullied students should do. As to how this relates to the books, perhaps it shows in OOTP. I don't think she made Harry's silence out as all that heroic in OOTP. After all, in at least two major scenes people strongly urged him to speak to somebody about it. Dzeytoun From susanadacunha at gmx.net Tue Oct 5 22:23:30 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:23:30 +0100 Subject: Sirius, Gringotts, & the Firebolt References: Message-ID: <00bd01c4ab37$33aad080$40280dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 114894 > Angie wrote: > > Why didn't the Goblins turn in Sirius to MOM when he ordered the > > Firebolt for Harry in POA? I know Crookshanks took the order, but > > the book says that the money was taken from Sirius's vault -- who > > else would authorize such a transaction except Sirius? Maybe > > Gringotts has a really strict privacy policy (being facetious here). > > Maybe it wouldn't have mattered -- who would the MOM have > > interrogated -- Crookshanks? :) > Finwitch wrote: >>Another possibility: just what would the goblins tell the Ministry? That S. Black, from unknown place, had made a withdrawal for Quality Quidditch Supplies to send a Firebolt to Harry Potter, under Harry Potter's name? On their own? Think not. And um - maybe Harry has the authority to make a withdrawal from Sirius' Vault - in which case the withdrawal says NOTHING about Sirius at all. (No need for Sirius' death being announced and his will read, then).<< ---------------------------------------- My intake on this: "Crookshanks took the order to the Owl Office for me. I used your name but told them to take the gold from my own Gringotts vault." -- Sirius letter in PoA. So Crookshanks took a letter to the Owl Office along with the payment for the service. The Owl Office employees wouldn't find anything strange about a letter to Quality Quidditch Supplies. At Quality Quidditch Supplies arrives a letter from Harry Potter ordering a Firebolt. Again, nothing strange. The payment form mentions a vault number: 711. Now, if this was the muggle world, the number would have about 20 digits and it would be followed by the word "visa" or "mastercard". It wouldn't matter if it was signed "Harry Potter". I agree '711' raises some security issues. But if we muggles can order by mail and sleep at night, wizards may be way ahead of us. My main question on this subject is - whatever security measures are taken - Sirius Black didn't have a wand! And I'm sure it would require a wand to magically validate the payment form. Finely, the goblins receive the form to transfer the gold from a vault number to another. Sirius Black's vault is obvious not 'frozen' or they wouldn't make the transaction. An alert could have been set up and the goblins *could* have warned the authorities. The aurors would trace the transaction to Quality Quidditch Supplies and from there to Harry. And they would *know* that Firebolt was never in Black's hands. Can you imagine the look on Shacklebolt's face? "He's sending him gifts?!?" It would explain Shacklebolt's willingness to believe Black's innocence, but it clashes with McGonagall confiscating the Firebolt. Either there was no communication between Hogwarts and the aurors about the Firebolt; or aurors simply don't see credit card monitoring as an investigation tool; or goblins don't tell! Susana avast! (VPS 04-10-2004): the message contains no virus From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 00:02:20 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:02:20 -0000 Subject: New thoughts on Sirius (& Lupin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114895 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mnaper2001" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > > I keep waiting for Pippin to comment on JKR's use of the > words "seems > > much older and more mature" [emphasis on "seems"]. I adore Lupin; > > he's one of my 3 or 4 absolute favorite characters, so I don't > *want* > > to be suspicious of him, but I couldn't help but point out that she > > didn't say he IS more mature; only that he "seems" so. :-) > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > > Ally: > > Well, it's really not too mature to be afraid to stand up to your > friends, which JKR has said is Lupin's big flaw. Wonder if we'll be > seeing more of that and he really hasn't grown out of it? mhbobbin: I suspect that you nailed the "seems" right there. Lupin does a good job of standing up to his friends, as an adult, in OotP at GP, when he stands up to both Molly and Sirius. And when he does, they seem to respect him. He acknowleges his youthful failings in the scene where Harry grills Sirius and Lupin about the Penseive scene. He also stands up to Sirius in the scene where Harry reveals that Occlumency lessons have stopped, insisting that he will be the one to speak to Snape. But will Lupin be challenged in a more serious way, perhaps being required to stand up to a suddenly more grown up Harry, or maybe he'll need to stand up to DD over doubts about Snape or Mundungus. Assuming he's not evil, of course. Mhbobbin From dzeytoun at cox.net Wed Oct 6 00:08:19 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:08:19 -0000 Subject: Positive Spin on Snape, Occlumency, and Albus writing Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114896 OK, I think we've pretty much covered the ground on Snape's evil qualities. I do, personally, think his bad aspects pretty well sum him up. However, I'm pretty good at making up stories, so, I asked myself is there any way to put a positive spin on Snape, the Dursleys, and Occlumency from OOTP, as well as incorporating the information we have from JKR's website about Albus writing Petunia. So, let's start with three facts: 1) JKR has said that Dumbledore's last letter was the one left with Harry in 1981 2) Snape saw the scene of Harry being chased by Ripper 3) At the end of OOTP the Order threatens the Dursleys So, how to put a positive scenario to play here? Well, let's see if this is plausible (in terms of facts, not in terms of character motivations, necessarily): Dumbledore has some sort of contact with Petunia, knowing that she dislikes the magical world. He decides to leave Harry with the Dursleys for his safety, deliberately cutting off all communication with Petunia for reasons we do not yet know. He sends Mrs. Figg to Privet Drive to "keep an eye" on things. Since he is cut off, Dumbledore does not understand the level of suffering Harry has experienced at the Dursleys. He knew Harry would "suffer," but did not expect out and out abuse. Now Mrs. Figg only sees things externally, and while what she sees (the poor clothing, thin body, etc) is bad, she isn't privy to the worst of it, and Harry doesn't talk to her. Reading her reports Dumbledore reluctantly decides Harry had better stay where he is. He misses the part about Harry living in a closet because the Hogwarts Letters are addressed automatically by a charm and no one actually reads the things (weak, considering that hundreds of them went to Privet Drive, but I suppose possible). In any case, by the time he actively checks the Dursleys have already given Harry the smallest bedroom. Harry never talks to Dumbledore, or anyone else, about the situation at Privet Drive. Only during Occlumency does this come out. Snape, being a nicer person than he appears, informs Dumbledore, who then tells the Order to confront the Dursleys and put a stop to such behavior forthwith. Now, I put this forth as a mental exercise to put a positive spin on everyone and their actions with regard to Occlumency and Privet Drive. Comments? Questions? Ripe tomatoes? Dzeytoun From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 00:12:31 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:12:31 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114898 I'm on digest, so forgive me if this has already been said: I do see a different between what-we're-calling-compassion (in the sense of having an awareness and emphathy for other people's feelings) and what-we're-calling-heroism (saving people's lives in extreme situations). Harry shows more of the latter than he does of the former. However, I wonder how realistic we would find it if Harry *had* been very concerned about Hermione crying in the bathroom in PS/SS. He's an *eleven year old boy*. Even by book five, he's still pretty clueless about people's feelings--which is also fairly typical of a teenage boy. If he was always running around feeling bad for people, I think he'd come across to me as a bit Mary-Sue-ish. I don't think we're supposed to *admire* his preference for saving people in extreme situations over helping them through mundane difficult times, but I don't think we're supposed to consider it a major moral failing, either. Alex From feklar at verizon.net Wed Oct 6 00:17:48 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:17:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <008a01c4ab39$e9cb31f0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114899 Sorry for the belated respnse, i've been off-line for a wheek. > Alla: > > I agree with you that we don't know why James and Sirius called > Snape that name and it could have been completely unjustified, BUT I > would not apply Occam's razor just yet due to the fact that no > matter how cruel children could be to each other, I don't think that > JKR would stop and portray evil on such small scale only. > Yes, bullying is cruel and evil, but I just don't think that this is > big enough to be the biggest evil in such series. feklar: She's not, that's just one of the many petty human evils she portrays, from the Dursley's greedy banality to Skeeter's lies to Fudge's corruption. Adding these smaller, non-Big!Evil evils makes the characters and their relationships three-dimensional. The books would be both boring and much thinner if the only conflict were Harry vs. Voldemort. While all of these conflicts ultimately affect the main HP vs. LV conflict, they aren't all about the Hp/LV conflict, they are about the characters' individual (and often competing) needs, biases and desires. To reduce them all to just being about good vs. evil undercuts JKR's complex characterization. Feklar From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Oct 6 00:20:36 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:20:36 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114900 Katrina wrote: >>> Someone on mugglenet ... posited that the pre-GH >>> correspondence [between DD and Petunia] was DD >>> preparing the Dursleys in case they had to take Harry. >>> The implication being that not only did DD know that >>> Harry's parents would be killed, but that Harry would >>> survive the attack. Kneasy responded: >> [T]he letters ... would have to [have been sent] after >> DD got wind of Voldy's intentions - about the time that >> they went into hiding, I'd think. Pippin added: > [I]t certainly sounds as if DD was expecting Lily's > Samson-in-the-Temple stunt. I guess I've always assumed -- not that he has said so explicitly -- that Dumbledore had put Lily up to her "ancient magic," at least as a contingency plan in the event that Voldemort overcame the Fidelius charm and escape was impossible. If he had had no involvement, how would he -- or anyone -- have known what had happened at Godric's Hollow? I'm sure I've heard other speculation along these lines here (possibly in connection with more general utilitarian Dumbledore theories), but can't recall exactly where. -- Matt From navarro198 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 00:23:40 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:23:40 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114901 Pippin: So they were silent, and that made it easier for the Fudges in my country to pretend that these things couldn't really be happening. IMO, JKR is addressing herself to that audience, the one that's afraid to speak out, and the one who can cocoon itself away from evil because it isn't happening to them, while getting mightily upset over the boss or the teacher in their daily life whose worst sin is that he's a jerk. Bookworm: Trying not to take away from your description, Pippin (because I agree with you), I have two comments to add. Dealing with the idea of many people dying is much less personal than dealing with the jerk you see on a daily basis. Also, one can often *do* something about the personal bad stuff and therefore have some control over the situation; the average person would think, "What can *I* do about Darfur (or other crisis)?" and feel powerless. Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 00:26:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (Alla Peker) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory Message-ID: <20041006002657.88396.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114902 Alla: Hi, guys! OK, first and foremost - my apologies. This was done in a hurry as emergency substitution and no matter how many times I checked it for grammar and awkward sentences, I am pretty sure I missed some things. So, please don't bite me if you see those. Another thing - I am leaving town tomorrow till the next week and won't be able to lead the discussion (hopefully will be able to stop by very occasionaly ), but I am pretty sure you'll manage just fine on your own. :o) Also, please feel free to add your own discussion questions. Now, when I am done with apologies - here we go. CHAPTER SUMMARY. The chapter starts with Educational Decree #28, which replaces Dumbledore with Umbridge as Headmistress of Hogwarts. Rumors about Dumbledores fight and escape fly around Hogwarts. Harry is forced to tell the story many times and when Gryffindors go to herbology, Harry tells it to Ernie McMillan. Ernie expresses confidence that Dumbledore will be back and tells Harry that Umbridge unsuccessfully tried to get into Dumbledores office last night. Hermione starts criticizing Umbridge, but she cannot finish the sentence, because Draco Malfoy shows up and is eager to take points from Hermione and other Gryffindors for insulting Umbridge. Malfoy claims that he has the authority to take points from everybody, including fellow prefect as a member of Inquisitory Squad. Malfoy takes 50 points off. Gred and Forge show up and tell Harry and Co that when Montague tried to take points from them, they stuck him into vanishing Cabinet. Fred and George tell the Trio that they dont care about getting in trouble anymore and muse that Dear Headmistress deserves a bit of mayhem. Filch comes to notify Harry that Umbridge wants to see him. Filch brings Harry to her office. Umbridge offers Harry a drink, he refuses at first, but upon her insistence chooses to have a cup of tea. For some reason Harry remembers Mad Eye Moody, who would not approve of Harry drinking with the enemy and only pretends to take a sip. Umbridge starts interrogating Harry. She wants to know where Dumbledore went , where Sirius is, but she does not get anywhere with Harry. Finally she has to stop interrogation and issues another set of warnings to Harry, when her office starts shaking. She lets Harry go and goes outside to see what is going on. Harry eventually does the same thing. Enchanted fireworks are everywhere. Dragons , rockets and wheels are flying in the corridors of Hogwarts. Harry does not take much time to figure out that twins are behind that Umbridge and Filch are watching the uproar. After having enough of the entertainment , Harry sees the hidden door, runs into it and expectedly finds Fred and George behind the door. Other teachers pretend to be annoyed at the fireworks disturbance, but do not do anything to stop it, instead they wait for Umbridge to make the Dragons go away. In the evening in the Gryffindor common all Gryffindors admire twins creativity. When Harry goes to bed that night he again dreams about the room behind the door in DOM. He wakes up with his scar hurting. Harry realizes that his roommates are watching the last of the fireworks and their laughter woke him up. Harry is disappointed that he did not get to see the end of his dream. Suddenly Harry gets very nervous ( his stomach gave a sickening jolt) because he remembers that he has an Occlumency next evening. Harry spends next day being nervous about Snapes reactions to his continuous dreams about DOM. Harry is feeling guilty that he did not practice Occlumency since their last lesson. He attempts a little last minute practice, but it is not successful. After dinner, Harry starts walking to Snapes office, but halfway across the entrance hall, Co comes to him. Cho attempts to apologize for Marietta, but apology does not go well. (Harry is of opinion that Marietta sold all of them to Umbridge including Cho and Cho thinks that since Mariettas mother works at the Ministry, it was really hard on her. Cho thinks that jinx was horrible trick of Hermiones Granger and Harry thinks it was a brilliant idea. Their conversation ends with a little shouting match and Harry finally gets to Snape dungeons. Harry remembers from experience that he will make it easier for Snape to access his mind if he will be angry and resentful, but still thinks about what else he could have said to Cho about Marietta. Snapes first words to Harry are You are late, Potter. He removes his thoughts in the pensieve again . Snape inquires whether Harry practiced and Harry lies that he did. When Snape and Harry are about to begin the lesson, Draco Malfoy shows up. Snape tells him that Harry is here to take remedial potions. Draco comes to request Snapes help on behalf of Umbridge, because they found Montague in the toilet on the fourth floor. Snape tells Harry that they will resume the lesson tomorrow and Snape leaves with Malfoy. Harry is at the office door, when he sees a patch of shivering light dancing on the door frame. Harry realizes that this light reminds him of the lights in the room from his dream. Harry turns around and realizes that the light is coming from Snapes Pensieve. Harrys curiosity is welling inside him. He wants to know what Snape wants to keep from him and whether it could be the information about the Room in DOM. Harry is deliberating how long it would take Snape to help Montague. He is hesitating, but finally dives into Snapes thoughts. Harry finds himself in the middle of Great Hall during the Exam time, because instead of the House tables there are hundred of smaller tables there with students behind them. Harry sees teenager Snape writing the exam and manages to read the heading of his paper, which turns out to be written OWL examination on DADA. Professor Flitwick is conducting it. Since they are taking OWLS, Harry realizes that Snape have to be fifteen or sixteen years old. Harry sees his father writing his paper and is excited again sees how much he looks like James. Eventually Harry spots Sirius , Remus and Peter. Professor Flitwick finally collects the parchments and lets students go. Everybody is going outside and Harry is following Snape, who still reads his examination paper. At the same time Harry is also trying to hear what Marauders are talking about. They are discussing examination questions. Namely, how easy it was for them to give five signs of the werewolf. Peter complains that he only got three and James responds that he is thick, because he runs with werewolf once a month). Remus is asking his friends to keep their voices down. Harry is thinking that since it is a Snapes memory, if Snape is going to wander off, he wont be able to follow Marauders. Luckily for Harry, Snape follows Marauders to the lake. Eventually James and Co make themselves comfortable on the grass near the same tree where Harry, Ron and Hermione do the homework. Snape settles himself near the bushes, he is still reading his examination paper. Lupin starts reading a book, James is playing with the snitch with applauds from Wormtail and Sirius looks handsomely bored. Finally James puts Snitch away at Sirius request and Sirius starts complaining that he is bored. James notices Snape and tells Sirius that this will liven him up. Snape gets up, put his OWL paper in his bag. Snape emerges from the shadow of the bushes and sets off across the grass. Sirius and James stand up. Remus and Peter remain sitting. Remus is still staring at his book, although his eyes are not moving and a faint frown line appeared between his eyebrows. James loudly says All right, Snivellius?Snape reacts as if he had been expecting an attack . Snapes wand is halfway in the air, when James shouts Expellarmus. Snapes wand flews in the air and fells behind him. Sirius is entertained and knocks Snape off his feet with Impedimenta. Many students around them gather to watch the fight. Snape lays on the ground, while James and Sirius continue with the insults. Several people watching laughed. Snape was clearly unpopular Snape tries to get up, but cannot, because the jinx still active and it looks to Harry as if he was bound by invisible robes. Snape threatens James and Sirius. In response James casts Scourgify and pink soap bubbles stream from Snapes mouth. One of the girls who was sitting at the lake edge comes up and Harry recognizes his mother. Lily demands from James to leave Snape alone. She is asking what did Snape ever done to James. James response its more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean. Lily calls James an arrogant bullying toerag and again demands to leave Snape alone. James promises to do so if Lily will go out with him. Lily refuses. While they talk, jinx on Snape wears off and Snape manages to curse James with the curse which cuts his face and blood appears. James hangs Snape upside down in the air and the audience sees his skinny legs and the pair of graying underpants. Many people in the croud cheer. Lily is furious and tells James to let Snape down, which he eventually does, but Sirius casts Petrifucus Totalus and Snape falls down . Finally James takes off the curse at Lilys demand and tells Snape to thank Lily for. Snape responds that he does not need help from filfy little mudbloods like Lily. Lily calmly tells Snape that she will not bother in the future and tells him to wash his pants. James tries to make Snape apologize but Lily does not want it, then she delivers another lecture to James and walks away. James turns Snape upside down again and wants to take his pants off. Then memory stops , because Harry turns around and sees Snape white with rage. Snape pulls Harry out of his pensieve. Snape is asking Harry whether he had been enjoying himself. Harry is saying N-no Snapes lips are shaking, his lips are white, his teeth are bared. Snape is asking whether Harrys father was an amusing man while at the same time shaking Harry so hard that his glasses slip down his nose. Snape throws Harry from him with all his might. Harry falls hard on the dungeon floor. Snape yells that harry would never tell anybody what he just saw and Harry tries to say of course not. Snape tells him to get out and that he never wants to see Harry again in this office, When Harry rushes towards the door , the jar of the cockroaches explodes over his head. Harry does not want to come back to Gryffindor Tower and what makes him so unhappy is that he knows what does it mean to be felt humiliated with other people watching. He knows exactly how Snape felt when James taunted him and to Harry his father appears to be as arrogant as Snape always said he was. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. 1. So, what is the reason for the title of this chapter? It had been discussed many times, but why not give it another try? 2. Do you agree with Fred and George that a bit of mayhem is exactly what Umbridge deserves? Is it an effective way of dealing with her? Do you think that something similar should have been done earlier? 3. What do we learn about Harry from his refusal to drink the tea in Umbridges office? 4. What do you think about Chos apology to Harry? Could she say more or that was enough, in your opinion? Was she trying to be loyal to both Marietta and Harry? If you were Harry , would you forgive Marietta after this conversation? 5. We witness Marauders and Snape taking their DADA OWL. If we assume that this memory was Snapes worst memory, could he remember this exam deep in his mind and assign his werewolf essay in POA based on those questions? 6. This question is specifically for my benefit. Can anybody please explain to me why Snape was still reading his exam paper even though Flitwick collected the parchments. Were they writing two copies of the exam with one copy left for the student personal records? I would appreciate the clarification. 7. Students all around had turned to watch. Some of them had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer to watch. Some looked apprehensive, others entertained. Several people watching laughed. Snape was clearly unpopular Why are there indications that the other kids watching the scenery are not upset, but even *enjoying* what Potter and Black are doing to Snape? 8. James responds to Lilys question What did he ever done to you? with its more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean.(emphasis mine) , So what does James mean and what is Lily supposed to know?. 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any indications in this chapter that he could have feelings for her? 10. What do you make out of Snapes reaction after Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his office again? 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 To volunteer as a chapter discussion leader, please check the database for the chapters that are still unassigned and contact penapart_elf @yahoo.com (minus that extra space) with your interest. Thank you! _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Tue Oct 5 15:01:03 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:01:03 -0400 Subject: Petunia's House(was: Re: Petunia and Dumbledore) Message-ID: <2A55CDEF.151F45E4.39E60FE2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114903 RedLena said: My above opinion about Muggle Petunia aside, *if* she *were* a witch and sorted into a Hogwarts house, I'd expect her to be put into Hufflepuff. Here's why... she's not brave enough to be a Gryffindor, she's not smart enough to be a Ravenclaw, and she's clearly not a pureblood which seems to cut Slytherin out of the running. Though I'd expect she'd be unlikely to be very popular in any case. fuzzlebub85 here (Kaylee Tonks-Lupin): Um...IMHO, Hufflepuff is out too...Is Petunia LOYAL enough to be a 'Puff? Sorry, that rhymed...Who is she loyal to? Vernon? IMO she leads Vernon around and keeps him in the dark about the magical world 99% of the time. She certainly isn't loyal to Harry, she doesn't trust him, she doesn't love him; She doesn't give a second thought to anyone but her ickle Dudleykins. Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, daughter of Nymphadora Tonks and Remus Lupin (obviously) "And this is Nymphadora-" "DON'T call me Nymphadora"..."it's TONKS." "Nymphadora Tonks, who prefers to be known by her surname only." "So would you, if your fool of a mother named you 'Nymphadora'..." -Tonks and Remus Lupin From kethryn at wulfkub.com Tue Oct 5 15:46:21 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:46:21 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114904 Kethryn now - > > Ok, I am going to have to object to this particular sentiment > expressed in the above paragraph which, to me, seems to be a rather judgemental thing to say. In particular, the "potentially lethal" games the kids are "allowed" to play by their parents. Hello? You think football isn't potentially lethal? How about baseball? Ever been hit in the head with a ninty mile an hour fastball? Did you hear about the girl who was watching a hockey game two years ago with her family and died when a stray puck hit her in the head? Casey again: > Children playing in sports have all kinds of precautions, helmets, > padding and such. Quiddich is played 20 - 40 or more feet in the > air, with no protection from a fall. No helmets to protect against > bludgers and such. As far as that RL little girl, she was a > spectator not a participant. Those hockey players have a hell of a > lot of gear on. (Go Redwings, if they ever play again.) No one can > be protected 100% from a freak accident. I don't know why on earth the teams don't wear helmets in Quidditch but I am reminded that hockey players have only recently begun wearing face shields and helmets weren't enforced by the league (NHL that is) until sometime in the 70's I believe (but I can't find a definate date on the 'net and my hockey books are at home). Soccer players still don't wear helmets and, having done this, I would say that being smashed in the head with a bludger probably hurts as much as slamming heads together when going up for a header ball. Heck, according to http://www.uidaho.edu/clubs/womens_rugby/RugbyRoot/rugby/Rules/LawBook /law04.html (and note, this is women's rugby) helmets are specifically prohibited. As for the no protection from a fall, the only fall that we have seen (and Lynch didn't fall in the World cup, he merely dove into the ground) is when Harry fell off his broom in PoA and Dumbledore caught him. So, from that example, I think we can assume that if any player actually fell off his/her broom (and did not dive into the ground) that the other wizards and witches (either as referees or as spectators) would slow down the fall enough so that it would not kill the player or, indeed, even cause a serious injury. Sports are dangerous, all sports are. Even if you wear a helmet when you play a sport, the helmet can still come off and you can still get hurt. Jeremy Roenick of the Philidelphia Flyers last year took a puck to the face off a slap shot that put him out of the game and into the hospital with a shattered jaw and a concussion. Had a witch been nearby, he would have been back out on the ice the next play but, instead, he was out for four months (I think). So I guess basically what I am saying is that while the WW sport of choice is more dangerous than our sports (I dunno though, ever watch kids skateboard down rails?), it is acceptable because their health care is a heck of a lot better than ours and because they have magic to aid themselves out of sticky endings. You know, I grew up with dangerous playgrounds with real metal screws that were not capped, with jackets with the strings on the hoods that I could have strangled myself on, heck I used to crawl under the barbed wire fence to play in the cow pasture where there were real cows, not to mention sneaking into the barn with all the rusty farm implements...it is a miracle that I grew up at all. Of course, had we had magic, I wouldn't have barbed wire scars on my back and a bum knee. Kethryn - rabid hockey fan who hopes the players get it together and talk to the league so she can once again scream, "Go Blackhawks, Go Rangers, Go Thrashers and BOOOOO Redwings!!! From redlena_web at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:06:39 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:06:39 -0000 Subject: Snape - Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114905 << > distaiyi: > The fact that Neville is afraid of Snape hardly amounts to > abuse. And what I recall of Snape's interaction with Neville is > hardly different from any other Gryffindor student must endure. >> RedLena: In Chapter 7 of PoA, the Gryffindor third years are in Potions class with Snape. Neville is having such trouble with his Shrinking Potion that it's coming out orange instead of the proper green. Snape sees this and tells Neville that at the end of the class he will feed Neville's potion to his frog Trevor. This terrifies Neville... he knows his potion is wrong and has no idea what his orange mistake would do to his beloved pet. Snape knows that Neville would have that reaction to the threat... particularly because it's not an idle one. While I believe Snape knows what effect the incorrect orange potion would have, he certainly also knows that Neville wouldn't and the boy would assume the worst. This is intentional emotional abuse that Snape is inflicting on Neville. In interactions with other Gryffindors, Snape has been strict and disdainful with his punishments, but I don't know of anyone else whom he led to believe he would possibly poison someone/thing that the student loves. The fact that Neville is afraid of Snape is not the abuse. It's the fact that Snape recognizes that Neville is afraid of him and takes advantage of that fact with interactions like the one I've related above that is abusive. --RedLena From redlena_web at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 17:33:45 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:33:45 -0000 Subject: JKR FAQ - Spoiler re Colin's Camera In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114906 << Angie: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > Wasn't JKR wrong about Colin's camera? She said > something like "Who said it worked?" and that he hadn't gotten > any film developed. I remember in COS Colin shows Harry the > picture Colin took of Harry with Lockhart, and Harry was > pleased that his photographic self was putting up a fight. > What gives? >> RedLena: JKR has posted a followup FAQ on her site about that because so many people have brought the error to her attention (including members of her own family). "What gives?" She was tired and she made a mistake. -- RedLena, who as a mom of a highly mobile 13-month-old can't imagine how Jo is able to take care of 2 children, be pregnant with a third, and still *read* anything, let alone write book 6 and post updates to her website From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 00:53:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:53:37 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114907 > Alla: > > > On the second thought, i think we should play a game. If we like > certain characters, what does it say about us? > > I am VERY fond of Sirius. I wonder what does it say about me? :o) Carol responds: That you're attracted to James Dean types? Rebels who like risking their lives on (flying) motorcycles, and so on? Just a thought. Please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong! Carol, who can't at the moment think of a recent counterpart to James Dean :-( From feklar at verizon.net Wed Oct 6 00:56:54 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:56:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again. References: Message-ID: <00a201c4ab3f$60111c80$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114908 > Valky: > I really do not believe that they don't work in their simplest > iteration. Snivelling is a derogatory that implies poor moral > fibre "weakness and unpleasantness". Sirius calls Snape by the name > Snivellus, and therefore he could be implying poor morality. > The evidence further to back up that Sirius would be inclined to > accuse Snape of "weakness and unpleasantness" is plentiful > throughout the books. Sirius: calls him a "Lapdog" and up to his > eyeballs in Dark Arts; says he never missed a chance to curse his > friend; accuses him of going out of his way trying to get the > marauders expelled.... > It is clear to me that Sirius *would* accuse 15 year old Snape of > being a weak and unpleasant person. He would consider Snape to lack > virtue, and he *would* intend the name Snivellus to imply this. Feklar: I agree that Sirius meant all those things, I think he'd also cheerfully imply a whole lot of other unsavory things, true or not, if he had time. Ultimately, the nickname is, at best, conclusory not evidentiary. I think it's worth keeping in mind that "snivel," even in the Brit dictionaries, has several meanings and inferences. I have no doubt JKR is aware of all of them and that the word is usually used as a insult not a statement of fact. > Valky: > Lily shows herself by her virtues in the pensieve, and Lupin has > some evidence of a conscience, so I won't argue what you have said > about them. > > James, on the other hand....... Most everything we can say about > James would be highly speculative, and I assume that *this* is the > characterisation choice that JKR made. I guess I'm willing to assume the pensieve was as revelatory about Lily's virtues as it was about James and Sirius' "sins." Not sure why the one is so much more speculative than the other. I think I posted another thing somewhere about people not being all black and white. People are perfectly capable of being generally ok guys, yet being unreasonably mean to certain individuals. To me, that's a more realistic characterization than having a couple of kids somehow know who's *really* a bad guy and who's just ugly and anti-social. > Valky: > if I could, I would refer to the passages in GOF and POA when Snape > is suddenly confronted with Sirius. The manner in which he pleads > with Dumbledore IIRC does suggest Snape in these roles. > Unfortunately for me I have lent my GOF and POA to my sister and I > cannot read it to refresh my memory, I just recall thinking in those > moments, that Snape was acting pretty weak. Feklar: True, in those passages he really had reverted to brathood. > Feklar: > > As for Snape, we have even less evidence of what his sense of > morality was. Personally, based on his adult personality, I lean > towards the idea that his conscience was, like Sirius' and James', a > bit late-blooming. I can see him as a fairly amoral intellectual > until some crisis of conscience drove him from the DEs to > Dumbledore. As an adult, I think he choses to be amoral > > > > Valky: > I tend to disagree because I think the moment in Occlumency when his > sense of compassion flickers for a moment in front of Harry is a > good indication of his true morality. Frankly I don't think James Feklar: I saw that as more of a sense of empathy; he knows what it is to be abused. I think he is aware of conventional morality, but doesn't place much stock in it--possibly because those who were lauded as being moral role models didn't act much better than himself or other Slytherins. > Valky: > No I really don't think they would have shunned Remus if they'd > known first. Two things I agree with to some extent are: Feklar: My impression was that the bias against werewolves is so entrenched that it's not seen as bias, but good sense. I suspect their reaction would have been much the same as Ron's reation: was DD mad to let Lupin in? HG's choice not to tell even H&R seems to indicate that even she thought ordinary, nice-guy wizards would not react in a nice way to a werewolf. > Valky: > Of course we know that they were opposed to prejudice. James > certainly made a lot of racket about the ills of saying mudblood in > the pensieve scene. It is a travesty to say we don't have at least a To me that was James defending a girl he had a crush on. It's just as possible that if he hadn't had such an intense interest in bothe LE and SS, he would have ignored them. > little indication that they were tolerant. Hagrid loved them, Remus > loved them, they were in Gryffindor the *most* tolerant house. Actually, I would think Hufflepuff is the most tolerant. The very nature of Gryffindor seems like it would spawn a level of conflict and intolerance, which in the books it does--they need something to be courageous and brave against. > > btw, w/r/t to the Neville hypothetical, I think James and Sirius > would have despised Neville. Sirius didn't like that Harry > wasn't "adventurous" enough, how much worse would he think of > Neville, who not only wasn't adventurous (and unlike Peter wasn't > interested in sucking up or applauding their antics), but also was > fairly morally aware at a young age and might have called them on > some of their actions or reported them? More irony with > > names: Neville could easily be Sniville. > > > > Valky: > Ahh but Neville would not do this, note that DD gave him ten house > points for having the *courage* to stand up to his mates when he > could more easily but less concientiously have *snivelled* to some > teacher instead. Feklar: I have to disagree that going to a teacher would be less conscientious, but in any case, I again think SB and JP would echo Ron: standing up for himself and the right thing was ok, so long as it wasn't impeding them. Feklar From redlena_web at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:09:45 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:09:45 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114909 Lady Macbeth: > And age 10-11 is when, according to Sociology standards, > children are supposed to be entering this phase of > understanding - compassion - in being able to identify with > the feelings of others. It's why we have to tell TODDLERS > things like, "How would you feel if she hit you?" or "How would > you feel if someone broke YOUR toy?" Age 5-10, while they're > in elementary school, comprises development of this skill - it's > generally accepted that by age 11, they should be starting to > hone that skill, not just beginning to learn it. > > > He's 15 going on 16 at the end of OotP - he should be > MASTERING the skills of compassion (developmentally) rather > than just starting to learn them. RedLena: Everything you've said here is true...for the normal emotional development of a child. Harry has not had a normal emotional development. At the age of 15 months, his parents were killed in his presence (or, in the case of James...within earshot, at least). He is then deposited in the home of the unloving Dursleys who, at some point between Harry's arrival and the start of SS/PS provide him with the cupboard under the stairs as his bedroom, routinely ignore him, and allow their son to bully him mercilessly. I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that Harry did not receive the typical guidance about compassion and empathy that most children learn from their parents in this unloving environment. The way Harry is initially described in the first book (I don't have my books with me for an exact quote, sorry) always gave me the impression of a somewhat stunted physical development (which later made the discovery of his skill with Quidditch that much more gratifying... one more thing overcoming the shortfalls of his Muggle life, but I digress). I believe that was coupled with a stunted emotional development as well. If Harry hasn't grasped the typical understanding of compassion for his age, it isn't his fault. -- RedLena From feklar at verizon.net Wed Oct 6 01:10:10 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:10:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry References: Message-ID: <00ba01c4ab41$39f1ac20$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114910 "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > I don't know at least in regard to Draco it is clear to me that she > > calls him a BAD GUY. > > > > Kneasy: > In the context of a romantic relationship, yes she is. > But that's hardly equivalent to considering him to be the spawn of the > Devil as some seem to. Feklar: I think that's the key difference as well: she's talking about "falling" for the bad guy. By her advice about them to her own experiences (I'm assuming she wasn't ever with a serial murderer) she even seems to be implying that they are "bad" not in terms of evil, but bad relationship material (which they clearly are). She also seems to be indicating that she understands they appeal of those who are "mad, bad and dangerous to know." Feklar From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Oct 6 01:38:56 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:38:56 -0000 Subject: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114911 "djrfdh" wrote: >>> if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you! Alla replied: >> Snape is a VERY interesting and well developed character. >> I can and will go ballistic at him because of his abuse >> of Harry and Neville, but I am also quite fond of him in >> many ways. :o) >> >> So, do tell what does it say about me, please? Carol pitched in: > As you undoubtedly know, I love Snape's mystery and > complexity and I don't think he's nearly as evil as some > people have painted him as being. And of course I don't > approve of genuinely abusive teachers in RL. Nor do I > appreciate the implication that I'm evil or my judgment > is defective because Snape is my favorite character.... > > I've noticed a tendency lately for certain posters to > state their opinions as if they were the absolute truth > and to dismiss others' views as wrong or absurd.... > Sweeping generalizations and, above all, insinuations > about other posters or the absurdity of their views just > will not do. Well, that's the thing about insinuations: the matter being insinuated is left up to the imagination of the listener, so people tend to hear "implications" that may never have been there in the first place. Of course being a "Snape-lover" says a lot about a person. While not an essential definition of a person's character, loving Snape suggests (although it does not require) any of the following: * the Snape-lover is able to look past some degree of cruel behavior to understand a person's true motives * the Snape-lover is willing to accept the judgment of a trusted person (DD) even when it conflicts with his/her own experience * the Snape-lover stands up for those who are on his/her team * the Snape-lover understands what it is like to be bullied and teased (and how that cycle can perpetuate itself) * the Snape-lover roots for the underdog (even though Snape himself sometimes does not, viz. Neville) * the Snape-lover respects a person who conquers temptation, and who chooses the right path over the easy one * the Snape-lover loves unconditionally. Wait, is the Snape-lover starting to sound too much like Harry? Consider also, then: * the Snape-lover is able to look past surface appearances * the Snape-lover has respect for authority, independent of the person exercising it * the Snape-lover appreciates precision and attention to detail (outside the area of personal grooming, of course :)) * the Snape-lover appreciates subtlety of character and of reasoning * the Snape-lover just plain likes smart folks. So the Snape-lover has a good dose of Hermione, too. There are some views expressed on this list that are simply absurd (sorry, Carol). But the possibility that the Trio might someday reconcile themselves with Snape seems less and less so. -- Matt A postscript, to address Carol's complaint about manners in a less flippant way: It's quite noble to say we should all respect every opinion that is expressed on the list. It is also quite unrealistic. Part of what people clearly enjoy about this list is the ability to toss around theories that, not infrequently, border on the absurd. It is wonderful that the list draws in people with widely divergent opinions and theories about the books -- some strongly-held and some more in the nature of playful diversions. It is inevitable that some of these people will disagree, and on occasion may disagree strongly. We cannot fairly expect people to respect opinions and theories that they view as absurd. What we can fairly require is that people will treat the human beings who offer those opinions and theories with respect. We can also fairly expect that a person who chooses to post a theory for discussion in a public forum will be willing to accept criticism of that theory for what it is: criticism of the theory, not criticism of the proponent. Too frequently, those two are confused (by critics, by those reading the criticism, or by both). I don't know what the intention was behind the sentence quoted at the top of this message. I am prepared to assume it was not intended as a personal attack on anyone, since it was posted in reply to a message from about four years ago (or maybe Yahoo! has that wrong). But, as always, I think it is more productive to address what the poster said, than to assume I know what s/he meant. --M From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Wed Oct 6 01:45:12 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:45:12 -0000 Subject: JKR's FAQ - Sirius (spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114912 K G wrote: >> In the FAQ section under book info, there is a question >> about if JKR likes Sirius. She states that yes she does >> but that he is very fall[i]ble. When I read the answer, >> I had to go back and read it again. She talks about >> Sirius, himself, in the present, Lupin in the present, >> but James in the past. Alla: > OOOO, good point. I missed that. Indeed when she describes > Sirius' character, she says "IS", not "WAS", but she > indeed[] says "LOVED" James' like a brother. Perhaps a simpler explanation is that she is discussing Sirius from the standpoint of the portion of the story in which he is included, a portion in which James has already died, but Sirius and Lupin are alive. Sirius still "is" a character in that portion of the story, but Sirius's feelings about James at that time are in the past tense. -- Matt From feklar at verizon.net Wed Oct 6 02:08:19 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:08:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Beauty in HP (only evil needs advertising) References: Message-ID: <013801c4ab49$5a069680$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114913 > feklar replied: > > Ironically, I've always thought the opposite -- any > > character that is fat or ugly is also evil, stupid or > > both. Vernon, his sister and Dudley are all of the > > above, Petunia is "horse-faced" and abusive. Pettigrew > > is fat and probably ugly. Fudge is fat. LV is ugly > > (tho' 16 yo TR was not). Most Slytherins are described > > as ugly in some way (Crabbe and Goyle, Flint, > > Bulstrode). Hagrid and Neville aren't evil, but they > > are generally portrayed as having unflattering looks and > > being somewhat stupid. > > > > About the only exceptions are the Malfoys, they get away > > with being beautiful and evil. Matt-- > While I won't dispute the correlation (btw, you missed the best > example, Ms. Umbridge!), it certainly is not universal. Dumbledore > has his somewhat odd looks, and Tonks is decidedly odd. Snape is > certainly not handsome (although his allegiance has some ambiguity to > it). McGonagall is severe at best, and Mad-Eye is no eye candy. > Bellatrix was once a beauty, and Narcissa apparently still is. > Perhaps there's a bit of a motif of people's looks being twisted by > their descent into evil (Bellatrix; Riddle). Perhaps some of what we > see of peoples' looks is colored by Harry's positive or negative > perceptions -- is Dudley really wider than he is tall? > > -- Matt True, though neither DD nor Tonks are unattractive...I always picture Tonks as a cute little neo-Punk. Even MM isn't unattractive (though I suspect Hagrid is, his beastial eyes are mitigated by his warm eyes though). most characters, like HG and Ron, seem to have very general, average looks, but the descriptions of the ugliness of bad characters go into such glorious detail--the Dursleys and Umbridge especially--that the link just really stands out in my mind. Feklar From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 6 02:23:14 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:23:14 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114914 SSSusan: > > I found it interesting that JKR answered that question *not* in > > the "About the Books" category, but in the "Other Stuff" > > category. I think, as many have pointed out here, Hogwarts is > > very definitely not like modern Western education (esp. not like > > modern American public schools). It's also been discussed here > > that there isn't exactly a counseling system in place at > > Hogwarts, at least not that we see. Students seem to be > > expected to be pretty tough and to "buck up" and just take a lot. > > I think she's writing to today's children, living in RL, not > > *necessarily* equating it to what our crew is dealing w/ in her > > fictional WW. Dzeytoun: > That's quite true. However, I think the reason it's in "other" > and not "on the books" is because the question did not come to her > as a question specifically about the books. That is, she wasn't > asked "What do you think about bullying at Hogwarts?" but rather > her opinion, in general, of what bullied students should do. > > As to how this relates to the books, perhaps it shows in OOTP. I > don't think she made Harry's silence out as all that heroic in > OOTP. After all, in at least two major scenes people strongly > urged him to speak to somebody about it. SSSusan: Indeed, it's very possible that JKR's answer to the bullying question came in that category because it was asked more generically. This is probably rather dumb of me, but I've just realized I've been assuming these weren't necessarily actual questions JKR has received, but rather simply the things she has decided she wants to address with us. But it could well be that she DID choose this from questions submitted to her. I'm not sure "heroic" is a word I would have even thought of bringing in here, but I do think that JKR's portrayal of Harry's silence/stiff upper lip in OotP gets put forth as NOT necessarily a smart move on his part. As you say, Harry *was* encouraged to talk to someone--was it DD and MM who were suggested, or just DD?--and he refused. At that point I think we could chalk his refusal up to at least three things: 1) Harry's belief that DD has rather abandoned him; 2) Harry's somewhat reticent nature [though less so in OotP than earlier]; and 3) the fact that Hogwarts as we've seen it really doesn't have much of a mechanism for assisting students [see above]. Still, I'll grant you that it wouldn't have hurt Harry to have TRIED talking to someone. McGonagall, perhaps? Does Harry not do so through five books because he feels it's wimpy to do so? Because he sees no one else around him doing so [i.e., Neville regarding Snape's meanness]? Come to think of it, presumably he never did so in the Muggle world, either, when he could have asked for help regarding his treatment by the Dursleys. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 6 02:35:45 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:35:45 -0000 Subject: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114915 Matt: > loving Snape suggests (although it does not require) any of the > following: > > * the Snape-lover is able to look past some degree of cruel behavior > to understand a person's true motives > * the Snape-lover is willing to accept the judgment of a trusted > person (DD) even when it conflicts with his/her own experience > * the Snape-lover stands up for those who are on his/her team > * the Snape-lover understands what it is like to be bullied and teased > (and how that cycle can perpetuate itself) > * the Snape-lover roots for the underdog (even though Snape himself > sometimes does not, viz. Neville) > * the Snape-lover respects a person who conquers temptation, and who > chooses the right path over the easy one > * the Snape-lover loves unconditionally. > * the Snape-lover is able to look past surface appearances > * the Snape-lover has respect for authority, independent of the person > exercising it > * the Snape-lover appreciates precision and attention to detail > (outside the area of personal grooming, of course :)) > * the Snape-lover appreciates subtlety of character and of reasoning > * the Snape-lover just plain likes smart folks. SSSusan: You forgot the possibility that the Snape-lover simply enjoys snarky, intelligent, witty reparte. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 02:59:59 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:59:59 -0000 Subject: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > Of course being a "Snape-lover" says a lot about a person. While not an essential definition of a person's character, loving Snape suggests (although it does not require) any of the following: > > * the Snape-lover roots for the underdog (even though Snape himself > sometimes does not, viz. Neville) > > -- Matt Valky: Hi Matt, I appreciate that you have written a Snape lover does not require to be each. However I really must interject on this one, anyway. Underdog: The one expected to lose in a contest as in sport or politics. The one who is at a disadvantage. Correct me if I am wrong but in the debate of James v Snape in the penseive "James is/was Evil?" debate the underdog would be the one likely to lose which would be James, yes? So therefore the bevvy of Snape supporters contributing would be *against* the underdog in that particular debate. And in the Harry v Snape debate we are talking 11 yr old boy fresh from abusive home gets picked on by a grown man emotionally and those who say the *boy* should be expected to behave better are the ones rooting for the *underdog*? Matt, _that's_ absurd , that one please remove it from the list. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 03:08:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:08:50 -0000 Subject: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114917 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: snip. >> Correct me if I am wrong but in the debate of James v Snape in the > penseive "James is/was Evil?" debate the underdog would be the one > likely to lose which would be James, yes? So therefore the bevvy of > Snape supporters contributing would be *against* the underdog in > that particular debate. > > And in the Harry v Snape debate we are talking 11 yr old boy fresh > from abusive home gets picked on by a grown man emotionally and > those who say the *boy* should be expected to behave better are the > ones rooting for the *underdog*? Matt, _that's_ absurd , that one > please remove it from the list. Alla: As Snape's partial lover I must partially disagree with you , Valky and you know it is always very painful for me to do. :o). Yes, in Snape/Harry context I find it very funny to hear that Snape fans roote for for underdog, because to me Harry is very, very, very underdog in this couple. But in Snape/James debate it is very hard for me to determine who the underdog is. In Pencieve scene in particular James does not look like an underdog to me. From karen at dacafe.com Wed Oct 6 03:10:36 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:10:36 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" > wrote: > > > > Having read a number of very strong posts from Snape/Sirius > > ?philes/?phobes, I would like to ask one question ? has > > anyone else noticed that many of the characters are really > > caricatures? > > > > The Dursleys made Harry sleep in a closet; they send him a > > tissue for Christmas; a teacher is repeatedly "sadistic" > > toward particular students without comment from school > > authorities; Gilderoy Lockhart (need I say more?). These > > are just a few examples, but IMO the characterizations are > > a little over-the-top. > ............... > > The magic of JKR's storytelling is that we have all come to love > > these characters (good and bad) and think of them as real. > Matt writes: > Somewhere in the depths of Yahoo!, there's a post of mine suggesting > that Rowling's most impressive gift is the ability to bring life to > these impossibly caricatured stereotypes, and to turn them into > characters who read as "real." kmc adds: I recently picked up a book (on travel so I cannot give the reference until I return home) containing short stories about Wizards and Magic. In the forward, there is a comment about the wizards living among us being the people who deal in "mage, images and imagination". It goes on to say that writers and artist are real wizards because they stretch the reader's imagination. JKR is one of the great wizards of our time for she has created a world that stretches our imaginations. Her works provide us with canon to support both sides of the many discussions in this forum. (Elves - this is probably off topic but I could not resist praising JKR, I will go now and properly punish myself by "ironing my hands". -kmc From dzeytoun at cox.net Wed Oct 6 03:28:26 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:28:26 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: > > > > I guess I've always assumed -- not that he has said so explicitly -- > that Dumbledore had put Lily up to her "ancient magic," at least as a > contingency plan in the event that Voldemort overcame the Fidelius > charm and escape was impossible. If he had had no involvement, how > would he -- or anyone -- have known what had happened at Godric's > Hollow? I'm sure I've heard other speculation along these lines here > (possibly in connection with more general utilitarian Dumbledore > theories), but can't recall exactly where. > > -- Matt You know, several people on various forums the last year or so have said that Lily had something to do with the charm placed on Harry. I don't recall *anything* in canon to suggest that. As far as I know, the only reference we have is from Dumbledore, who says "But she took you, and in doing so sealed the charm that *I* placed on you." So it seems to me that DD is saying Lily had nothing to do with the charm, other than that it was her sacrifice that energized it. Rather, in trying to decide how best to protect Harry, he decided to invoke the power of Lily's sacrificial love by placing this ancient magic on Harry. Can someone come up with a canon reference to show that Lily had anything at all to do with the *charm,* as opposed to her love being the foundation of the magic the charm uses? Dzeytoun From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Wed Oct 6 03:29:07 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:29:07 -0000 Subject: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114920 > > > Alla: > > As Snape's partial lover I must partially disagree with you , Valky > and you know it is always very painful for me to do. :o). > > Yes, in Snape/Harry context I find it very funny to hear that Snape > fans roote for for underdog, because to me Harry is very, very, very > underdog in this couple. In the overall view of the books though, Snape is the underdog. Harry is the hero, and by association so are Ron, Hermione and Neville. Snape is the one hated and mistrusted. That qualifies as an underdog to me. > > > But in Snape/James debate it is very hard for me to determine who > the underdog is. In Pencieve scene in particular James does not look > like an underdog to me. Totally agree. Casey, who loved that list. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 03:41:11 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:41:11 -0000 Subject: Harry as an obvious hero? Was; Re: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114922 > Casey: > > > > In the overall view of the books though, Snape is the underdog. > > Harry is the hero, and by association so are Ron, Hermione and > > Neville. Snape is the one hated and mistrusted. That qualifies as > an > > underdog to me. > > > Alla: > > I was talking specifically about Snape /Harry relationship, not > about overal tone of the books. Harry is not in the position of the > authority, he is the one who cannot fight back. I mean I am glad > that he does sometimes, but he is an underdog to me. > > Come to think of it in general though, usually I don't vote for > obvious winners in the books. > > I guess for one of the reasons why I always root for Harry is the > fact that I am not sure that he is going to prevail at the end. > > I mean yes, he will defeat Voldemort, but here is this uncertainty > about his survival, his vulnerability and his strength, and I am > absolutely sold. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 03:41:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:41:48 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041004012132.52071.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114923 Griffin782002 wrote: > > Well she has said that. But what about the "properly dead"? Unless of course it means being a ghost or a form like L.V. was before the end of G.o.F. > > I made search a few days ago using the word 'veil'. It came up with various results, some of them with refering to those near-death expiriences. I didn't look at these articles for more details but some mentioned "beyond the veil expiriences". I only checked the results of the search and I am not sure when they were written. This made me think about what I have heard about these. Some have said that they "saw" dead relatives, who tell them something like "it's not your time yet, go back." And, sorry but I still do not understand how a veil kills Carol responds to the last sentence: I don't think the veil itself kills. It's just a gauzy, filmy covering for the doorway. Once you step--or fall--inside the arched doorway, you're in the world of the dead or the spirit world, evidently something like the Greek Hades (though I really don't want Harry to go that route). Anyway, the veil itself is not fatal, but evidently falling into the Underworld is. As I said in an earlier post, I think the archway in the Chamber of Death was once (in the time of the Druids) either an execution chamber or a method of ritual sacrifice--or both--and that the Ministry of Magic, beginning with the Department of Mysteries, was quite deliberately built on that site. (No proof; it just makes sense to me, and Celtic tradition would be more closely related to the British WW tradition than Greek mythology, though Fluffy/Cerberus, bought by Hagrid from a "Greek chappie," would have made a fine guard for the veil. It just occurred to me that "Greek" was changed to "Irish"--i.e., Celtic--in the film version, and JKR didn't protest. Hmmm.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 03:55:43 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:55:43 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114924 Alla: > I am still wondering what my liking of Snape as a CHARACTER tells > about me. :o) Carol: That you like complexity and mystery and don't believe in judging by appearances? Maybe you appreciate his intellect, too, and/or hope for his redemption, a hope that isn't held out to us for many characters other than Snape and, on a smaller scale, Percy. Am I close? Carol From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 04:00:32 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:00:32 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <20041006002657.88396.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alla Peker wrote: > Alla: > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. > > > 1. So, what is the reason for the title of this > chapter? It had been discussed many times, but why not > give it another try? Meri now: There've been, as you said, many discussions about whether or not chapter titles can be counted as canon. IMHO this is just what Harry believes Snape's worst memory to be, although I personally can not possibly believe that is the truth. IIRC, Harry saw scenes of who many listees believe to be Snape's parents shouting at each other, I would think that would be worse. I would think that a truly reconciled Snape would be far more haunted by some of his activites as a DE or by what he is doing now as a double agent. I just think this serves as a good chapter title, and really can't think of another title that sounds so good. > 2. Do you agree with Fred and George that " a bit of > mayhem" is exactly what Umbridge deserves? > Is it an effective way of dealing with her? Do you > think that something similar should have been done > earlier? Meri: Ah, Fred and George, how I shall miss their lightening prescence at Hogwarts over the next two years. Anyway, I think that F&G are merely practicing their own brand of (ahem) civil disobedience, finding their own small ways to rebel against the MoM, which has allowed LV to return unnoticed, made life at school miserable, discredited their father and torn their family apart. Does DU deserve what she's getting for destroying all that DD made Hogwarts stand for? For imposing her insanely restrictive Educational Decrees on a fairly competent faculty? For humiliating Prof. Trelawny for her own sick pleasure? For torturing both Harry and Lee Jordan? She wanted to be Headmistress, after all, and dealing with trouble makers is one of the things that Headmistresses must do. So did she deserve what she got? I don't know. But she sure as hell asked for it. > 3. What do we learn about Harry from his refusal to > drink the tea in Umbridge's office? Meri: That he's become completely paranoid? No, probably that he is appreciating the seriousness of DU's desires on him, and that he is understanding the depths to which some people will sink to advance themselves. I think that one of the criticisms of Harry in the past has been that he doesn't always react properly to tense situations (for example, why didn't he just accio the damn Marauders Map in GoF so Snape didn't see it?) so maybe this is an indication that he's actually starting to smarten up when it comes to recalling knowledge at appropriate times. > 4. What do you think about Cho's apology to Harry? > Could she say more or that was enough, in your > opinion? Was she trying to be loyal to both Marietta > and Harry? If you were Harry , would you forgive > Marietta after this conversation? Meri: I never thought that Cho and Harry were going to work out. The whole relationship had too much baggage in the first place for it to go anywhere. But while I think that in an ideal situation Harry could have been more forgiving to Cho and Marietta, this was far from an ideal situation. Harry, after all, is still having nightmares, he's still got Occlumency lessons, he's got OWLs coming up and there't the whole LV situation, as well as DD being forced from the school. Marietta did in fact sell out the entire DA, but if she was reluctant to come in the first place Cho shouldn't have dragged her along. But in my last reread of Order, I noticed that Hermione does say something to the effect that when the students sign the DA paper they are agreeing to not go rabitting about what's going on, so you can't really say she didn't warn them. snip > 6. This question is specifically for my benefit. Can > anybody please explain to me why Snape was still > reading his exam paper even though Flitwick collected > the parchments. Were they writing two copies of the > exam with one copy left for the student personal > records? I would appreciate the clarification. Meri: I think that the parchment collected was the actuall essays being written and the paper Snape was reviewing was the question paper. At my college when we take midterm exams we are given a typed sheet of paper with questions and then a blue exam book (the dreaded, dratted blue book) with lined paper inside to write our answers. I think that Flitwick collected the latter and Snape was allowed to keep the former to go over. > 7. "Students all around had turned to watch. Some of > them had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer > to watch. Some looked apprehensive, others > entertained." > "Several people watching laughed. Snape was clearly > unpopular" Why are there indications that the other > kids watching the scenery are not upset, but even > *enjoying* what Potter and Black are doing to Snape? Meri: Snape is, as the book says, clearly unpopular. I don't know what he could do to be that unpopular, unless he hexed people without warning, turned in rulebreakers with impunity and basically acted as a one man Inquisitorial Squad. But IMHO this is a level of unpopularity that isn't really seen in modern day Hogwarts. What I want to know about this scene is where is Snape's gang of Slytherin/future DE friends when he's getting humiliated? At least in Harry's time the members of one's own house tend to stand up for each other, so is there not a single Slytherin boy or girl willing to attack James and Sirius right back? But this also tells us, IMHO, that James and Sirius are extremely popular and well liked, seeing as only Lily managed to stand up to them, though if a teacher did manage to catch them at this I can't imagine them not getting in serious trouble for it. > 8. James responds to Lily's question "What did he ever > done to you? " with "it's more the fact that he > exists, if you know what I mean".(emphasis mine) , So > what does James mean and what is Lily supposed to > know?. Meri: Well, Lily's been at school with them both for five years running now, and she surely has seen their interactions over that time period, whether its one of them hexing the other, one getting the other in trouble or duels in the corridors. As a relative outsider to the magical world, I don't think there could be any family connection that Lily should know that she doesn't, and I think that at this point Harry would have found that out as well. Clearly there is something about Snape that we don't know yet that makes him a distastefull person to James. (Well, some would argue that we allready have some reasons for that, but work with me...) > 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any > indications in this chapter that he could have > feelings for her? Meri: Snape called Lily "mudblood" for the same reasons that Malfoy applied the term to Hermione. 1) That is what she is, a witch of muggle parentage, though that is an entirely inappropriate term. 2) She had just in some way humiliated him further. She, a *girl*, had stood up for him and come to his rescue in front of his worst enemy and the entire freaking school. That just adds insult to injury if you ask me. I personally never saw that Snape could have feelings for Lily, mostly because I think it's pretty clear he doesn't even respect her. After all, he called her the worst racial epithet in the WW. > 10. What do you make out of Snape's reaction after > Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his > office again? Meri: Well, if Harry passed his Potions OWL, he'll have to, won't he? I know I am one of the many who want to know Snape's motivations, but from what I think I understand about him, his reaction was almost out of character. The rage we saw there even seemed to surpass what he displayed in the Shreiking Shack. It wasn't embarrassment what he displayed, or fear that Harry would spread it around, it was plain old rage. Now, yes, Harry was nosy, and shouldn't have poked about where he wasn't wanted, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, Snape was probably told by DD that Harry knows what a pensieve is and would also probably have been told that he might be tempted to look in it. If Snape had any brains whatsoever he would have either chivvied Harry out of the office before him, or secured the pensieve in one of his magically sealable cabinets and then Harry could never have seen anything. Which leads me to the conclusion that Snape may have wanted Harry to see that memory, either to show Harry what a berk his dad could be, or to give Harry a glimpse at the difficulites he himself faced at school, or because he wanted an excuse to never teach Harry Occlumency again. But then again I am a bit of the conspiracy theorist, so I could be wrong on all counts. Meri - pleased to be posting again on a break from homework and wondering if we could add a simple amendment to the open letter to JKR: "Snape. Explain, please." From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 04:04:18 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:04:18 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114926 > Del replies : > First off, I'm sorry you had to re-read my original message. Annemehr: Not at all. When I did re-read it, I saw that you'd said what you meant all along -- but my natural (and cherished) Harry-defensiveness kicked in and overshadowed it. I really must learn to pay attention! Del: > Now, Harry's heroism. I believe it might be caused by several factors : > > 1. Circumstances. > > 2. Nature : > > 3. "Nurture" : Annemehr: I found myself nodding along, for the most part. Beyond that, I'm realising that we don't really know *what* Harry is feeling when he decides to do these things, do we? We feel compassion for the victims -- but Harry's actual feelings are never really given at that point, although we can see he's alarmed. Later we are told when he feels fear, or fury, or determination, but at the moment of decision we are left to fill in as we will. Is JKR assuming we'll read it as compassion, I wonder (as she assumed we'd know Harry gave birthday presents to his friends)? Del: > However, it is one thing to want to save people (either literally or > figuratively) and another to share their pain. Harry doesn't want > people to die, because life is his own most precious possession. But > he cannot and doesn't want to deal with people's feelings, because he > doesn't even know how to deal with his own. In fact, like many > teenagers, he is barely aware of the emotions that rule him, and he's > even more oblivious of the fact that he can master those emotions. So > how and why could he relate to other people's emotions, and how could > he help them deal with them ? > > Did I answer your questions satisfactorily ? > > Del Annemehr: YES! Beautifully! And it sounds as though that's one of the purposes of OoP -- to make that plain. And... I have one more thought to explore, which that last paragraph of yours is suggesting to me. It has to do with the difference in the way he feels during a regular day and how he feels when someone's in peril. Day to day, as you say, Harry seems to get along pretty normally, with flashes of empathy and moments of callousness. But perhaps, because of Harry's nature and history, when someone's in peril, Harry has an overload of identification with the victim(s) which shows up, maybe not as compassion, but as an urgent need to MAKE IT STOP! Sort of a transferred defensive reaction to help Harry *not* have to suffer with the victims? Which was just fine in PS/SS and CoS, but which made it difficult for him to listen to Hermione's voice of reason in OoP. If that's how it is, I give Harry credit for listening to Hermione as much as he did, and trying to check if Sirius had gone out, all the while reminding Hermione that "Sirius is being tortured *right now!*" (okay, twice). And, yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how he learns to master himself, and JKR told us he would. Annemehr not at all sure this was clear From karen at dacafe.com Wed Oct 6 04:08:38 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:08:38 -0000 Subject: Snape - Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114927 > > distaiyi: > > The fact that Neville is afraid of Snape hardly amounts to > > abuse. And what I recall of Snape's interaction with Neville is > > hardly different from any other Gryffindor student must endure. > >> > > RedLena: > In Chapter 7 of PoA, the Gryffindor third years are in Potions > class with Snape. Neville is having such trouble with his > Shrinking Potion that it's coming out orange instead of the proper > green. Snape sees this and tells Neville that at the end of the > class he will feed Neville's potion to his frog Trevor. > > This terrifies Neville... he knows his potion is wrong and has no > idea what his orange mistake would do to his beloved pet. > Snape knows that Neville would have that reaction to the threat... > particularly because it's not an idle one. While I believe Snape > knows what effect the incorrect orange potion would have, he > certainly also knows that Neville wouldn't and the boy would > assume the worst. > > This is intentional emotional abuse that Snape is inflicting on > Neville. In interactions with other Gryffindors, Snape has been > strict and disdainful with his punishments, but I don't know of > anyone else whom he led to believe he would possibly poison > someone/thing that the student loves. > > The fact that Neville is afraid of Snape is not the abuse. It's the > fact that Snape recognizes that Neville is afraid of him and takes > advantage of that fact with interactions like the one I've related > above that is abusive. > kmc: Or did Snape just want Neville to have a compelling reason to figure out what he did wrong and fix it? In my first few readings of the books, I would have argued along side of you but I gradually began to realize that Snape is dealing with a dangerous subject. Students must learn to correct their errors. I agree that Snape knew what the results of the postion would have on Trevor. Neville rises to the occasion as part of the DA group after Bellatrix escapes Azkaban, in spite of his fears. Hermione's helping him may have prevented him from fixing the solution himself. From annegirl11 at juno.com Wed Oct 6 03:58:46 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:58:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) Message-ID: <20041006.001228.3036.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114928 SS Susan said: > I found it interesting that JKR answered that question *not* in > the "About the Books" category, but in the "Other Stuff" category. I see your point. But she may have just put it there since it doesn't directly relate to the books in the literal sense. Neither the question nor the answer contains anything about Hogwarts, a character, something in the WW, etc. So at this point we'd be reading Jo's mind to try and figure out why she put it in Other Stuff, and since you've got Snape locked in your basement o' love and won't let him fly to England to do some legillimency on Jo, it's all just speculation. Aura The heating just came on for the first time in the season. The summer's really over... ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Wed Oct 6 03:38:16 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:38:16 -0400 Subject: Hogwarts' education (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? Message-ID: <20041006.001228.3036.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114929 M. Clifford said, > Someone recently used the term no-nonsense to describe Snapes > teaching style too and I just wanted to say that I don't agree that > applies to Snapes teaching approach. I actually think he carries on > with a *lot* of nonsense. It's semantics really so no need to debate > it, I just disagree with that. Heh, can't get rid of me that easily. :) I wasn't the one who said "nononsense," but I think that's accurate. Usually, unless there's some plotty thing going on, it seems that most Potions classes consist of finding your seat, listening to a brief bit of instructions, and then being told "the directions for this potion are on the board, get to work," and then they mix their potions until the end of the class period. I guess some proportion of the classes must be lectures, but I can't imagine Snape being the type of lecturer who goofs around, goes on tangents, allows for off topic discussion (or ANY discussion:), or any other kind of nonsense. It's just that this sort of stuff doesn't make for interesting book material, so we only get to see the few occasions when Snape deigns to pay attention to the Trio or Neville long enough to insult them. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 6 04:15:23 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:15:23 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114930 Dharma wrote: snip > "Snivellus" was also very clear to me upon first reading. The name implied very strongly to me someone who was borderline cowardly and likely to blither and whine in an annoying way. > >snip Potioncat: I know better, but I'm going to anyway. I'm going to add one more item to this fascinating discussion of the nuances of "snivelling." Never would have noticed it, but it jumped out at me on the plane to SC. SS/PS chpt 3 Vernon has been driving all over creation, they've stayed in a hotel one night Dudley has just asked if his father has gone mad. (Dudley is 11 years old): It started to rain. Great drops beat on the roof of the car. Dudley sniveled. "It's Monday," he told his mother. "The great Humberto's on tonight. I want to stay somewhere with a television." Neville cries in SS too: he sniffles, makes a snuffling sound and sobs. Potioncat (who sometimes doesn't know when to quit.) From feklar at verizon.net Wed Oct 6 04:16:29 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:16:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) References: Message-ID: <004401c4ab5b$415a5830$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 114931 > SSSusan: > I'm not sure "heroic" is a word I would have even thought of > bringing in here, but I do think that JKR's portrayal of Harry's > silence/stiff upper lip in OotP gets put forth as NOT necessarily a > smart move on his part. As you say, Harry *was* encouraged to talk > to someone--was it DD and MM who were suggested, or just DD?--and he > refused. At that point I think we could chalk his refusal up to at > least three things: 1) Harry's belief that DD has rather abandoned > him; 2) Harry's somewhat reticent nature [though less so in OotP > than earlier]; and 3) the fact that Hogwarts as we've seen it really > doesn't have much of a mechanism for assisting students [see > above]. feklar-- It looks to me like classic abused child behavior--he may not want anyone to know he was being abused or how. Also the Dursleys trained him to think cries for help not only wouldn't be heeded but would result in harsher restrictions or punishment. I think it's possible that asking for help never even occurs to him even in his muggle school-years because of how the Dursleys treated him; their treatment and the ignoring of his cries are the norm as far as he knows. Feklar From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 04:30:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:30:25 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114932 Alla wrote: > > I understand what you are saying though that we have not seen much > of Voldemort's evil deeds, therefore it is hard to have strong > feelings about him based on the story itself. > > I agree with it. I also said earlier that I am absolutely NOT > impressed with JKR portrayal of Vodemort. > > He strikes me as a cartoon kind of villain, because we are only > being told about his deeds, not shown. He is not scary, he is > annoying at most. > > I keep hoping that we will at least see all gruesome details of > Godric Hollow murder in order for me at least be dsifusted with > Voldemort for that. > > I think Renee said that her main gripe with series is that JKR > portrays evil in the "good" guys much better than "bad " guys. > I think I agree. > > Snape's "evil" side is portrayed perfectly,at least enough for me to > have VERY strong feelings about it. At the same time, I keep hoping > for his redemption at the end. Carol responds: I agree that Snape is a much more interesting--and much less evil--character than Voldemort. I also agree that so far Voldemort has been by and large a cartoon villain. (I count the first chapter of GoF as a partial exception; he was actually a bit mysterious there, and the unusual point of view--Frank Bryce's--also added interest. And the spell that resurrects him later in GoF is gruesome and clearly shows how selfish and cruel and evil he is. But the graveyard scene returns us to Cartoon!mort. (Jenner in the Disney film "The Secret of NIMH," anybody?) One problem, maybe, is that JKR has chosen to make him snakelike, barely human--unlike Diary!Tom in CoS, who fooled me on a first reading into thinking he was a sympathetic character (at least until the Hagrid/Aragog scene). Another problem, maybe, is that wand violence is so bloodless. Horrible as a Crucio is, you can get up and fight again after surviving one (or at least Harry can). And AKs (except at Godric's Hollow) leave no mark. We've heard about people being blown apart by DEs ("We only ever found bits of him," Moody says about one of the Order members--Benjy Fenwick, I think), but the only deaths we've actually witnessed so far, Cedric's and Sirius's, have been swift and painless. I'm certainly not craving blood and gore. I can read about the American Civil War or the Crimean War if I want that (and I don't). But still, so little has happened. Voldemort has possessed Quirrell and made him drink unicorn blood. He's drunk Nagini's "milk" as a perverted, monstrous infant. He has tortured and killed Bertha Jorkins (off-page), killed Frank Bryce, ordered the Imperioing or kidnapping of various people, crucio'd some DEs, crucio'd and tried to murder Harry. I may have missed something, but still he's more of a Mafia don or a serial killer with a gang of thugs than an evil overlord. And for all of OoP, he thought of nothing but getting the Prophecy (and controlling Harry). A pretty scary nemesis for a fifteen-year-old boy, but no match for Dumbledore in terms of real power or intellect. DD may not be able to destroy him, but he could easily turn him into a snake and keep him in a cage till Harry is ready to face him. (I know--DD is too noble to do that, and it would be only a temporary solution. But my point is that LV is too easily defeated. He just isn't scary. Anybody have thoughts on this, or am I just stating the obvious? Carol From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Oct 6 04:32:15 2004 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:32:15 -0800 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <1097025018.16576.23507.m24@yahoogroups.com> References: <1097025018.16576.23507.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114933 >Snape?s first words to Harry are ?You are late, >Potter?. He removes his thoughts in the pensieve again I know this has come up before, but I still haven't read a convincing answer. Why does Snape wait until Harry, who is late, shows up, before he removes the memories that he doesn't want Harry to see? Is he purposely trying to taunt Harry - to test him - to egg him on? Does he actually WANT Harry to see the worst memory, so he can justifiably lose his temper and throw him out? If occlumency is about controlling your emotions and Snape is supposedly a "superb occlumens", is it possible that the whole fit of rage is just a sham? >DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. > >6. This question is specifically for my benefit. Can >anybody please explain to me why Snape was still >reading his exam paper even though Flitwick collected >the parchments. Were they writing two copies of the >exam with one copy left for the student personal >records? I would appreciate the clarification. Others will probably answer this, too. Generally the exam questions came on one paper and the answers were written in a separate booklet - or in this case on a separate parchment. So Snape was still looking over the questions, not his answers. Laura Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net From annegirl11 at juno.com Wed Oct 6 04:35:31 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:35:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) Message-ID: <20041006.003649.3036.5.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114934 SS Susan said: > but I've just > realized I've been assuming these weren't necessarily actual > questions JKR has received, but rather simply the things she has > decided she wants to address with us. I got the sense that she picked that somewhat random question to answer b/c she'd gotten a lot of parents saying, "My kid is bullied, too, and really relates to Harry. However, I'm not sure I agree with Harry's actions towards bullies. What are you trying to say? What should I tell my kid when I tell them to talk to a teacher if someone picks on them, but they idolize Harry?" Or something to that effect. Here on HPfGU we forget that Harry has very, very young fans. > I'm not sure "heroic" is a word I would have even thought of > bringing in here, but I do think that JKR's portrayal of Harry's > silence/stiff upper lip in OotP gets put forth as NOT necessarily a > smart move on his part. ITA. And that's what I think her answer was to address. Harry behaves as is his character, but she wants to establish to real kids that they shouldn't act like Harry when it comes to bullies. I'm sure she wouldn't want her kids to try to deal with their own Draco or Umbridge by themselves. > At that point I think we could chalk his refusal up to at > least three things: 4) The English boarding school boy code of silence and self-reliance. Don't tell anyone if you're in pain, don't act weak, don't let anyone help you. It's demented and horrible, and I'm glad it's on its way out in the real world, but it's present in the sometimes 1950's culture of the WW. > Still, I'll grant you that it wouldn't have hurt Harry to have TRIED > talking to someone. McGonagall, perhaps? OOtP was so frustrating to me because Harry had at least a dozen possible outlets, but he didn't seek any of them. He could have talked to ANY Hogwarts professor, Hagrid, Mdm Pomfry, Mr. or Mrs. Weasley, Remus or Sirius, Dumbledore, and at least gotten advice from an older Weasley boy; hell, maybe even if he told the Dursleys that a teacher was *cutting up his hand* they would have raised a stink b/c they're the only ones allowed to abuse their nephew! Harry's options were limited after the radio silence, but he was never as alone as he thought he was. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 05:35:02 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 05:35:02 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > And... > I have one more thought to explore, which that last paragraph of yours is suggesting to me. It has to do with the difference in the way he feels during a regular day and how he feels when someone's in peril. Day to day, as you say, Harry seems to get along pretty normally, with flashes of empathy and moments of callousness. But perhaps, because of Harry's nature and history, when someone's in peril, Harry has an overload of identification with the victim(s) which shows up, maybe not as compassion, but as an urgent need to MAKE IT STOP! Sort of a transferred defensive reaction to help Harry *not* have to suffer with the victims? Which was just fine in PS/SS and CoS, but which made it difficult for him to listen to Hermione's voice of reason in OoP. > > If that's how it is, I give Harry credit for listening to Hermione as much as he did, Tonks here: This reminds me of a bit of advise I once hear directed toward those in the helping professions. *always ask yourself "whose need is it*. Sometime people feel for the other person because they are projecting their own pain upon them. And it is easier, less painful to help the other than to look at ones own situation and deal with it. In a sense Harry's "saving people thing could be a *saving Harry thing*. But I think that Harry is a compassionate person. There are times when he shows that. When a person is treated badly and they are a good, gentle person, this mistreatment develops in them a deep compassion for others. But so much for the psycho... stuff. I think the real reason that JKR puts that bit of information in Herione's mouth is that she is setting us up for Harry to be THE *saving people person*. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 06:12:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:12:58 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114936 Alex Boyd wrote: > At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, I'd like to pose the > question of whether folks think that Snape's behavior towards Harry > *really* constitues abuse. > > The official role of a teacher is to teach subject matter, not to provide emotional nurturance. "Being nice to Harry" is not Snape's job. Carol responds: Yes! Unlike Muggle schools, which seem to have largely forgotten not only the Three R's but history, geography, and science in favor of sex education, drug education, and self-esteem training (I'm speaking here solely of the U.S. though a similar trend may be occurring in Britain; I don't know), Hogwarts still concentrates on teaching the subjects that young people, in this case young witches and wizards need to learn to earn a living--and indeed to survive--in the WW. To be sure, Binns and Trelawney may not be teaching their students much of value and the kids' DADA training has been extremely haphazard, but Snape, IMO, knows what he's doing. He has a clearly structured curriculum, he expects his students to pay attention and follow directions, and he also expects a high percentage of them to pass their OWLs. If he's speaking the truth in OoP, which we have no reason to doubt, his record as a teacher supports this expectation. He is teaching them what they need to know to pass their OWLs--and, I would venture to say, a great deal more, including the making of antidotes, which will assuredly have practical applications outside the classroom. He knows his subject very well, and he is teaching that subject--not feel-good fluff or self-esteem. No emotional nurturance in his classes (or McGonagall's or anyone's except Flitwick's, from what we've seen). Since he WW does not have teachers colleges or even universities, Snape is undoubtedly using the methods he observed in his own education. He has never heard of political correctness (or "diversity" or any of our postmodern notions of what education ought to be), and I think he would be appalled at the absence of scholastic rigor in our present-day classrooms. He is there to teach his subject; his students are there to learn it. They fail to do so at their very real peril. Potions is not playtime, and Snape, like McGonagall, is not their equal or their friend but their superior in knowledge and experience. He knows what they need to know, and they would do well to learn it. Alex wrote: > Harry has plenty of other places to look for emotional support (not as many as he would if he weren't an orphan, of course, but that's life). He has his friends, the adult weasleys, Dumbledore, Hagrid, and McGonagall. He doesn't *need* emotional support from Snape the way he would if Snape was (shudder) his father. > > This is not to say that a teacher can't be emotionally abusive. However, I doubt whether Snape's behavior is extreme enough to warrant that definition. As I see it, there are three major criteria to think of: the behavior itself, Snape's intent, and the effect of the behavior on Harry. > > The behavior we can see on the page. What has Snape done? He's asked Harry questions he wouldn't reasonably be expected to know the answers to in his first week of school. He's capriciously graded a couple of his assignments. He's blamed Harry for incidents of classroom misconduct in which Harry was not the instigator or sole participant. These behaviors are all unprofessional and inapproriate, but I'm not sure I'd call them abusive. (the capricious grading is what bothers me most, as a teacher.) Carol responds: The marks which Harry takes to be zeroes (in one case he's told it's a zero) don't seem to have affected Harry's end-of-year marks. He has always passed Potions, and we have not once heard him (or Ron or Hermione or even Neville) complain about the unfairness of the marks. And when Snape says he's going to mark the essays with the grades they would receive if they were the written portion of the OWLs, Harry knows that his D is deserved, and even Hermione (who gets an A for average) considers the mark to be fair and states that they need to work harder). Draco laughs because other students received a D, but he doesn't wave his paper around for everyone to see. It's a safe bet they he got an A like Hermione, not an E or (mental block here for the highest grade), or he'd have shown his high mark to everyone. In other words, however much Snape seems to be favoring the Slytherins, the marks that matter appear to be fair. (Of course we have yet to see Harry's OWL marks, but they weren't administered by Snape. I'm betting he received an E and will be allowed into NEWT Potions even if it requires special dispensation from Dumbledore to put him there.) > Alex wrote: > What about Harry's reaction? If he was crying himself to sleep on a regular basis, having horrible nightmares about potions class, becoming physically ill on days when he was supposed to have class with Snape, or otherwise showing signs of extreme stress or anxiety, then I'd consider assigning the label of "abuse" to Snape's behavior. But he isn't. He dislikes Potions (most kids have a class or two that they don't like). He gripes about it. He displays a reasonable and healthy level of anger. Occasionally he thinks Snape might be trying to kill him, but he's always (so far at least) been proved wrong about that. It looks to me as if he considers himself unfairly treated, but not abused. Carol responds: Exactly. The narrator is presenting Snape from Harry's POV. Harry "knows" that Snape "hates" him and/or is trying to poison him. But Snape, assuming that he prefers his Potions position to life in Azkaban, is unlikely to poison any student (or even a student's toad--he knew Hermione would help Neville get the potion right). And what Harry "knows" is often wrong, from his early belief that Snape was causing his scar to burn to his certainty that Sirius was being tortured by Voldemort. Or, on several occasions, his "knowledge" that he's going to die. (Snape, of course, also misjudges Harry, notably his certainty that Harry stole potion ingredients from his office. Neither has much reason to trust the other. But Harry could be as wrong about Snape as Snape is about Harry.) > Alex wrote: > Snape's motivation, we know nothing about. If he's behaving the way he does toward Harry because he *actively wants to cause lasting harm*, then I'd say, absolutely, yes, he's abusive. But most of the other motivations that have been suggested are, at worst, ambiguous in terms of determining whether his behavior is abusive or not. If he's just being an as**ole without considering the impact his behavior might have, then *maybe* I could see calling him abusive. Ditto if he's so totally unable to control his temper that he can't stop himself acting the way he does (though I think Snape would do *much* worse things if he were truely out of control). If he's doing the best he knows how (perhaps using the pedagogical methods that were in use when he was in school or that he was exposed to at home), then I'd say no, not abusive. Same if he has for some reason decided that > sarcasm and humiliation are the best ways to get through to Potter. > Carol responds: I don't have much to say here because I more or less agree. Certainly he didn't have any RW models or training on which to base his teaching methods. They have to be based on what he observed his own teachers doing--and his own personality traits, which include sarcasm and contempt for ignorance and weakness. The fact that he has tried on several occasions to save Harry's life (SS/PS, PoA, OoP) despite his intense dislike of Harry's constant rule-breaking and supposed arrogance argues against his intending to harm Harry through emotional abuse or in any other way. I think that from the very first day, with the bezoars and the aconite, he's been teaching his students in general (and Harry in particular) what they (especially he), will need to know as adults in the WW--and in the coming war. Alex wrote: > If those who believe in abusive!Snape can present the case without going into a CAPSLOCK rage, I'd be interested in hearing it, particularly with reference to specific classroom (or other on-page) incidents that I haven't thought of. Carol responds: I second this proposal. Snape's emotional abuse of Harry is *not* a given, it's a perception, based on the poster's own definition of abuse and the reading of a book that denies us access to Snape's point of view and deliberately keeps his motivations mysterious. I see no harm to Harry from Snape's treatment of him (though he does need to control and redirect his anger away from Snape toward the real enemy), and we have no conclusive evidence that Snape *intends* to be abusive or that he would even recognize or acknowledge the (Muggle) concept of emotional abuse. We do see, however, his opposition to the sadistic and physically abusive Umbridge. (And he has yet to transfigure even the most obnoxious or ignorant student into a bouncing ferret or any other animal or object.) I'm quite aware that many posters will not agree with my views in this post because their definitions of abuse or their perception of Snape clashes with mine. It may well be that we will never convince each other. All I ask is that my opinion (and Alex's) be respected and that counterarguments be supported by evidence, not presented as absolutely right and unassailable pronouncements. JKR has advised us not to judge Snape by appearances. I think we should follow that advice. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 07:47:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:47:04 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114937 > Pippin wrote: > > Snape makes an attractive scapegoat, but surely she..... > > (Valky: Bellatrix who he has already stood against) > > .......is the one responsible for Neville's nightmares and > irrational fears? > > > > Valky responded: > Not at all. POA makes a specific case of Neville fearing Snape with > his Boggart and furthermore in OOtP you see Neville shaking with > fear when Snapes castigates him. I am not using Snape for a > scapegoat nor am I ignoring Bellatrix' and Rodolphus' visitation > upon Neville. > I am simply pointing out that there is *someone* who fits the > description that Alex posited regarding a criterion for making a > strong case that Snape is, in fact, *abusive*, in the very sense of > the word. That person is Neville Longbottom and if anyone is yet to > make a stand to Snape and take back his personal power from Snape it > is Neville. Harry has not given in to Snapes badgering, and he's > done really well for himself in spite of it. Neville OTOH is deeply > and horrendously affected by Snape, regardless of the Lestranges' or > LV or his Grandmother, Neville is affected by *Snape specifically* > and that is canon of Snape abusing his privilege. > What Bellatrix and her husband did to Neville's parents may well > have a great deal of relevance to his fearfulness, but we are given > specific canon to evidence that Snape is hurting Neville so there is > no reason to dismiss it. Carol responds: I agree with Pippin that Neville's fear of Snape is a pseudo-fear or surrogate fear. (I know you didn't use those exact words, Pippin, but that's how I interpret your argument. Correct me if I'm misreading you.) It's an irrational, childish fear that he can and must and will overcome so he can face the true villain in his life, Bellatrix (and her male sidekicks, her husband Rodolphus and his groupie brother, Rabastan). Anyway, as Pippin says, Neville suffers real emotional harm when Crouch!Moody crucios the spiders, cruelly prolonging the process for his own satisfaction with no regard for Neville's feelings. He comes away shaken from that encounter as he never does from any Potions class. His extreme reaction to that bit of sadism indicates that the root of all his memory problems and insecurities, including his tendency to melt cauldron bottoms and otherwise arouse the irritation of Professor Snape, have a much deeper root than Potions class. In OoP we see Neville starting to overcome his fears. With his own wand now that his father's is broken and with the DADA sessions and the experience of the DoM behind him, Neville will, I predict, be able to face Professor Snape with quiet confidence rather than temerity. (IMO, he won't defy him; he has no cause to do so and it would be out of character as well.) OTOH, it's possible that Neville, having received a mere A on his Potions OWL, won't even be in Snape's NEWT Potions class. (I seriously doubt that Snape will be teaching DADA until VW2 is safely over, assuming that he survives. More likely the DADA teacher will be the lionlike character from JKR's website.) In any case, it's time for Neville to go on to bigger fish than Severus Snape, who after all is a teacher, not a practicing DE who would actually endanger a student, whatever he may have done in the past. Just as Harry must ultimately face Voldemort, Neville must ultimately face Bellatrix, who deprived him of his parents through true sadism that does not even merit comparison with Snape's barbed wit. Snape is a minor obstacle, an introduction to the difficult people his students will undoubtedly encounter in later life--and he's on the same side as Neville, whether Neville knows it or not. Bellatrix is a true enemy, Neville's nemesis as Voldemort is Harry's. And realizing where the true danger lies--switching to a more realistic boggart, if you will--is Neville's first step toward that ultimate confrontation with an enemy who has done him far more harm than Snape has. Carol From eloiseherisson at aol.com Wed Oct 6 07:55:29 2004 From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:55:29 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114938 Ravenclaw Bookworm: > > The magic of JKR's storytelling is that we have all come to love > > these characters (good and bad) and think of them as real. Matt: > Somewhere in the depths of Yahoo!, there's a post of mine suggesting > that Rowling's most impressive gift is the ability to bring life to > these impossibly caricatured stereotypes, and to turn them into > characters who read as "real." I think you're quite correct in this. As others have said, JKR makes use of a number of genres in her writing including satire and fairy tale, where abusive characters abound. Many of her characters *are* exaggerated yet at the same time, entering into their world, we suspend disbelief and think of them as real. So we start making RL value judgements on fictional characters or about situations which show many of the signs of caricature. And yet in many cases they are not complete caricatures. I actually think that Voldemort is the nearest that she gets to complete caricature, something that is perhaps inevitable when dealing with an Evil Overlord. Uncle Vernon's descent into near madness in PS/SS comes close as well as does the whole Umbridge situation. It is impossible for us to imagine such a situation taking place in a real school, as impossible a minor having to attend a hearing which amounts to a trial because of using magic out of school, as impossible as, well, having lessons taught by a centaur. The situation is further complicated by JKR having created a wizarding world which is rather behind in its attitudes compared to those of what we like to think of as our enlightened society and even more complicated because it is presented as a world that for all its disadvantages would be the preferred one of anyone who was privileged enough to be allowed to become a part of it. Harry and Hermione are `normal' in wanting to embrace the WW; the Dursleys are clearly presented as `abnormal' in their exaggerated fear and loathing of the WW. The Wizard World is Tough. They play Tough sport which as Del pointed out is much more dangerous than anything a British schoolchild would play in RL, where some schools have given up rugby because of the risk of injury, local authorities are cutting back conker trees and playing conkers banned. It is acceptable to ask young people only just of age to face dragons and all sorts of dangerous creatures in the course of a competition. Only under Dumbledore have the most extreme punishments been banned at Hogwarts. The Wizarding justice system is questionable to say the least and children seem to be subject to its full force with no allowance made for age. Prejudice against other sentient beings (including Muggles) is rife. Belief in pure bloodedness is acceptable in the highest wizarding circles. Elfin slavery is accepted. As a school, Hogwarts is like a very old fashioned British school, with archaic customs and teaching methods and apparently unqualified teachers. This is not our world. In some ways it is more akin to the world of Dickens, with his exaggerated characters and abusive adults. Now Dickens of course was a social commentator and did not merely caricature, but question and criticise some of the mores of the time. With the HP books I think we have a double problem sorting out the caricature from the social comment because of the reference back to older genres. While Dickens was writing about his contemporary world, if using caricature, JKR is writing about an imagined world with many of the characteristics and accepted morality of an earlier age. With Snape, dare I utter the name, we are presented with a modern psychological view of an arguably abusive (certainly damaged) character emerging from what is hinted is an abusive or damaging background. So far so good. Where we have a problem is with him being let loose in a 20th century classroom, apparently with the headmaster's full knowledge of what he is like. In the real world, ironically, although his behaviour would not be acceptable, it would probably be harder to get rid of him than in the WW, where Dumbledore (pre the Educational Decrees) apparently had complete freedom to hire and fire. You can argue that Snape is or isn't abusive, but in the fictional world he inhabits, his behaviour seems to be tolerated. JKR said in interview that Dumbledore tolerated Snape as he believed that the students should learn to deal with people like that (NB this is presented as *Dumbledore's* not the author's view) >>Why does Professor Dumbledore allow Professor Snape to be so nasty to the students (especially to Harry, Hermione, and Neville)? Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life; horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! << (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-livechat- barnesnoble.html) At the same time, as Neri pointed out, she herself believes that Snape's behaviour amounts to abuse of his position "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power" (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-) If Dumbledore is the embodiment of goodness in the narrative, his attitude is still consonant with the Tough attitudes of the WW, where children are not cosseted and protected from the nastiness of the life as many feel they should be in the real world (this seems to me also to be consistent with the criticism of a friend of mine who does not like the HP books because she feels the children are asked to face up to too much in them). It seems to me that the text on its own can tell us nothing of JKR's own attitudes to abuse as to an extent she is like an anthropologist reporting and describing the practices of another world in which things happen differently. There are and have been many societies which have operated with quite different ethical and moral frameworks from our own and in many of them children have not and do not enjoy the special position that they do in ours. While the interview material shows us definitely that JKR sees Snape as one who abuses his power, *within* the WW, there is a morality which seems to say it's OK for children to be exposed to this, to learn to deal with it. Within the confines of that imagined world, characters regard Snape as a nasty git, but don`t seem to think his behaviour merits particular censure. From the reader's perspective, there is another interpretation which says that real children are experienced in adult abuse of power and a fictionalised account like this is something that they can relate to and use to question what happens in RL, just as children relate to the constant themes of abuse and cruelty that permeate fairy tales. Similarly, Dumbledore does not seem to question Elfin slavery. Our modern view is represented by Hermione and her well meaning but misguided attempts to liberate the Elves. I shall be very interested to see where JKR takes that storyline. We know from her own human rights activities that slavery cannot be something that JKR would condone, but the Hermione storyline also indicates that we shouldn't make assumptions that we always know what is best for people or try to solve their 'problems' without taking into account their views. Perhaps we should not be too quick to condemn from our Muggle viewpoint everything that we see in the WW that would not be tolerated in our world. That doesn't meant that there is no social commentary going on, that it is irrelevant or wrong to discuss the social issues that arise from the books; I'm sure that JKR wants her readers to think about RL parallels, particularly the abuse of power, prejudice and exploitation of the weak which seem to be constant themes, but we see these themes through a glass, darkly, as the fictional world which is their vehicle is so different from ours and the writing permeated by influences from so many genres. ~Eloise From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 08:05:11 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:05:11 +0000 Subject: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114939 Carol wrote (In response to me) >I don't have much to say here because I more or less agree. Certainly >he didn't have any RW models or training on which to base his teaching >methods. They have to be based on what he observed his own teachers >doing--and his own personality traits, which include sarcasm and >contempt for ignorance and weakness. If I were going to comment on Snape's motivations for how he treats his students--which I do only with the warning that I *know* any such remarks are wildly conjectural--I'd say that when he displays contempt for ignorance and weakness (eg, Neville's entire personality), I'd suggest that A) he's a very unhappy man, and that can't help but come out in his teaching, and B) he's projecting like a big projecting thing. In Snape's Worst Memory, we see him being too slow on the draw to defend himself (that is, weak and/or incompetent). Weakness leads to humiliation. His hatred of James/Sirius/Harry (the first two being the immediate cause of his humiliation, the last an unpleasan reminder of the first) is only (in my interpretation) a massive screen for his actual hatred of himself-as-victim. He's hostile to those who show weakness not because he's unable to imagine himself in their place, but because he *can't help but* imagine himself in their place, and that causes him to erupt with a toxic stew of rage-n-shame. Which is not to say that Student!Snape actually *was* as incompetent as Neville seems to be, only that when he looks back at those days (which he probably doesn't, often--remember he tells Harry how foolish it is to wallow in sad memories {not the exact wording, but something along those lines}) that's what he remembers. Like I say, wildly conjectural. No canonical evidence at all. But when you teach, there are two kinds of students you have to watch out for--those who remind you of your childhood tormentors, and those who remind you of your childhood self. And we teachers are at *least* as likely to react with inappropriate emotion to the latter group than the former. The really good teachers can provide the students that remind them of themselves with the kind of educational experiences they wish they'd had at that age; the rest of us have to constantly be on guard not to unfairly punish them for having the flaws we wish we hadn't. Alex _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 08:51:05 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:51:05 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114940 > Alex (giving an extraordinary insight into Snape): > But when you teach, there are two kinds of students you have to watch out for--those who remind you of your childhood tormentors, and those who remind you of your childhood self. And we teachers are at *least* as likely to react with inappropriate emotion to the latter group than the former. The really good teachers can provide the students that remind them of themselves with the kind of educational experiences they wish they'd had at that age; the rest > of us have to constantly be on guard not to unfairly punish them for having the flaws we wish we hadn't. > > Alex > Valky: Oh Bravo Alex!!!!! Of all the speculative interpretations of Snape I have ever heard this is by far The Best! And I think you insult yourself by calling it *wild* or hardly supported by canon. Frankly, the canon you cite that supports Snape projecting himself on Neville is perfectly evidentiary to me and I agree. Moreover I believe that it's very likely that what you speculate is precisely the characterisation that JKR is reaching for. And again, why I think that Neville *will* make a surprise stand on Snape in future books, because Neville is *not* young Snape he is quite the opposite and until recently he didn't know it of himself. Since his DA success and gradually over the course of time Neville has grown to realise that he is *strong* and that in due course he demonstrates this to Snape is, to me, a necessary junction in the story. What Snapes' reaction will be I do not know, however I see the two ingredients in the mix clearly. Snape sees Neville as vulnerable like he was when he was young he sees it and he reacts with inappropriate emotional response. If Neville defies this to Snapes face he defies much of what Snape has believed for most of his life. When Neville's courage and strength is displayed to Snape it will be a victory of virtue previously inconceivable to Snape. If it's then dismissed by Snape that would be an anticlimax so, I expect that, it will bring forth an interesting reaction in Snape, something we have never seen from him. Perhaps tears of joy or some wry expression of happy relief. Maybe it will simply lead to Snape dropping one of his guards and revealing a little more of his true self to us. Whatever the reaction I am positive that Neville as a catalyst is a foregone conclusion. And I am armed to defend it so fire away everyone ;D. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 09:03:43 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:03:43 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114941 > > Potioncat: > I know better, but I'm going to anyway. > > I'm going to add one more item to this fascinating discussion of the nuances of "snivelling." Never would have noticed it, but it jumped out at me on the plane to SC. > > SS/PS chpt 3 > Vernon has been driving all over creation, they've stayed in a hotel one night Dudley has just asked if his father has gone mad. (Dudley is 11 years old): > > It started to rain. Great drops beat on the roof of the car. Dudley sniveled. > > "It's Monday," he told his mother. "The great Humberto's on > tonight. I want to stay somewhere with a television." > > Neville cries in SS too: he sniffles, makes a snuffling sound and > sobs. > Valky: Ahhh Potioncat, shine on you crazy diamond... Two more for you. In OOtP Harry has a "snivelling" girlfriend. (Cho) and Neville "snuffled" in his sleep. From dzeytoun at cox.net Wed Oct 6 09:04:21 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:04:21 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > . > > When Neville's courage and strength is displayed to Snape it will be > a victory of virtue previously inconceivable to Snape. If it's then > dismissed by Snape that would be an anticlimax so, I expect that, it > will bring forth an interesting reaction in Snape, something we have > never seen from him. Perhaps tears of joy or some wry expression of > happy relief. Maybe it will simply lead to Snape dropping one of his > guards and revealing a little more of his true self to us. > > Whatever the reaction I am positive that Neville as a catalyst is a > foregone conclusion. And I am armed to defend it so fire away > everyone ;D. I would agree with this if Snape's projection were a *conscious* process -- i.e. if he were thinking,"this boy is too much like me for his own good, I have to fix that." However, projection is an *unconscious* process. Therefore I'm not sure that defying projection and expectation, even in a positive way, would necessarily provoke such a positive response as "tears of joy" or "wry relief." I am more inclined to think it would create confusion - which would fall under your definition of something we haven't seen before. That is, I can readily see defiance from Neville at least momentarily leaving Snape afloat and not knowing what to do. That can then lead in at least two directions. It could undermine Snape's assumptions and easy confidence that he knows what he's doing, opening the way to change. Or, in that having your assumptions challenged is an acutely painful process, it could simply lead to a massive negative reaction creating a downward spiral in Snape's behavior. Either way, it would be interesting and extremely amusing to see. Dzeytoun From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 6 09:16:18 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:16:18 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114943 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > You know, several people on various forums the last year or so have > said that Lily had something to do with the charm placed on Harry. I > don't recall *anything* in canon to suggest that. As far as I know, > the only reference we have is from Dumbledore, who says "But she took > you, and in doing so sealed the charm that *I* placed on you." > > So it seems to me that DD is saying Lily had nothing to do with the > charm, other than that it was her sacrifice that energized it. > Rather, in trying to decide how best to protect Harry, he decided to > invoke the power of Lily's sacrificial love by placing this ancient > magic on Harry. > > Can someone come up with a canon reference to show that Lily had > anything at all to do with the *charm,* as opposed to her love being > the foundation of the magic the charm uses? > I don't know about other sites (don't have enough time to browse 'em) but it was certainly suggested and discussed here. My take on it was that it was down to DD and was an extrapolation of my slightly perverse re-reading of the Prophecy - the "neither can live while the other survives" might refer to James and Lily dying so that Harry lives. If so, then DD knows before-hand what is likely to happen at GH and makes arrangements accordingly, producing what is in effect Weapon!Harry. How much he tells the Potters is open to speculation. And the Prophecy then becomes self-fulfilling - an interesting aspect considering that JKR spends an awful lot of time rubbishing Divination.) Most of the evidence comes from Voldy and DD that Lily may not have been responsible for the protection, though DD's words, as usual, can be considered to be a little ambiguous. Depends how much you want to believe Voldy - that " unwittingly provided him with protection" is definitely not ambiguous, though of course staunch Lily fans have other ideas. Voldy has lied before - the "Hagrid kept werewolf cubs under his bed" bit. Not stated as untrue in the books, but in an interview, which I think is not quite playing the game. Kneasy From jmoses22002 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 16:00:51 2004 From: jmoses22002 at yahoo.com (jmoses22002) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:00:51 -0000 Subject: jkrowling.com Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114944 Next to the rubbish bin, on jkrowling.com, there is a piece of paper in wich you can make out the words, Harry..... a large... is dead... my fath... swallow... there..... Does anyone know what this might be in reference to. "jmoses22002" From dzeytoun at cox.net Wed Oct 6 09:25:23 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:25:23 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041005061408.85176.qmail@web40512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dkewpie wrote: > > Why? Because it'll make you feel better or something? > In my case, well, yes. And what would be wrong with that? As numerous posters have pointed out, one of the interesting things about JKR's books is the way they straddle the boundary between fiction and our real world experiences. Whether you think that is always good writing or always bad writing or mixed quality writing (I would argue for the last), still that leaves us with two ways of looking at this. If Snape is meant to represent a real world situation, then real world approaches to this are appropriate (removing him from his position, counseling his victims, etc). If he is meant to represent a "fictional" situation, then the tropes of fiction are appropriate and one of those (very much) is the Karmic Payback to which Alla refers. Another would be the redemptive scenario where Snape changes, admits he was wrong in some sense, etc. > I have the feeling that if this revenge scenerio really take place in future books, the > popularity of Snape among fans will only be increased more than ever. I agree with Alla here. The argument is about what we feel would be appropriate as an end for Snape's arc and as a "wrap-up" of the way he has treated Harry, et. al., throughout the series. We aren't really very concerned, in the context of this particular subject, as to what that does to Snape's popularity among fans. I mean, if we really wanted to destroy his popularity among fans, per se, we would advocate minimizing his role or eliminating it from the plot completely (i.e. send him off as the Ambassador to X and never hear from him again) or else give him such a radical personality change that he becomes mere window-dressing (i.e. have him join the Salvation Army and stand at the door of the Yule Ball ringing a hand bell). Nothing makes an > antagonist character more popular than him/her getting his/her dues, especially when it's > done in such fashion like you or dzeytoun mentioned (payback for payback sake, like > typical Hollywood movies, especially teenage or Disney films, where the baddies must pay > their due by drop in water/crap dump over them/hit by a bus/fell on the ground..etc etc) > Best example: Draco Malfoy. The over-the-top punishments he receive in every book only > makes people feel sympathy for him. And JKR thinks it's all Tom Felton's fault? I agree with "sad" that I don't see how Draco's punishments are "over the top" considering his actions. Could you give us examples? I've seen > people saying Umbridge didn't get "enough" punishment at the end of Ootp, if she really > receive severe punishment (ex: got raped, mutliated or something), I can see that there > would be lots of Umbridge Apologists now. > > DK I am one who things that Umbridge wasn't punished harshly enough in OOTP. That is, what happened doesn't seem adequate under either a Real World or Fictional scenario (although if her mental impairment turns out to be major and permanent, that changes things). But once again, the question, in the context of this thread, is not really the popularity of Umbridge among fans. Dzeytoun From red_rider4 at lycos.com Tue Oct 5 18:01:37 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (Hester Griffith) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 18:01:37 -0000 Subject: JKR update re: Colin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114946 > Brenda wrote: > > JKR's new update includes a statement about Colin Creevey > > having never developed pictures from his camera before the > > exposed film was ruined from the basilisk, but if memory > > serves me right didn't he develop pictures of Harry and ask > > him to autograph them which led to further tormenting from > > Draco. > Angie here: > > I remember in SS, Colin showed Harry the pic he took with > > Lockhart and Harry was pleased to see that his photographic > > self was putting up a fight. Hester here: JKR has since corrected herself. She says something about using magic rather than batteries to operate the camera. I guess she's not familiar with "old fashioned" cameras. I have one, no batteries required! Works great, just means I have to know a bit about photography. Definitely not for someone who wants to simply point and click. Hester From greatraven at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 09:41:39 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:41:39 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Alla: > > > I am still wondering what my liking of Snape as a CHARACTER tells > > about me. :o) > > Carol: > That you like complexity and mystery and don't believe in judging by > appearances? Maybe you appreciate his intellect, too, and/or hope for > his redemption, a hope that isn't held out to us for many characters > other than Snape and, on a smaller scale, Percy. Am I close? > > Carol Sue: I don't know about Alla, but you're spot on for me, plus, of course SSS's "snarky, witty repartee". These may be good reasons for quite a few people. Women especially. I have been reading fan fiction of various fandoms for many years, and used to write it, and one thing I've found is that female fans just can't resist a character who *suffers* ! :-) I also suspect that if Snape betrays the good guys in the last novel and laughs fiendishly as Harry dies, there are going to be a LOT of pissed-off fans. ;-) From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 19:02:32 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:02:32 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114948 <> > Del replies : <>It is heroism. It's not compassion. > Harry wants to save lives, he doesn't want to relieve suffering. He > doesn't suffer people's pain, and then wonder what could help them > best. He only wants to take them out of the situation they are in, > which is not necessarily the best thing to do. > > Let's take an hypothetic example. Let's imagine a kid living with > his alcoholic mom. She doesn't physically harm him, but she doesn't > take good care of him either, and he's suffering emotionally because > of that. A hero who would come to this house and see the harsh > physical conditions the little boy is living in, would consider it > his duty to make sure that this little boy is taken away from his > mother. He would send him into foster care, which would only enhance > the kid's suffering. But the hero would be satisfied that he's done > his duty. On the other hand, a compassionate person would rightly > identify the boy's main problem being his lack of emotional relationship > with his mother, he would feel the little boy's pain at not being taken > care of by his mother. He would also identify the mother's problem, the > reason she's an alcoholic. And he would work on improving the boy-mother's > relationship, on getting them closer to each other, at least > emotionally. If the circumstances forced him to send the boy into > foster care, he would recognise the boy's enhanced pain, and he would > do everything in his power to reduce it, by arranging visiting as > often as possible for example. Beatnik: I agree with Del, that Harry has qualities of heroism, rather than 'compassion'; I also think you've hit upon the reason why with your hypothetical situation. OK, so part of the reason why Harry lacks understanding or compassion, is because he's an adolescent boy, who, strictly speaking, aren't the most sensitive people, but, I think the bigger reason why Harry isn't as compassionate as we would like, is because he doesn't even really know what compassion is. That is, he's never really been shown compassion. In the above situation, DD kind of made Harry the boy who is put into foster care. Staying with the Dursleys saved his life, but it didn't do much for his emotional state. The Dursleys didn't physically abuse Harry (although, making him sleep in a cupboard...), but nobody at the Dursleys showed Harry compassion, not for him or anyone else. Harry never had a model for compassion, let alone had any given to him in his early life, so it's hard to expect him to really have any himself. IMO, it's a miracle Harry's as adjusted as he is, but anyway... I think that Harry's heroism is necessary for his life, for his fate, but I think it's also his fatal flaw. If he doesn't learn to use his heroism in conjunction with compassion and logic, it will lead to more Sirius-like disasters. Luckily, he is best friends with Hermione (logic queen) and Ron, who I think shows compassion (although, I'd have to do more reading to come up with some canonical evidence). Beatnik (who is a Ron fan, but is shocked to find that she seems to be in the minority) From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Oct 6 01:02:32 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:02:32 -0400 Subject: Positive Spin on Snape, Occlumency, and Albus writing Petunia References: Message-ID: <00e901c4ab40$2b5d2dc0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114949 Dzeytoun - >>OK, I think we've pretty much covered the ground on Snape's evil qualities. I do, personally, think his bad aspects pretty well sum him up. However, I'm pretty good at making up stories, so, I asked myself is there any way to put a positive spin on Snape, the Dursleys, and Occlumency from OOTP, as well as incorporating the information we have from JKR's website about Albus writing Petunia. Dumbledore has some sort of contact with Petunia, knowing that she dislikes the magical world. Since he is cut off, Dumbledore does not understand the level of suffering Harry has experienced at the Dursleys. He knew Harry would "suffer," but did not expect out and out abuse. He misses the part about Harry living in a closet because the Hogwarts Letters are addressed automatically by a charm and no one actually reads the things (weak, considering that hundreds of them went to Privet Drive, but I suppose possible). In any case, by the time he actively checks the Dursleys have already given Harry the smallest bedroom. Harry never talks to Dumbledore, or anyone else, about the situation at Privet Drive. Only during Occlumency does this come out. Snape, being a nicer person than he appears, informs Dumbledore, who then tells the Order to confront the Dursleys and put a stop to such behavior forthwith. << Kethryn now - The argument about the letter wouldn't be all that weak actually...except I don't think they have a self addressing envelope spell. Remember Lockhart and Harry's detention? Lockhart had him addressing the letters. Still, Lockhart wasn't all that and a bag of chips as a wizard so he may not have known the self addressing envelope spell. Oh, yeah, and Rita Seeker does have that whole Quick Quill thing so maybe the envelopes aren't that big a deal. But you would think the person attaching them to the owls would have noticed at the very least. Well, actually, someone did notice eventually, hence Hagrid's introduction. I don't know how much Dumbledore knows about what is going on at Privet Drive but I do have a theory as to why he may not know about what the rotten Dursleys have been up to in his absence. Since we know that Dumbledore is famous for giving second chances, is it that far off to assume that he did not check on Harry because he trusted the Dursleys to raise him correctly? But that puts Dumbledore in a rather dubious light. So in comes the theory...he did not check up on Harry because he was respecting the Dursleys' expressed wishes in regards to magic and he was also respecting their privacy. Of course, that doesn't make him look all that good either. I do agree that Snape could have asked the order to step in with the Dursleys and I actually tend to prefer that particular train of thought. But, here comes a screw, so could have Arthur Weasley who, I am sure, gets regular reports from Ron, Fred, and George about what Harry has said about the Dursleys as well as being witness to their appallingly rude behavior at the beginning of GoF. Of course, rudeness hardly constitutes abuse but that might have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. But, then again, why wait a whole year? Maybe Dumbledore, after hearing the complaints from Arthur, would have trusted that the threat of Sirius (and who could resist that little tidbit) would keep the Dursleys in line? Bah, I don't know. But, hey, thanks for the silver lining on the Snape cloud. Kethryn who must get back to studying for her midterms now. From figgys26cats at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 01:34:47 2004 From: figgys26cats at yahoo.com (Kathleen Hunt) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ron and money (kinda Spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041006013447.852.qmail@web51707.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114950 Del wrote: >> Some posters here have been so tough with Ron for daring to complain about being poor, but JKR is on his side on that one. She says that "he cannot imagine how it must be not to notice a pocketful of gold disappearing", not that he's being jealous or greedy or anything, he's simply baffled. She even concludes by saying that she "wanted to show, through Ron, how hard it is sometimes not to have any money when other people do". *She* doesn't judge him to be a bad boy for complaining about money once in a while, in fact she calls him her "past self". I think she's made it quite clear that her view of Ron is very different from the one some posters here hold (jealous Ron whose greediness will make him turn evil). << "figgys26cats": I agree! I can't really believe that some think that Ron would ever go over to the dark side because of greed. I believe he will always remain faithful to his friends. I also think Ron's reactions are totally normal for a child who has grown up poor. I totally can relate. I always had hand-me down clothes/shoes, I carried my lunch to school cause we couldn't afford school lunches, and I always wished I had normal things. Even Harry can relate to Ron because of how he grew up at the Dursleys'. From kjones at telus.net Wed Oct 6 03:38:57 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:38:57 -0700 Subject: Dark? Sirius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416368D1.7080901@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114951 > Kathy wrote: > > Dumbledore also said that Sirius' actions were not those of an > > innocent man. Sirius was the one who talked James into making > > Pettigrew his secret keeper. I don't think that Pettigrew had > > the guts to successfully be a by for a year before Voldemort > > fell. > Alla: > Do you think Peter was lying in the POA then? I think JKR's today > answer squashed DE Sirius theory, but that is just me, of course. > For all his greyness, she calls him loyal and one who loved James as > a brother. I doubt that he would go and betray someone whom he loved > like brother. Kathy: Actually, rather than considering the character of Sirius, I was more obsessed with the ambiguity of the story. A prophecy is made that says the servant will break free and will return to his master before midnight and that the servant has been chained for twelve years. Both Pettigrew and Sirius fit the bill. In GoF Voldemort says his servant is at Hogwarts. There is Sirius and Crouch. Her good guys turn into bad guys and bad guys into good guys. Sirius breaks Ron's leg pulling him under the whomping willow. Sirius often appears to be a completely self-centred individual who is incapable of making a wise or self-sacrificing decision. Lupin was also suspicious of him for whatever reason and has been said by others, no one seemed surprised that he was found guilty and sent to Azkaban. They were more surprised to consider that he might be innocent. Of course when all is said and done JKR is the final authority and maybe Sirius is just a really tacky good guy. It's fun KJ From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Oct 6 03:42:53 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:42:53 -0400 Subject: So when did he turn to the dark side References: Message-ID: <012501c4ab56$9194c600$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114952 I was wandering around back in the archives today (instead of studying for my midterms) and I didn't see any theories or any post that anyone had played around with the question at all so I think I will post it. Please pardon me if the idea has already been kicked around, that's a LOT of posts to wade through. So, when did !Sidekick! Wormtail change into !PILL!* Wormtail for Voldemort? Wasn't it like a year or so before Voldemort went after Lily and James? Now, here is a better question, on that asks for some theoretical work, why did he do it? Was it just because he is a PILL, because Voldemort got to him, or because something happened with the Mauraders (James' marriage for starters)? *Parasitic ingrate looser lackey* Kethryn PS. Ohhhh, maybe Wormtail had a thing for either Lily/James and split when they got married? I know, I know, no canon for it but it was worth a laugh at least. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HMaffioli at cox.net Wed Oct 6 05:37:09 2004 From: HMaffioli at cox.net (Heather Maffioli) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:37:09 -0700 Subject: Scabbers at Grimmauld Place? (was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: The other 'interesting' answer) References: Message-ID: <004301c4ab66$86267e20$6501a8c0@sd.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114953 Entropy : (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were shaped like serpents." Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld Place! Now that would be interesting! Heather: I agree with this theory and here is why... The boxed version of the book has the alternate cover. Those of you who have it know it shows #12. In the to the left of the flaming note is 'scabbers' in the grass. Knowing the control JK has I can't see how this could be an accident or MGP's own idea. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From redlena_web at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 04:28:10 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:28:10 -0000 Subject: Snape - Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114954 > > RedLena: > > > > This is intentional emotional abuse that Snape is inflicting on > > Neville. In interactions with other Gryffindors, Snape has been > > strict and disdainful with his punishments, but I don't know of > > anyone else whom he led to believe he would possibly poison > > someone/thing that the student loves. > > > > The fact that Neville is afraid of Snape is not the abuse. It's the > > fact that Snape recognizes that Neville is afraid of him and takes > > advantage of that fact with interactions like the one I've related > > above that is abusive. > > > kmc: > > Or did Snape just want Neville to have a compelling reason to figure > out what he did wrong and fix it? Snape is dealing with a > dangerous subject. Students must learn to correct their errors. >> RedLena, again: I would agree that Snape's *intention* was to get Neville to get his act together and fix the potion. However, the end does not justify the means. < Neville rises to the occasion as part of the DA group after Bellatrix > escapes Azkaban, in spite of his fears. Hermione's helping him may > have prevented him from fixing the solution himself. >> RedLena, again: Neville does certainly begin to trust himself and build confidence in OoP. And Hermione helping him along the way may (or may not) have slowed the natural maturing process that brought him to the place to be able to do that. We have no way of really knowing that for sure though. Sometimes students just have trouble with particular subjects, regardless of whatever level of help they receive and simply have to find the motivation within *themselves* to achieve greater results. That appears to be the case with Neville. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 6 11:40:44 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:40:44 -0000 Subject: So when did he turn to the dark side In-Reply-To: <012501c4ab56$9194c600$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114955 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > > I was wandering around back in the archives today (instead of studying for my midterms) and I didn't see any theories or any post that anyone had played around with the question at all so I think I will post it. Please pardon me if the idea has already been kicked around, that's a LOT of posts to wade through. > > So, when did !Sidekick! Wormtail change into !PILL!* Wormtail for Voldemort? Wasn't it like a year or so before Voldemort went after Lily and James? Now, here is a better question, on that asks for some theoretical work, why did he do it? Was it just because he is a PILL, because Voldemort got to him, or because something happened with the Mauraders (James' marriage for starters)? > > *Parasitic ingrate looser lackey* > The more I think about the rat, the more subversive theories seep through my admittedly sneaky mind. According to Peter, he didn't so much 'go' over as was coerced over. Threats or whatnot. Not certain how much I believe that. Sirius blusters but Peter seems to have very little to say about it. Maybe it's me. But still, I'm not a happy bunny. I point blank refuse to believe that Scabbers scrabbled around Hogwarts for God knows how many years without DD knowing exactly who was in the rat suit. And if he did, why didn't he do something about it? I've postulated before that DD brought in Lupin as DADA prof because Remus knew or was familiar with Sirius, Peter and Harry, the three main participants in the PoA plot-line. He's the link between all three and would probably be trusted, or at least listened to, by all of them. But (and this is where the alternative thinking starts) what if DD did know and did do something about it? What if at some point Scabbers was got at by DD and is not so totally Voldy orientated as we think? What if the so-called 'life debt' that DD whitters on about is much more than speculation on his part and he has good reason to think that Peter is ripe for turning, may indeed have already been turned. As a theory it's admittedly got a load of holes in it, needs more work to tease out some canon support (if any exists), but it might be fun hitting the books for an hour or two, see what turns up. Doesn't answer your question, I know. But if Peter is as weak as we believe, couldn't that make him vulnerable to pressure from either side? Kneasy From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Wed Oct 6 11:48:17 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 06:48:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] jkrowling.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114956 jmoses22002 wrote: Next to the rubbish bin, on jkrowling.com, there is a piece of paper in wich you can make out the words, Harry..... a large... is dead... my fath... swallow... there..... Does anyone know what this might be in reference to. Lady Macbeth replies: Hmm...when I had first glanced at it, I had thought it was discarded copies of the early drafts of the graveyard scene in Goblet of Fire. However, now that I think about it, it being out in the open but only partially seen might be worth delving in to deeper. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Wed Oct 6 11:50:57 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:50:57 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius In-Reply-To: <416368D1.7080901@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114957 Kathy Wrote: >>Actually, rather than considering the character of Sirius, I was more obsessed with the ambiguity of the story. A prophecy is made that says the servant will break free and will return to his master before midnight and that the servant has been chained for twelve years. Both Pettigrew and Sirius fit the bill.<< HunterGreen: Here is what the prophecy (ending snipped - emphasis mine) says: "THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS, ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS. HIS SERVANT HAS BEEN CHAINED THESE TWELVE YEARS. **TONIGHT**, BEFORE MIDNIGHT... THE SERVANT WILL **BREAK FREE** AND SET OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER." Sirius 'broke free' about nine months before this. (and if he was going to "rejoin" Voldemort, what was the point of wasting nine months hunting out Peter?). Kathy: >> In GoF Voldemort says his servant is at Hogwarts. There is Sirius and Crouch. Her good guys turn into bad guys and bad guys into good guys.<< HunterGreen: >From GoF: " 'He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight..' " We are privy to a lot of things that Sirius was up to, granted he could be lying and there was plenty of time when he could have been up to (and I suppose its possible that he could have made Hedwig wait a long time to send his replies, and he could have bought fancy birds to further to lie), but what efforts did Sirius make to assure Harry arrived there? Barty Jr. is clearly the person he's talking about (its hard to imagine another person that would fit nearly as well) he takes credit for changing the cup into a portkey (and would have far more opportunity to do so than Sirius), he was helping Harry through the other tasks and was clearing his way in the maze. And he's also the person who put Harry's name in the goblet (unless he's lying, which is possible, but Sirius would have had a *hard* time doing it himself, considering how much trouble it would be to sneak into Hogwarts, and rather risky of him, knowing that the Map is in Harry's possesion and he could be looking at it any time). I can't think of any of Sirius' actions in GoF that could be construed as helping Harry arrive in Voldemort's circle. Kathy: >>Sirius breaks Ron's leg pulling him under the whomping willow. << HunterGreen: Well, at that moment, Sirius was holding the front half of Ron, and was pulling him into the willow (in other words: he couldn't see Ron's leg), we can't know either way whether it was intentional. Kathy: >>Sirius often appears to be a completely self-centred individual who is incapable of making a wise or self-sacrificing decision. << HunterGreen: Now this statement concerns me. Of all of Sirius' faults, I'd say that this is NOT even close to being one of them. In fact in many cases its just the opposite: he fails to act in his own best interests when he really should. I can't think of a single time when he made a self-centered decision (except for perhaps something minor like bickering with Snape, which is barely a "decision", more of a personal problem). I can think of several times when he made self- sacrificing decisions. Perhaps they weren't always (or, *ahem* ever) wise, but being rash isn't being *evil*. Kathy: >>Lupin was also suspicious of him for whatever reason and has been said by others, no one seemed surprised that he was found guilty and sent to Azkaban. << HunterGreen: We don't really know that. There may have been plenty of people who doubted it, or would have if not for the sudden deluge of events (Voldemort vanishing, the murder of the Potters and the "death" of Peter and all those muggles). VW1 has been said over and over to be a frightening time, paranoia seemed to be the natural state of being. In the light of damning evidence, how could anyone believe Sirius' innocence? As for Lupin, he may have believed Sirius to be the spy only after he was arrested (at least, that's what I always took it to mean). In any case, Sirius also didn't trust Lupin, and (as far as we know) there was no reason to suspect him. With the whole ESE!Sirius or Dark Sirius thing, I just don't see the point. Someone like Lupin or Fudge or Bagman is more interesting for this type of theory because they haven't been killed out of the story. If Sirius were proven to be ESE! later, it wouldn't have nearly the same dramatic impact it would if he were still alive (the revealing of it would be less interesting too). From a story point of view it packs a very small punch, whereas a living character can actually be caught doing something evil, or be caught in the company of Voldemort, which is far more interesting than someone saying "Oh by the way, that Sirius was working for Voldemort the whole time, so its a good thing he died..." From entropymail at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 11:54:06 2004 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:54:06 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > > > You know, several people on various forums the last year or so have > > said that Lily had something to do with the charm placed on Harry. I > > don't recall *anything* in canon to suggest that. As far as I know, > > the only reference we have is from Dumbledore, who says "But she took > > you, and in doing so sealed the charm that *I* placed on you." > > > > So it seems to me that DD is saying Lily had nothing to do with the > > charm, other than that it was her sacrifice that energized it. > > Rather, in trying to decide how best to protect Harry, he decided to > > invoke the power of Lily's sacrificial love by placing this ancient > > magic on Harry. > > > > Can someone come up with a canon reference to show that Lily had > > anything at all to do with the *charm,* as opposed to her love being > > the foundation of the magic the charm uses? I may be wrong here, But I think there are two separate issues. The quote, "But she took you , and in doing so sealed the charm that I place on you" refers, I believe, to Petunia. DD is speaking of the time he left Harry at Petunia's door. He put a protection charm on Harry, and Petunia sealed that charm by taking Harry in. The second issue is the protection that Lily place on Harry the night of Voldemort's visit to Godric's Hollow. Some people believe that Lily's death alone was enough to protect Harry, but I've believed for a while that Lily placed a particular charm of protection on Harry that night. Lily's sacrifice of her life was what sealed that charm, and left Harry with his scar. There are a few bits and pieces of canon that hint at this scenerio, but offhand I can only think of these: 1. Harry's scar resembles the Eihwaz (protection) rune. 2. James' wand was good for transfiguration. Lily's wand was good for charms. James had a talent for transfiguration, so we can postulate that Lily had a talent for charms. 3. DD mentions to Harry that she used ancient magic. The other example of ancient magic (Voldie's graveyard scene) involved very advanced magic and *sacrifice*. Hope this helps! :: Entropy :: From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 12:11:40 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:11:40 -0000 Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114959 This game is *most* amusing! Though a lot of the reasons people have given definitely don't apply to me. I like Snape because he doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks of him. I can't abide people who expend huge amounts of effort on being *liked*. Snape doesn't care, I've got a great deal of respect for that. I've also got a rather large soft spot for Phineas Nigellus... Dungrollin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 6 12:12:16 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:12:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114960 > > Alla: > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. > > 2. Do you agree with Fred and George that " a bit of > > mayhem" is exactly what Umbridge deserves? > > Is it an effective way of dealing with her? Do you > > think that something similar should have been done > > earlier? > Hannah now: I don't think that it could have been done earlier, as DD was still Headmaster up until that point. It would have undermined him and given the Ministry an excuse to say 'look at the mayhem in this school, DD can't control these children anymore, let's retire him.' Alla: > > 4. What do you think about Cho's apology to Harry? > > Could she say more or that was enough, in your > > opinion? Was she trying to be loyal to both Marietta > > and Harry? If you were Harry , would you forgive > > Marietta after this conversation? Hannah now: I think it really wasn't Cho's fault that Marietta betrayed them. She couldn't have known that was going to happen as she went to the final meeting herself. She had reason to be angry with Marietta too (her action could have got Cho expelled) but she's clearly forgiven her. So although I can understand Cho feeling a bit guilty as she brought Marietta along in the first place, she doesn't need to be too abject about it. And if I were Harry, I wouldn't be able to forgive Marietta after this conversation. The pain is too recent for him. Maybe in a year's time... Alla: > > 7. "Students all around had turned to watch. Some of > > them had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer > > to watch. Some looked apprehensive, others > > entertained." > > "Several people watching laughed. Snape was clearly > > unpopular" Why are there indications that the other > > kids watching the scenery are not upset, but even > > *enjoying* what Potter and Black are doing to Snape? > > Meri replied: What I want to know about this scene is where is Snape's gang of Slytherin/future DE friends when he's getting humiliated? At least in Harry's time the members of one's own house tend to stand up for each other, so is there not a single Slytherin boy or girl willing > to attack James and Sirius right back? Hannah now: Some people laughed and cheered. Not everyone. Some people looked apprehensive (I wonder what other James/Snape fights they'd witnessed). I think this is a case of crowd mentality, with everyone rooting for the very popular Potter, and not bothering to wonder whether Snape deserved his treatment or not. Maybe he was unpopular, but that could just be because he was a 'greasy oddball,' which I've always suspected was MWPP's real objection to him. As for the absence of his friends, I think most of them had left by this point, or were busy taking NEWTs. Bellatrix, presumably Rodolphus, possibly Lucius Malfoy, are all quite a few years older than Snape. And the term 'gang' can be taken loosely as I've said before. He may have only been on the periphery and not 'hung round' with them that much. He strikes me as a bit of a loner. Alla: > > 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any > > indications in this chapter that he could have > > feelings for her? > Hannah: He's very angry at the time, I think he calls her the worst thing he can think of. I've always wondered what Snape's feelings are about 'pure blood superiority.' He doesn't appear to treat half- bloods and muggle borns any worse than he does certain pure blood students, and appears to have a certain level of friendship (in a Snapey way) with Filch, a squib. He may have changed his views over time, or just be 'prudently' concealing them. I don't know why, but I've always felt that harbouring such non-sensical generalistic prejudice (as opposed to prejudice against Harry, for example) is rather out of character for Snape. Alla: > > 10. What do you make out of Snape's reaction after > > Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his > > office again? Hannah: I don't think he *wanted* to see Harry in his office in the first place :-) Of all the times Snape loses control, IMO this is when he loses it most. In fact, I would argue it's the only time he really loses his rag (the PoA scene with Fudge doesn't ring true to me). I think he was actually beginning to trust Harry just a little bit more, and that was why he left him in the office, with the pensieve. That Harry betrayed that trust made it feel much, much worse for Snape. Snape reacts hysterically. He's white and shaking, he physically attacks Harry (which isn't in character), and his cry of 'get out, get out!' sounds as distressed as it is angry. He throws that jar of cockroaches, not to hit Harry, but because he is in such a state that he has to take his frustration out on something, and he throws the jar as opposed to seriously injuring Harry. The impression I've always had of Snape's reaction is that he's not just angry, he's upset. I think that he completely broke down once Harry was out of that office. We don't know why he has such an extreme reaction to that memory, as we don't know what happened afterwards. If James really did remove his pants, for a man like Snape the humilation would probably be as traumatic as anything he witnessed as a DE. Or maybe it's his memory of what he said to Lily? Hannah From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 12:19:49 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:19:49 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114961 I've found this thread very interesting, but can't help but wonder how many other degrogatory nicknames can be made from 'Severus'... I can't think of any. On the basis of that, it seems to me a mite odd to infer a huge amount from Snivellus. I somehow don't think JKR came up with the nickname and then cast around for a name for Snape that would fit it... Anyone more creative than me? Dungrollin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 6 12:54:00 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:54:00 -0000 Subject: Quesiton for Snapeophiles and -phobes RE Dumbledore, Snape, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114962 > Carol responds: > I agree that Snape is a much more interesting--and much less > evil--character than Voldemort. I also agree that so far Voldemort hasbeen by and large a cartoon villain. (I count the first chapter of GoF as a partial exception; he was actually a bit mysterious there, and the unusual point of view--Frank Bryce's--also added interest. And the spell that resurrects him later in GoF is gruesome and clearly shows how selfish and cruel and evil he is. But the graveyard scene returns us to Cartoon!mort. (Jenner in the Disney film "The Secret of NIMH," > anybody?) > > One problem, maybe, is that JKR has chosen to make him snakelike, > barely human--unlike Diary!Tom in CoS, who fooled me on a first > reading into thinking he was a sympathetic character (at least untilthe Hagrid/Aragog scene). Another problem, maybe, is that wand > violence is so bloodless. Horrible as a Crucio is, you can get up and fight again after surviving one (or at least Harry can). And AKs > (except at Godric's Hollow) leave no mark. We've heard about people > being blown apart by DEs ("We only ever found bits of him," Moody says about one of the Order members--Benjy Fenwick, I think), but the only deaths we've actually witnessed so far, Cedric's and Sirius's, have been swift and painless. > > I'm certainly not craving blood and gore. I can read about the > American Civil War or the Crimean War if I want that (and I don't). > But still, so little has happened. Voldemort has possessed Quirrell > and made him drink unicorn blood. He's drunk Nagini's "milk" as a > perverted, monstrous infant. He has tortured and killed Bertha Jorkins(off-page), killed Frank Bryce, ordered the Imperioing or kidnapping > of various people, crucio'd some DEs, crucio'd and tried to murder > Harry. I may have missed something, but still he's more of a Mafia don or a serial killer with a gang of thugs than an evil overlord. And for all of OoP, he thought of nothing but getting the Prophecy (and controlling Harry). Hannah: I absolutely agree, Carol. For me, by far the most chilling character in the books is Diary!Tom. Returned!LV looks like a monster. Everyone knows he's bad. And most of time he's removed, and seems unreal. Whereas Diary!Tom seems to be a normal, even likeable boy. He insinuates himself into people's lives through that very plain, blank little book. No one realises he's evil until it's too late (or nearly so). And his words in the Chamber are far colder and more frightening than anything CartoonVillain!LV says so far. While JKR has already shown she's not afraid of addressing issues that some childrens authors may not, I do think she will draw the line at very graphic horror (or her editors will make her). She's not out to traumatise kids. Thus I think it is hard for her to truly convey to us the horror of Voldemort and the things he's done, making him seem less scary than the characters find him. I also agree about wand violence. Crucio sounds horrible but (thankfully) we can't imagaine it, nor do we have any fear that it might one day happen to us. Whereas the teacher who is unfair, the bully who humilates you, are characters we experience in our everyday lives. Most of us know exactly what it's like to have a Draco or a Snape making life hard, we can all imagine and fear being tormented, humiliated, bullied etc. Hannah From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 13:13:42 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:13:42 -0000 Subject: jkrowling.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jmoses22002" wrote: > > Next to the rubbish bin, on jkrowling.com, there is a piece of paper > in wich you can make out the words, > > Harry..... > a large... > is dead... > my fath... > swallow... > there..... > > Does anyone know what this might be in reference to. > > > "jmoses22002" Finwitch: Add a word.. there's nothing between swallow and there. What I could make out of it: Harry an a large.. is dead... my fath(er?).. swallow... nothing... there... I interpret this as a description of Harry's grief over Sirius, what he saw at Snape's pensieve about his father... I think the poor boy is depressed and sees nothing to give him hope, nothing worth living for. I wonder how Dumbledore would react if Harry were to attempt suicide or be too depressed to do anything... What if Harry tries to kill himself? He doesn't seem like the suicidal type (no one does, but suicides happen) - and he has been able to fight Dementors off before... but now, with Sirius' death on his heart, I doubt he'd be able to... (of course, he won't die - yet - because someone comes to pick him up! Like the Weasley Twins inviting him to a company meeting?) Finwitch From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 13:27:38 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:27:38 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. I - PS/SS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114964 "sophierom" wrote: > > After reading all of these posts on Snape lately, I find myself > blinking in amazement at some of the extreme responses he's garnered. > I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; he is a fascinating character. > But, being an admitted Snape-phile, I was rather shocked to read that > there were those out there who considered Snape more evil than > Voldemort and hoped that he died some sort of horrible death by the > end of the series. > > As I said, I'll admit openly to liking the character of Snape. Note, > this doesn't mean I like all of his actions, nor do I want to make > excuses for him. But, I did want to clarify, for myself, the things > we see him do in canon. And so, in a grand effort to avoid my own > work, I've gone the first book and picked out every scene with Snape. > I've tried to give a short, objective summary, but then I've also > included my own take on the behavior. I hope to do this with the next > four books as well, time permitting. We'll see. Neri: I liked your log, sophirom. It is takes considerably more effort to actually read JKR, especially in a methodical way, than sprout fandom opinions and theories. I hope you'll also get to CoS and the other books, because as you mention yourself Snape's characterization in SS/PS is problematic. JKR uses him there as the red herring villain, so she must make him look very suspicious. This is why I don't give much weight to sentences like "cold and empty eyes that made you think of dark tunnels" in SS/PS. However, it will be interesting if such characterization appears again in CoS and PoA because in these books Snape is not a suspect. I suspect that our view of Snape (as well as our view of Ron, Neville and DD) was determined in the first book. We somehow expect SS/PS to be a small model of the entire saga. So we expect Ron to sacrifice himself for the cause at the moment of truth (while Hermione will stay in one piece), we expect Neville to do something small that will tip the scales for the side of good, we expect DD to have the right answers for all the questions and we expect Snape to be a good guy disguised as the bad guy. Perhaps we're right. But then, perhaps we're completely wrong. Neri From garybec101 at comcast.net Wed Oct 6 13:32:29 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:32:29 -0000 Subject: Scabbers at Grimmauld Place? (was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: The other 'interesting' answer) In-Reply-To: <004301c4ab66$86267e20$6501a8c0@sd.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114965 Entropy : (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were shaped like serpents." Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld Place! Now that would be interesting! Heather: I agree with this theory and here is why... The boxed version of the book has the alternate cover. Those of you who have it know it shows #12. In the to the left of the flaming note is 'scabbers' in the grass. Knowing the control JK has I can't see how this could be an accident or MGP's own idea. Becki here; But Grimmauld Place is protected by the Fidelius Charm. You need the Secret Keepers directions to find it's location. How would scabbers know where it was and furthermore, that it actually exists? I myself do not find it odd that Scabbers is MIA. He is suppose to be dead, right? If Voldy is keeping a low profile, so should Scabbers. If he is discovered, then Sirius is proven innocent of his crime. Even Voldy says in his graveyard speech that he could not use Wormtails body because he is suppose to be dead. If he is kept underground, better ammunition for Voldy. I am curious what will happen, or what part Wormtail will play now that Voldy is outed. There is still no proof that he is still alive other than Harry's account of the Graveyard, and the kids in the Shrieking Shack. Perhaps the WW will believe him about Wormtail since he was proven to be telling the truth about Voldy. Becki ( who thinks that the Wormtail question was the boring answer one.) From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 13:45:26 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:45:26 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114966 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > wrote: > > > > > . > > > > When Neville's courage and strength is displayed to Snape it will > be > > a victory of virtue previously inconceivable to Snape. If it's then > > dismissed by Snape that would be an anticlimax so, I expect that, > it > > will bring forth an interesting reaction in Snape, something we > have > > never seen from him. Perhaps tears of joy or some wry expression of > > happy relief. Maybe it will simply lead to Snape dropping one of > his > > guards and revealing a little more of his true self to us. > > > > Whatever the reaction I am positive that Neville as a catalyst is a > > foregone conclusion. And I am armed to defend it so fire away > > everyone ;D. Dzeytoun: > I would agree with this if Snape's projection were a *conscious* > process -- i.e. if he were thinking,"this boy is too much like me for > his own good, I have to fix that." However, projection is an > *unconscious* process. Therefore I'm not sure that defying > projection and expectation, even in a positive way, would necessarily > provoke such a positive response as "tears of joy" or "wry relief." > I am more inclined to think it would create confusion - which would > fall under your definition of something we haven't seen before. That > is, I can readily see defiance from Neville at least momentarily > leaving Snape afloat and not knowing what to do. That can then lead > in at least two directions. It could undermine Snape's assumptions > and easy confidence that he knows what he's doing, opening the way to > change. Or, in that having your assumptions challenged is an acutely > painful process, it could simply lead to a massive negative reaction > creating a downward spiral in Snape's behavior. > > Either way, it would be interesting and extremely amusing to see. > Finwitch: Oh, this is great! I see Neville as the embodiment of virtue - if any character is such. Indeed, it would be pleasant to see Neville defy Snape, thus facing his worst fear for one thing... How would it happen? Is Neville going to take Potions Newt (because it's needed to become a Healer or whatever job he wants) and flame at Snape about scaring him so that he can't concentrate? (since he could do well without Snape there?) or is Neville going to save Snape's life by his knowledge of Herbology? Or-- well, whatever, it will be interesting! And um - learning to deal with emotions - it is going to be important to Harry. Will it be important to Neville, too? Finwitch From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 6 13:50:30 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:50:30 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: <20041006.001228.3036.3.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114967 SSSusan said: > > I found it interesting that JKR answered that question *not* in > > the "About the Books" category, but in the "Other Stuff" > > category. Aura: > I see your point. But she may have just put it there since it > doesn't directly relate to the books in the literal sense. Neither > the question nor the answer contains anything about Hogwarts, a > character, something in the WW, etc. SSSusan: Agreed. In fact, that was kind of my point -- that I think how she answerws a RL, child of today on the topic of bullying is not at all the same as Author Rowling might answer the question at Hogwarts. Come to think of it, would she even address it at Hogwarts? I mean, the topic does come up w/ Harry & Dudley, but that's back in the Muggle world, and even there nothing's done about it. The bullying at Hogwarts pretty much just gets "handled" by the students themselves...unless a staff member happens by. But we really don't see any reporting of bullying going on nor a mechanism for assistance. That's really what I was driving at -- that Hogwarts World & bullying's place within in definitely doesn't seem to correspond w/ JKR's personal view of bullying in the RW. Aura: > So at this point we'd be reading Jo's mind to try and figure out > why she put it in Other Stuff, and since you've got Snape locked in > your basement o' love and won't let him fly to England to do some > legillimency on Jo, it's all just speculation. SSSusan: HAHAHA! Well, I might lock up AR, but if Snape was in my basement o' love, he'd only be there if he washed his hair first & used some Crest Whitening Strips. Then I'd give him what-for for picking on Neville. Siriusly Snapey Susan From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Wed Oct 6 14:20:14 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:20:14 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114968 This makes more sense than any of the others. As a child my last name was Bussell. Now, you can't get too many things from that so when a friend was joking around, or later arguing with me, it was Buttsell. It's very common to try and make an insult using the person's name. Snivellus not only focuses on Snapes name, but also brings attention to his larger nose. Casey --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > I've found this thread very interesting, but can't help but wonder > how many other degrogatory nicknames can be made from 'Severus'... > > I can't think of any. > > On the basis of that, it seems to me a mite odd to infer a huge > amount from Snivellus. I somehow don't think JKR came up with the > nickname and then cast around for a name for Snape that would fit > it... > > Anyone more creative than me? > > Dungrollin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 14:27:36 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:27:36 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114969 > Carol responds: > And realizing where the true danger lies--switching to a more > realistic boggart, if you will--is Neville's first step toward that > ultimate confrontation with an enemy who has done him far more harm > than Snape has. > Alla: I am all for Neville frying bigger fish, but I am beggin Rowling for Neville to defy Snape. Harry did it. neville did nto do that yet and I am DYING to read that scene. As one poster said it is the fact that Neville is AFRAID of Snape and Snape KNOWS that Neville is afraid and still doing it that makes Snape true abuser to Neville in my book. I see NOTHING irrational in his fear of Snape. Even when he destroys cauldrons, I see no justification in Snape calling him an idiot. I see no justification in Snape threatening to poison his toad and enjoying the site of Neville shaking with fear. Neville also did not ask for Snape to publicly embarass him before DADA class. Well, Boggart scene was a VERY nice payback, I will admit, but still. Yes, Neville got much stronger in OOP and he surely has to confront Bella later, but not before he faces his "everyday nemesis" which to me is Snape. As I said prior I share the speculation that Snape participated in the torture of Neville's parents and I hope that Neville will remember it one day and will tell Snape everything he thinks about him. :o) I do think that Snape has an enormous guilt because of that, but hey, I can be wrong, of course. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 6 14:35:00 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:35:00 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114970 Carol responds: > I second this proposal. Snape's emotional abuse of Harry is *not* a > given, it's a perception, based on the poster's own definition of > abuse and the reading of a book that denies us access to Snape's > point of view and deliberately keeps his motivations mysterious. I > see no harm to Harry from Snape's treatment of him (though he does > need to control and redirect his anger away from Snape toward the > real enemy), and we have no conclusive evidence that Snape > *intends* to be abusive or that he would even recognize or > acknowledge the (Muggle) concept of emotional abuse. SSSusan: I snipped almost all of this exchange between Alex & Carol, though I enjoyed it & agreed almost entirely with both of them. The one thing that I wanted to pull out and disagree with *somewhat* is this: "I see no harm to Harry from Snape's treatment of him." I have come a LONG way from my original views of Snape as a teacher. I've finally decided that I *was* imposing 21st-century, RW educational models & methods onto a Hogwarts which decidedly is not such a place. So I recognize the validity of the arguments that Harry is not likely to react as Tommy Twenty-First Century might, that Hogwarts is not based upon the same principles as the schools in my local corporation, that Snape's not causing Harry to break down into sobbing fits or bringing on nightmares, or even that Snape's "making" Harry fail Potions, for apparently Harry never has. *I* might break down into sobbing fits or have nightmares if I were in Harry's shoes, but I'm not. I still don't like Snape's teaching style, and I still think he borders on & occasionally crosses over into being abusive, but by & large, the students don't seem to be suffering horribly. Still, I would argue that there *is* at least one way in which Snape's methods have harmed or hurt Harry. By this I am thinking of "harmed" or "hurt" less in the sense of emotional distress and more in the sense of HINDERING his learning. I think most people agree that Snape gets apoplectically frustrated when he has to deal with dunderheads. Many have argued that this frustration is what causes him to be so nasty to Neville [because he keeps screwing up again & again] and at least *part* of what causes his cruelty with Harry. Many people have also pointed out that, of all the students at Hogwarts, the two who likely *need* to learn as much as they possibly can are Harry & Neville, due to their positions as possible prophecy subjects and as potential targets for Voldy. It is because of this that I think Snape has failed these two somewhat. While they may have learned *some* things in Potions, I believe they could have learned much more. His methods have caused or exacerbated Neville's nervous, frightened mishaps and contribute to Harry's general pissed off attitude and "I don't care!" defiance in class. I don't want to get into a "But he's justified..." argument about either Snape OR Harry here, because that's not the point I'm trying to make. (Both have been at fault, imo, especially if we bring Occlumency into things.) But Snape is a bright guy, no? Snape is an insider, no? Snape is also someone who can clearly picture what Voldy's capable of, no? Then he should comprehend the importance of Harry learning. Yes, he gets angry understandably when Harry doesn't try hard enough, but his sarcasm and humiliating remarks and unfair punishments DON'T do anything to alleviate Harry's attitude; they only exacerbate it and keep the cycle going. Where I fault Snape is in his NOT being willing to curb his cruelty and/or try a different tack with Harry. If the most vital thing to the future of the WW is to make sure that Harry Potter is prepared to defeat Lord Voldemort, then every teacher at Hogwarts needs to see that Harry is learning. *Harry* must accept responsibility for that, as well, but he hasn't always been as privy to the info about himself as presumably at least some of the key staff members are. Snape, I believe, *is* privy to that, and one of his primary concerns should be to see that Harry is learning, even if it means he has to bite his tongue on occasion. (Of course, whether Snape actually WOULD do this is up for debate, and then we're right back to the thread on "If Snape won't change, then what should Harry do?" I'm not sure I'm ready to revisit that one just yet. :-)) Siriusly Snapey Susan From mnaperrone at aol.com Wed Oct 6 14:46:45 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:46:45 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > I've found this thread very interesting, but can't help but wonder > how many other degrogatory nicknames can be made from 'Severus'... > > I can't think of any. > > On the basis of that, it seems to me a mite odd to infer a huge > amount from Snivellus. I somehow don't think JKR came up with the > nickname and then cast around for a name for Snape that would fit > it... > > Anyone more creative than me? > > Dungrollin Ally I always assumed that Snivellus came from Snape always trying to get the Marauders into trouble - whining to authority figures. So it had something to do with his personality but was also a play on his name, which is the way many kids attach unfortunate nns on others. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 14:47:12 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:47:12 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > I agree with Alla here. The argument is about what we feel would be > appropriate as an end for Snape's arc and as a "wrap-up" of the way > he has treated Harry, et. al., throughout the series. We aren't > really very concerned, in the context of this particular subject, as > to what that does to Snape's popularity among fans. I mean, if we > really wanted to destroy his popularity among fans, per se, we would > advocate minimizing his role or eliminating it from the plot > completely (i.e. send him off as the Ambassador to X and never hear > from him again) or else give him such a radical personality change > that he becomes mere window-dressing (i.e. have him join the > Salvation Army and stand at the door of the Yule Ball ringing a hand > bell). Alla: Too funny, Dzeytoun. Snape ringing bell at Salvation Army. No, no, he is extremely valuable part of the plot and I do recognise that his interactions with Harry and Neville make for a very fun read ing, but it does not mean that I should stop ranting at him especially if it makes me feel better or something. :o) Alla, who should REALLY be packing her bags now. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 14:54:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:54:05 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114973 > SSSusan: > Still, I would argue that there *is* at least one way in which > Snape's methods have harmed or hurt Harry. By this I am thinking > of "harmed" or "hurt" less in the sense of emotional distress and > more in the sense of HINDERING his learning. snip. Snape, I > believe, *is* privy to that, and one of his primary concerns should > be to see that Harry is learning, even if it means he has to bite his > tongue on occasion. Alla: Oh, yes. I don't know when if ever I will be ready to forgive Snape for the Occlumency disaster. I am of the firm opinion that Harry would have done MUCH better with the teacher he trusted. Oh, well, we will never know, huh. For a while I was of the opinion that Snape does not value Harry's life, not just his ability to learn Occlumency. Which to me is extreme carelesness, boderline stupidity. From averyhaze at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 15:15:39 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:15:39 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114974 "dungrollin" wrote: I've found this thread very interesting, but can't help but wonder how many other degrogatory nicknames can be made from 'Severus'... I can't think of any. On the basis of that, it seems to me a mite odd to infer a huge amount from Snivellus. I somehow don't think JKR came up with the nickname and then cast around for a name for Snape that would fit it... Anyone more creative than me? Dungrollin Dharma replies: Kids are creative in their cruelty and lack of respect for one another in many instances. I could certainly imagine nicknames like: Severe Headache Severe Pain Sneakerus Slimypuss Slimerus Servilerus Whimperus Gitterus Cowardus Odorus Skulkerus Slitherus Blunderus Confunderous Oblivious Nausea-us I'm not sure that any other nickname could convey so many interesting negative character traits at once. Snivel conveys a particular kind of obsequiousness to me that most other words don't. I've always speculated that the nickname Snivellus was someone how tied to his relationship with Lucius. I'm guessing that Severus had an attachment to Lucius at school that was similar to the attachment Peter had to James. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 15:21:11 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:21:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114975 Hannah now: Some people laughed and cheered. Not everyone. Some > people looked apprehensive (I wonder what other James/Snape fights > they'd witnessed). I think this is a case of crowd mentality, with > everyone rooting for the very popular Potter, and not bothering to > wonder whether Snape deserved his treatment or not. Maybe he was > unpopular, but that could just be because he was a 'greasy oddball,' > which I've always suspected was MWPP's real objection to him. > > Alla: Well, some people looked apprehensive, but OTHERS entertained, so besides the fact that the fight gathered many observers, the majority of such observers were entertained. I could be a case of crowd mentality, but is it possible that other reasons existed for the Snape to be so unpopular that NOBODY except Lily interfered on his behalf? From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 6 15:28:39 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:28:39 -0000 Subject: Scabbers at Grimmauld Place? (wasThe other 'interesting' answer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114976 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "garybec" wrote: > > Entropy : > > (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the > walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both > the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were > shaped like serpents." > > Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld > Place! Now that would be interesting! > > > > Heather: > > I agree with this theory and here is why... > The boxed version of the book has the alternate cover. Those of you > who have it know it shows #12. In the to the left of the flaming > note is 'scabbers' in the grass. Knowing the control JK has I can't > see how this could be an accident or MGP's own idea. > > Becki here; > > But Grimmauld Place is protected by the Fidelius Charm. You need > the Secret Keepers directions to find it's location. How would > scabbers know where it was and furthermore, that it actually exists? > > I myself do not find it odd that Scabbers is MIA. He is suppose to > be dead, right? If Voldy is keeping a low profile, so should > Scabbers. If he is discovered, then Sirius is proven innocent of > his crime. Even Voldy says in his graveyard speech that he could > not use Wormtails body because he is suppose to be dead. If he is > kept underground, better ammunition for Voldy. I am curious what > will happen, or what part Wormtail will play now that Voldy is > outed. There is still no proof that he is still alive other than > Harry's account of the Graveyard, and the kids in the Shrieking > Shack. Perhaps the WW will believe him about Wormtail since he was > proven to be telling the truth about Voldy. > > Becki ( who thinks that the Wormtail question was the boring answer > one.) Hannah: I don't believe Wormtail is dead, since remember DD's whole 'one day you may be very grateful you saved Peter' bit at the end of PoA. He's in Harry's debt for his life. Surely something is going to be made of this in book 6/7? JKR says in her world book day chat that we'll find out more about him, including where he's been in book 6. Or maybe it's just a red herring, and DD is trying to make Harry feel better. I don't see how he could be at Grimmauld Place because of the secret keeper thing. I got the impression it wasn't used as HQ for the Order in the first war. But what would happen if Peter had visited Sirius there while they were school friends, before Sirius ran away? Does the fidelius charm work on people who knew the hidden location before it was hidden? DD wouldn't have overlooked something so major - would he? Another thing; if LV knew the whereabouts of HQ even if he couldn't get into the house, couldn't he just send DE's to lurk in the vicinity ready to grab people coming out? That's always bothered me about the fidelius charm thing. Hannah From doctor_fangeek at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 15:28:51 2004 From: doctor_fangeek at yahoo.com (doctor_fangeek) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:28:51 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114977 So there's been a lot of talk about new stuff on JKR's site. Since I'm not 100% sure about the spoiler policies on that (it's not the book itself), I'll add a few spaces first: la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la Okay, then. JKR says the following about Sirius in her update: "Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. For instance, he says in "Goblet of Fire" that if you want to know what a man is really like, 'look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.' But Sirius loathes Kreacher, the house-elf he has inherited, and treats him with nothing but contempt. Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there. Of course, these double standards exist in most of us; we might know how we ought to behave, but actually doing it is a different matter!" Now me: I know I'm not the only one who was disappointed by this (hi, Jen!). But I find myself unable to *not* comment on why. I *know* Sirius is flawed. I accept that. I think most/all of the characters in these books are flawed, and that is a good thing. I accept that JKR thinks he's flawed as well. But several of her comments really bugged me, in that she actually puts forth interpretations that I found frustratingly simplistic when I saw *readers* spouting them. In one case, she also really misrepresents what she actually wrote in forming this interpretation. For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior." Dumbledore even points out that Sirius didn't have this attitude toward house elves in general. Yet JKR then goes on to use "Sirius loathes Kreacher" as evidence that he doesn't live up to his own pronouncement. Right. Then there's the whole "no one is wholly good or evil." Well, to start off with that's *not even what Sirius says in the book.* He says that the world is not divided into "good people and Death Eaters." And how is that inconsistent with almost all of what we see/hear about his view of Snape??? In GoF he points out that he can't imagine Dumbledore letting Snape teach if he'd been with Voldemort, while at the same time making it clear that he doesn't like Snape at all. Hmm. So Snape is not "good" but also not a Death Eater? And the inconsistency is where? Color me confused. Frankly, even if Sirius *had* said what JKR is now attributing to him, I don't know that his hatred of Snape has much to do with that. He may not think about whether there is any "good" in Snape (and the feeling seems quite mutual), but that doesn't necessarily mean that, if pressed, he would say that he thinks the man is "wholly evil." I honestly don't know that we know enough to tell (and neither did Sirius live long enough to have a chance to find out). And as a friend of mine pointed out, in terms of OotP in particular, Sirius has in fact just found out that Snape really *was* a Death Eater, which can only serve to add fuel to the view of him as a nasty person who has always been up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as well. Why bother to tell us so much about his family and childhood, about how he left home because of his beliefs and his opinion of his family's beliefs, if none of that means anything with regard to Sirius' character???? I *know* the books are about Harry. I understand that I probably shouldn't look quite so hard at Sirius, or any other secondary character (and I like or am interested in quite a few). But OotP made me wonder (for many reasons which I won't go into now as they're not germaine to the main point of this post) whether JKR wasn't quite as good a writer as I'd thought she was, and this sort of reductionism (even vis a vis a "minor" character) isn't making me more confident. Lisa From cubs9911 at aol.com Wed Oct 6 15:31:01 2004 From: cubs9911 at aol.com (cubs99111) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:31:01 -0000 Subject: Secret Passageway Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114978 I know that this question is a little out of left field, but I just thought about it today. In POA, Harry takes the secret passageway behind the humpback witch that leads him into Hogsmeade. Now since it seems that Fred and George know about this because of the Mauraders Map, wouldn't it stand to reason that Wormtail also knows about this secret passage. Why wouldn't he let the Death Eaters and Voldemort know. It would seem to me that this would be a fairly easy way to invade Hogwarts. Has this ever been addressed? JR From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 6 15:31:27 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:31:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > Well, some people looked apprehensive, but OTHERS entertained, so > besides the fact that the fight gathered many observers, the > majority of such observers were entertained. I could be a case of > crowd mentality, but is it possible that other reasons existed for > the Snape to be so unpopular that NOBODY except Lily interfered on > his behalf? Possible. Or it may be nothing to do with Snape - they may be wary of crossing James. Lily does say he walks down corridors hexing anyone that annoys him just because he can. Kneasy From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 6 15:50:46 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:50:46 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114980 > Alla wrote: > > Oh, yes. I don't know when if ever I will be ready to forgive Snape > for the Occlumency disaster. I am of the firm opinion that Harry > would have done MUCH better with the teacher he trusted. Oh, well, > we will never know, huh. > > For a while I was of the opinion that Snape does not value Harry's > life, not just his ability to learn Occlumency. > > Which to me is extreme carelesness, boderline stupidity. Hannah leaps to Snape's defence (of course): I never understand why people blame Snape so much for the occlumency disaster. He does his best in difficult circumstances. DD should never have asked Snape to do it. Snape did his best, IMO. He stopped teaching Harry after Harry seriously provoked him. Even then, he may have resumed classes had Harry asked - he did continue to teach Harry potions. Harry never practiced - Snape couldn't force him to. He did his best through reprimands etc. Snape's teaching methods are suited well to something precise and dry like potions, not to something emotional like occlumency. He does his best, but in this case, his best just isn't right. And I still think Snape treated Harry a bit better than usual in these lessons (OK, that's still not great). Harry is completely unreceptive to Snape. He disregards everything Snape says, and doesn't really want to suceed. I don't know what Snape was meant to do to overcome that. Yes, Harry probably would have achieved more with a different teacher. But it wasn't Snape's fault that DD made him do the job. Even if it had been a student he liked that he was trying to teach under the same circumstances, I just don't think Snape has the necessary 'people skills' to get to the bottom of the problems underlying the inability to learn. It's too personal. Snape's not good at personal stuff. Even if he'd said 'what's troubling you, lad?' or something equally implausible to Harry, I doubt Harry would have immediately started spilling his innermost secret doubts and desires to Snape. Or probably to any other teacher either, except perhaps Lupin. And if Snape disregards Harry's life, why does he keep saving it? Hannah, clinging on to her Snape-o-philia by her fingernails. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 6 16:00:14 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:00:14 -0000 Subject: Secret Passageway Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114981 JR wrote: > I know that this question is a little out of left field, but I just thought about it today. > > In POA, Harry takes the secret passageway behind the humpback witch that leads him into Hogsmeade. Now since it seems that Fred and George know about this because of the Mauraders Map, wouldn't it > stand to reason that Wormtail also knows about this secret passage. > Why wouldn't he let the Death Eaters and Voldemort know. It would > seem to me that this would be a fairly easy way to invade Hogwarts. Hannah: I always thought the reason that LV and the DE's didn't attack Hogwarts was more due to fear of DD than the fact they couldn't physically get into the castle. After all, a lot of DE's are parents, so presumably can walk in any time. If LV did decide the time was ripe for attack, then he might well be glad of a nice secret passageway. But the thing that keeps Hogwarts safe, DD, isn't just going to be overridden by a group of DE's emerging from a statue. Let's hope for the sake of the students that he's still around until the end of the war. Hannah From melclaros at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 16:13:32 2004 From: melclaros at yahoo.com (melclaros) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:13:32 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" wrote: >> Dharma replies: > Severe Headache > Severe Pain > Sneakerus > Slimypuss > Slimerus > Servilerus > Whimperus > Gitterus > Cowardus > Odorus > Skulkerus > Slitherus > Blunderus > Confunderous > Oblivious > Nausea-us Wow, I bet you had lots of enemies in school. Mel, who'd slap either one of her kids if she heard them using any names like that From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 6 16:26:00 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:26:00 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114983 > Del replies : > Thefreedictionary.com gave me those 2 definitions which are fine IMO : > "a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering" > "the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it " > > To me, compassion has to do with relating to the *suffering* of others. It's not about how horrible their circumstances are, it's not about whether their life is in danger, it's not even about whether they have a valid reason to suffer : it's about recognising that someone is suffering, validating that pain, and wanting to do something about it. < The definition as Del is applying it is too narrow for me.True, Harry is not much, yet, on providing emotional support. He's been able to get by, though not happily, with amazingly little of it himself, so it's not surprising that he'd have problems relating to this need in other people. But "suffering" is not only emotional and "wanting to do something about it" need not be limited to providing emotional support. Would anyone really say that the researcher who puts in long and lonely hours to find a cure for a disease or the philanthropist who "gives till it hurts" aren't aware of others' pain and willing to suffer themselves to alleviate it? Isn't that compassion too? Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 6 16:26:08 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:26:08 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doctor_fangeek" wrote: > I know I'm not the only one who was disappointed by this (hi, > Jen!). But I find myself unable to *not* comment on why. I *know* > Sirius is flawed. I accept that. I think most/all of the > characters in these books are flawed, and that is a good thing. I > accept that JKR thinks he's flawed as well. Jen: (waves back!) I'm with you here--Sirius is definitely flawed. But prior to OOTP I found him an engaging character *because* he appeared to be a man of his word and someone who backs up personal philosopy with action. He told Peter "he should die rather than betray his friends" and Sirius appeared to be following that dictum when he agreed to be Secret Keeper and Harry's Godparent. Both acts made him a target should Voldemort find out about them. Even switching with Peter as Secret Keeper appeared to follow his personal philosophy because he believed Voldemort would still target him as the logical choice for Secret Keeper. In GOF, Sirius came back to Hogsmeade to help Harry, and according to the words *JKR herself* wrote, this was personally very risky. Again, this follows Sirius' philospphy that personal risk is less important than helping your friends. Lisa: > For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as > it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just > don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it > wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a > character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to > him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place > in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what > he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior." > Dumbledore even points out that Sirius didn't have this attitude > toward house elves in general. Yet JKR then goes on to use "Sirius > loathes Kreacher" as evidence that he doesn't live up to his own > pronouncement. Right. Jen: I was amazed by this comment, too. I completely believed, because of the way JKR wrote the story, that we were intended to see Sirius' hatred of Kreacher as a very personal hatred stemming from his bizarre family, their love of the Dark Arts and even Grimmauld Place. It never occured to me in reading OOTP that Sirius was treating Kreacher the way he did *because* he was a House Elf and Sirius looked down on him for it. From what we knew up to that point, Sirius had befriended a werewolf, his best friend married a person considered by some to be inferior because of her heritage, and Sirius was a long-time member of the Order, whose philosophy is inclusive rather than exclusive. None of those instances prepared me to believe he was classist or prejudiced. Lisa: > Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to > his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as > well. Why bother to tell us so much about his family and childhood, > about how he left home because of his beliefs and his opinion of his > family's beliefs, if none of that means anything with regard to > Sirius' character???? Jen: My short answer, "I don't know." I thought Sirius, for all his faults, was a man of conviction. Reckless, rash, harsh, immature but a loyal man who was true to his word. If JKR was leaving clues along the way to prepare me otherwise, I failed to grasp them. The only logical explanation I can come up with is JKR changed her mind about the story arc for Sirius after GOF. It makes sense she might. As she often says, it takes alot to keep all these characters moving across the page. I don't think this negates her emphatic claim that she's writing the same story she always intended because I *firmly believe* that the story of Harry and Voldemort has always been, and always will be, the same story she conceived of during those years of collecting notes, etc. But, like Dumbledore, JKR does omit certain facts and abstain when it serves her and her story, and I don't consider that to be lying. I just can't help but wonder what the difference would be if she had written the seven books more quickly. No creative person can sit on a story for what, 15 YEARS, and not make changes. No one can allow so many life-changing events to occur in RL and not incorporate some of these into a fictional piece. I'm convinced now that the intricacies of each character and their story arc is ever-changing, even as the overall story is the same. Jen Reese From restlesspoetry at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:00:38 2004 From: restlesspoetry at yahoo.com (karyn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041006170038.42692.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 114985 Tonks: > I lust for movie Snape, like most do. > But in the books I want to marry DD. > My friends say that he is too old for > me. I also what to be like him, he is > my role model. So what does that say > about me?? > Mrs. Tonks Dumbledore.. > ??? tell me ... go ahead.. Karyn-- I love Hermoine. And Ginny after she gets over her crush on Harry. I don't really like any of the male characters. What does it say about ME? That my general queerness makes me go for the girls, not the boys? :) --Karyn... whose husband keeps telling her she's a mix of Hermoine and Lisa Simpson, just not as outspoken in the whole telling people what's right and wrong. I guess THAT makes me a huge dork. ;) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:01:49 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:01:49 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Hannah leaps to Snape's defence (of course): I never understand why > people blame Snape so much for the occlumency disaster. He does his > best in difficult circumstances. DD should never have asked Snape > to do it. Finwitch: For this, I agree. Almost *Anyone* but Snape to teach Harry such a deeply personal subject. Partly because this adult cannot control his emotions more than a teenager IMO - and because his history as DE gives Voldemort a further opportunity to get into Harry's mind. (it's not like that mark went anywhere!) and Harry's right. Snape *did* make it worse - trough lack of skill, the huge emotional backing and/or the mark - not by his choice, certainly. Hannhah: Snape did his best, IMO. He stopped teaching Harry after > Harry seriously provoked him. Even then, he may have resumed > classes had Harry asked - he did continue to teach Harry potions. Finwitch: Yes, well... maybe. But Harry didn't know that. He didn't dare go near Snape... (and I *do* think those lessons made things worse!) Hannah: > Harry never practiced - Snape couldn't force him to. He did his > best through reprimands etc. Snape's teaching methods are suited > well to something precise and dry like potions, not to something > emotional like occlumency. He does his best, but in this case, his > best just isn't right. Finwitch: No, it's not. A thing like Occlumency - well, as I see it, demanding too much is fine in a subject where it's better to hesitate when you're not absolutely certain you can do it. (And Potions is such, as smallest error may well turn a nice Pepper Up Potion into Poison. It must be perfect). Occlumency is NOT such a thing. It requires a lot of patience and ability to control emotions. As such, it's a bit like Patronus. Snape could not teach that to Harry, no matter how motivated Harry was. Lupin OtOH, did manage to do so - by *slowing* Harry down so he won't exhaust himself, and constantly telling him it's enough already. Oh, sure, Snape told Harry to calm himself - but never ever how to do so! I don't think Harry was *able* to do any such practise! A 15-year old boy, suffering from loss of blood, tired, filled with adreline, stuffed with hormonal overload, able to calm himself down on a command of a man who just invaded into his privacy in a very hurtful manner? Impossible. So don't blame Harry for his disability! And yet, there is one thing about this of which Snape is to blame: He knew Harry wasn't ready and yet he forced his way in. Thus giving more fuel to Harry's emotions... Nah, Snape shouldn't be teaching Occlumency to ANYONE. Finwitch From oppen at mycns.net Wed Oct 6 17:10:43 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:10:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's Compassion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114987 One thing that a lot of the people who're saying that Harry isn't compassionate tend to forget is simply that _he's a teenage boy,_ and one from an emotionally-abusive background, to boot. (Incidentally, much as I'd love to see the Dursleys sacrificed to Yog-Sothoth, I can't, offhand, remember Vernon or Patooty ever physically laying a glove on Harry. Allowing Dudders to do so was reprehensible enough, but AFAICR the senior Dursleys' abuse was all non-physical) At the age Harry was at during the Troll Incident, in PS/SS, it wouldn't have occurred to me to do anything about it if I heard some girl I didn't know very well or didn't much care for was crying in the girls' bathroom. Even if I did want to do something, _this was the *girls'* bathroom,_ and I'd have had to recruit a girl or two to help me winkle her out of there before I could do anything. (Yes, I _was_ rather shy and inhibited. I'm talking about before I got to the teen years, OK?) I'd have probably sighed and figured that "this is girl business," and turned back to whatever I was doing. (Come to it---I wonder if Hermione ever thought about talking to Professor McGonagall back then? I also wonder whether she was popular, or had friends, when she was in Muggle primary school. Like it or not, most children resent those among them who "make it look easy," if only because this increases the expectations laid on them.) At most of the other times cited in the "Harry's not compassionate!" thread, Harry has some reasonable excuses---he's got a _lot_ on his mind, he has serious troubles of his own, and he's already got enough on his plate without being expected to turn into the Bhodisatva of Compassion. Note, though, that it is specifically stated that he'd gladly share his fortune with the Weasleys if they'd only accept it--- he would do this _because he knows how unhappy Ron and his sibs are with being poor,_ and he knows what that feels like and wants to make them feel happier. If that ain't compassion, at least of the sort to be expected from a teen boy, _I,_ my learned colleagues, am the King of Romania. And if Harry doesn't feel compassionate toward Neville after learning about his parents, and doubly so after _meeting_ his parents in the Locked Ward of St. Mungo's, I am the Tsar of all the Russias. From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Wed Oct 6 17:29:36 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:29:36 -0000 Subject: jkrowling.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114988 Jmoses wrote: > > Next to the rubbish bin, on jkrowling.com, there is a piece of > > paper in which you can make out the words, > > > Harry..... > > a large... > > is dead... > > my fath... > > swallow... > > there..... > > > Does anyone know what this might be in reference to. Lady Macbeth replied: > > Hmm...when I had first glanced at it, I had thought it was > discarded copies of the early drafts of the graveyard scene in > Goblet of Fire. However, now that I think about it, it being out > in the open but only partially seen might be worth delving in to > deeper. Yb replies: Quick note: there's also a "nothing" at the bottom. I got this from a post on the OT group (from Annemehr): "I think it may be an early version of part of "Hermione's Secret," chapter 21 of PoA. It's the part after Harry and Hermione have taken Buckbeak into the Forest and they've seen themselves go down into the Whomping Willow. Hermione asks Harry why the Dementors didn't get Sirius, and Harry explains about the large silver something Patronus and how he thought he'd seen his Dad. If you read that passage (about a page worth of text), almost all those words are there, though not quite in that order. Mostly Harry says "dad," but eventually he does say "father." The only word that doesn't seem to match at all is "nothing," but at one point it says "Harry didn't say anything," which *might* once have been "Harry said nothing," right?" Also, in PoA, Chapter 19, The Servant of Lord Voldemort, there are a few of those words scattered about.But I think Annemehr's idea is more plausible. (PoA, AmVer, p.407). Especially about the rubbish part. ~Yb From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:31:45 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:31:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: (Incidentally, > much as I'd love to see the Dursleys sacrificed to Yog-Sothoth, I > can't, offhand, remember Vernon or Patooty ever physically laying a > glove on Harry. Allowing Dudders to do so was reprehensible enough, > but AFAICR the senior Dursleys' abuse was all non-physical) Well...mostly. But: "As neither Dudley nor the hedge was in any way hurt, Aunt Petunia knew he hadn't really done magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his head with the soapy frying pan." -- CoS ch.1 All right, I take that as the action of a "fairy-tale" mean old Aunt, because in RL she could have killed him -- but there you go for what it's worth. Also, of course, in OoP, Vernon throttled Harry when he discovered him in the flowerbed. That's all I can think of. Eric: > At most of the other times cited in the "Harry's not compassionate!" > thread, Harry has some reasonable excuses---he's got a _lot_ on his > mind, he has serious troubles of his own, and he's already got enough > on his plate without being expected to turn into the Bhodisatva of > Compassion. Annemehr: To be fair, it was meant to be a "Harry's no more compassionate than normal" thread, only some of us misinterpreted at first. Thanks for adding to the list of examples, though -- it's nice to see the kid appreciated! Annemehr who's sure Petunia doesn't want to see Harry *dead*, but is pretty certain Vernon wouldn't mind From drliss at comcast.net Wed Oct 6 17:56:44 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:56:44 +0000 Subject: JKR Characterization- oversimplification? Message-ID: <100620041756.16857.416431DB000D5F41000041D922007623029C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 114990 Lisa: Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as well. Why bother to tell us so much about his family and childhood, about how he left home because of his beliefs and his opinion of his family's beliefs, if none of that means anything with regard to Sirius' character???? Lissa: Bear in mind that this is her website and a FAQ. She wrote maybe two paragraphs about Sirius there, after proofreading 20 chapters in a sitting. She made two other mistakes in what she wanted to say in the same update. Methinks JKR isn't writing long essays on characterization for this FAQ! I don't think Sirius as he is in the books boils down to such a simple character. I think she did that for the FAQ to answer the question "do you like Sirius Black?" Given how the world is howling for book 6, I doubt she's spending tons of time writing her answers for this... I'm assuming she's writing the book instead. The website's a great resource, but I wouldn't read too much into it when she simplifies things a bit! Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sophierom at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:59:22 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:59:22 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114991 > > Alla wrote: > > > > Oh, yes. I don't know when if ever I will be ready to forgive > Snape > > for the Occlumency disaster. I am of the firm opinion that Harry > > would have done MUCH better with the teacher he trusted. Oh, well, > > we will never know, huh. > > > > For a while I was of the opinion that Snape does not value Harry's > > life, not just his ability to learn Occlumency. > > > > Which to me is extreme carelesness, boderline stupidity. Hannah: > Hannah leaps to Snape's defence (of course): I never understand why > people blame Snape so much for the occlumency disaster. He does his > best in difficult circumstances. DD should never have asked Snape > to do it. Snape did his best, IMO. He stopped teaching Harry after > Harry seriously provoked him. Even then, he may have resumed > classes had Harry asked - he did continue to teach Harry potions. > > Harry never practiced - Snape couldn't force him to. He did his > best through reprimands etc. Snape's teaching methods are suited > well to something precise and dry like potions, not to something > emotional like occlumency. He does his best, but in this case, his > best just isn't right. And I still think Snape treated Harry a bit > better than usual in these lessons (OK, that's still not great). > Harry is completely unreceptive to Snape. He disregards everything > Snape says, and doesn't really want to suceed. I don't know what > Snape was meant to do to overcome that. Sophierom: After re-reading all the scenes with Snape,Harry, and occlumency, I have to agree somewhat with Hannah on this one; Snape isn't completely to blame for the fallout of the Occlumency lessons. Rather, Snape shares blame with several other people. Snape is partially responsible. He's a man in his mid-thirties who can't let go of the past; if he were a stronger character,he'd put aside his emotions and teach Harry even after the Pensieve moment. If he were a better teacher (and I think he can be a fine teacher, in certain situations), he'd recognize that Harry does not learn well when being pushed and goaded and insulted. Still, Snape does do what Dumbledore asks; and at one point, he even gives the tiniest bit of encouragement to Harry, saying, "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been."(535) From Snape, such a grudging admission is almost glowing praise! Of course, it's asking a bit too much for Harry, who detests Snape, to recognize this kind of admission on Snape's part. Still, I think it is noteworthy. Harry is partially to blame - he did forget to practice, he didn't take it seriously, and he did want to know about the DoM. I don't think this makes Harry a bad kid - he's curious and he's emotional. It's natural. Still, Harry does have a responsibility, especially after Snape tells him that Voldemort might be able to use the connection they have to make Harry do things (OotP, Am. ed., 333). Also, Sirius is partially at fault. The very first time Occlumency gets mentioned is in the Grimmauld Place kitchen, and instead of supporting Dumbledore's decision to have Harry study with Snape, Sirius questions aggressively questions Snape's authority. Of course, Snape acts equally as immature, taunting Sirius about his "leisurely" lifestyle at Grimmauld. But, had Sirius been thinking about the greater good of Harry and the Order, he should have put aside his dislike of Snape. He'd sit Harry down and say, Look, I know you don't like Snape, but you need to work hard at this, for your own good and for the good of the Order. Unfortunately, that's completely out of character for Sirius. Remus does actually say this, and Harry ultimately ignores this advice: "Harry, I know you don't like Snape, but he is a superb Occlumens and we all - Sirius included - want you to learn to protect yourself, so work hard, all right?"(527) This to me is another sign another sign that Harry wasn't taking this as seriously as he should have, and it also makes me wonder that if someone else, someone like Lupin, had been the teacher, how much more Harry would have learned. I do think he would have practiced a bit more, but I think ultimately he wanted to know what was behind that door. He believed he needed to know. As others have suggested, Dumbledore should have known that this was not likely to work. Ultimately, I think the largest share of blame for hte outcome of the occlumency fiasco lies with him. I think, when he first came up with the plan, he must have figured, what the hell. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, we're as bad off as we were before (harry's been having these dreams long before this, and he's been wanting to find out what happens next - if Occlumency had never been an option, he'd still have tried to find out what was behind that door because he's curious.) Dumbledore knew, however, that Occlumency, while something Harry needed to learn, was not the only answer to keeping Harry out of the DoM. As DD himself admits in OotP (Am Ed), "It is my [italics] fault Sirius died...Or I should say almost my fault - I will not be so arrogant as to claim responsibility for the whole...You should never have believed for an instant that there was any necessity for you to go to the Department of Mysteries tonight. If I had been open with you, Harry, as I should have been, you would have known a long time ago that Voldemort might try and lure you to the Department of Mysteries, and you would never have been tricked into going there tonight. And Sirius would not have had to come after you. That blame lies with me, and with me alone." (825-826) I adore Dumbledore. I'm not a believer of the ESE!Dumbledore theory, nor do I think he wants to be a puppetmaster any more than he has to in order to prosecute a successful war. But I believe he's right here. He knew, better than anyone, the personalities involved in this scenario: Harry's curiosity and "saving people thing"; Sirius's recklnesses; Severus's inability to let the past go. He only turned to Occlumency because he himself did not want to tell Harry about the prophecy. He dreaded telling him that he was, in effect, a weapon, the only weapon to defeat Voldemort. It's the great paradox of the series (and life?) that love is what makes the protagonists strong, human, alive, and it's also what makes them weak, flawed, vulnerable. It's true for Harry, who goes after Sirius out of love for his godfather; and it's true for Dumbledore, who I think loves Harry like a grandson, and because of this, dreads telling him that he will have to kill or be killed. From averyhaze at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 18:11:30 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:11:30 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114992 Lisa wrote: So there's been a lot of talk about new stuff on JKR's site. Since I'm not 100% sure about the spoiler policies on that (it's not the book itself), I'll add a few spaces first: la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la la, la, la, la, la Okay, then. JKR says the following about Sirius in her update: "Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. For instance, he says in "Goblet of Fire" that if you want to know what a man is really like, 'look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.' But Sirius loathes Kreacher, the house-elf he has inherited, and treats him with nothing but contempt. Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there. Of course, these double standards exist in most of us; we might know how we ought to behave, but actually doing it is a different matter!" Now me: I know I'm not the only one who was disappointed by this (hi, Jen!). But I find myself unable to *not* comment on why. I *know* Sirius is flawed. I accept that. I think most/all of the characters in these books are flawed, and that is a good thing. I accept that JKR thinks he's flawed as well. But several of her comments really bugged me, in that she actually puts forth interpretations that I found frustratingly simplistic when I saw *readers* spouting them. In one case, she also really misrepresents what she actually wrote in forming this interpretation. For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior." Dumbledore even points out that Sirius didn't have this attitude toward house elves in general. Yet JKR then goes on to use "Sirius loathes Kreacher" as evidence that he doesn't live up to his own pronouncement. Right. Dharma replies: Lisa I appreciate your point of views on JKR's comments from the perspective of a Sirius fan, but I think there are some important ideas to factor into what JKR is saying. She directly attributes some of Sirus' flaws to lack of development time. She goes directly to him being locked away in Azkaban for 12 years at the age of 22. When combined with the context of particular actions in events and circumstances in books 4 and 5 Sirius', JKR's statements seem reasonable to me. Her statements implied that Sirius might have been better able to cope with the responsibility of dealing with Kreacher, and everything the House Elf represented, if he would have had time to mature. Whether Sirius looked down on Kreacher or not is not the sum of the inferior/superior issue. Kreacher is enslaved by enchantments and attached to number 12 to some degree. Sirius is Kreacher superior by "magical mandate" not by choice, and as such has the responsibility to make sure that Kreacher is neutralized as threat to the Order. I think that JKR's statements on this matter are justified. Because Sirius was still so pained by his past experiences, he was unable to live up to his own standard in this case. This particular flaw was very costly, given that the central objective of the Order is to stop Voldemort. Perhaps JKR is implying that had Sirius been able to work out some of his feelings during those 12 long years, he might have had the presence of mind to deal with Kreacher differently. Lisa wrote: Then there's the whole "no one is wholly good or evil." Well, to start off with that's *not even what Sirius says in the book.* He says that the world is not divided into "good people and Death Eaters." And how is that inconsistent with almost all of what we see/hear about his view of Snape??? In GoF he points out that he can't imagine Dumbledore letting Snape teach if he'd been with Voldemort, while at the same time making it clear that he doesn't like Snape at all. Hmm. So Snape is not "good" but also not a Death Eater? And the inconsistency is where? Color me confused. Dharma replies: Again I think that JKR is using the maturity/lack of development time to get to the heart of an inconsistency. Snape's pettiness and anger are not justifications for Sirius to overlook the business of the Order or Dumbledore's leadership. JKR never says that Sirius needed like Snape, or even agree with him in most circumstances. To me, she is implying that Sirius was unable to let go of his past experiences with Snape. The constant squabbling with Snape was problematic. It reinforced the idea to Harry that Snape was not trustworthy, despite Dumbledore's choice to include Snape in the Order. In contrast, Snape was constantly goading a prodding Remus when given an opportunity, but Lupin had the presence of mind not to give in to the foolishness. The maturity to deflect Snape's nastiness and get on with the common good was/is a burden for other members of the Order. It is fair to question which behaviors resulting from personality conflict are unproductive and which are counterproductive, in my opinion Lisa said: Frankly, even if Sirius *had* said what JKR is now attributing to him, I don't know that his hatred of Snape has much to do with that. He may not think about whether there is any "good" in Snape (and the feeling seems quite mutual), but that doesn't necessarily mean that, if pressed, he would say that he thinks the man is "wholly evil." I honestly don't know that we know enough to tell (and neither did Sirius live long enough to have a chance to find out). And as a friend of mine pointed out, in terms of OotP in particular, Sirius has in fact just found out that Snape really *was* a Death Eater, which can only serve to add fuel to the view of him as a nasty person who has always been up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. Dharma replies: Again JKR never says that Sirius had to embrace Snape's faults, however, the constant bickering may have served to undermine the work of the Order. Dumbledore as Head of the Order has an obligation to use the most effective methods to counter Voldemort. If Sirius objected strongly to Snape being part of Dumbledore's plan, Sirius could have made different choices about his own level of involvement with the group. Offering up number 12 as HQ was a noble deed, however it was clear from the end of GoF that Snape was a part of Dumbledore's plans. Any like or dislike Sirius held for Snape was not going to change Dumbledore's objectives for the Order. As adults, we often find ourselves in situations with unreasonable people and part of maturation is the process of learning to deal with them effectively. JKR's statement about the 12 years in Azkaban covers some of this as well. To me, JKR grants Sirius this fault with sufficient reasoning. Implying that he did not deal with Snape effectively in the context of the OotP really seems fair to me. Sirius is unable to put aside his differences with Snape. I personally cannot come up with a reason why these personal issues, are more important than participating fully in a collective effort to stop Voldemort. Lisa wrote: Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as well. Why bother to tell us so much about his family and childhood, about how he left home because of his beliefs and his opinion of his family's beliefs, if none of that means anything with regard to Sirius' character???? Dharma replies: JKR does not seem to be implying that his past means nothing. In fact I garnered the opposite from her statements and the information she gave us through Dumbledore. Sirius seems so deeply rooted in his past experiences and his familial strife, that he is unable to act in a manner that is consistent with own beliefs at times. As to loyalty and affection for James...the numerous risks that Sirius took for James are key to the entire series. Because of the love between Sirius and Potter's, he was named Harry's godfather. Sirius was sure that Voldemort would come after him to get to Lily, James and Harry, so he suggested a different Secret Keeper. He then took on task of protecting Peter (too bad Pettigrew was the spy). He broke out of Azkaban to protect his godson. There are other positive things that Sirius has done for Harry that seem truly rooted in his loyalty to James and love for the Potters. Lisa wrote: I *know* the books are about Harry. I understand that I probably shouldn't look quite so hard at Sirius, or any other secondary character (and I like or am interested in quite a few). But OotP made me wonder (for many reasons which I won't go into now as they're not germaine to the main point of this post) whether JKR wasn't quite as good a writer as I'd thought she was, and this sort of reductionism (even vis a vis a "minor" character) isn't making me more confident. Dharma replies: At the risk of veering off the topic, I'll offer up there last thoughts. When addressing questions about living characters, JKR may be constrained in her ability to answer without giving away information. She could potentially have quite a bit more to say about minor characters after book 7. Personally, I think that answering questions about Sirius could be a tough one. She has hinted that we will see him again, and that the mirrors might have something to do with his reemergence. Perhaps, this character, who was stifled by a variety of circumstances, will be more insightful in his next incarnation. Her comments might be disappointing to Sirius fans, but they offered up just enough information to get people talking. If nothing else she is putting her web site to good use on this one. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 6 18:45:37 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:45:37 -0000 Subject: JKR's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114993 Eloise: > They play Tough sport which as Del pointed out is much more > dangerous than anything a British schoolchild would play in RL, > where some schools have given up rugby because of the risk of > injury, local authorities are cutting back conker trees and > playing conkers banned. SSSusan: Please, what are conker trees and playing conkers?? Eloise: > With Snape, dare I utter the name, we are presented with a modern > psychological view of an arguably abusive (certainly damaged) > character emerging from what is hinted is an abusive or damaging > background. So far so good. Where we have a problem is with him > being let loose in a 20th century classroom, apparently with the > headmaster's full knowledge of what he is like. You can argue that > Snape is or isn't abusive, but in the fictional world he inhabits, > his behaviour seems to be tolerated. > If Dumbledore is the embodiment of goodness in the narrative, his > attitude is still consonant with the Tough attitudes of the WW, > where children are not cosseted and protected from the nastiness of > the life as many feel they should be in the real world. It seems to > me that the text on its own can tell us nothing of JKR's own > attitudes to abuse as to an extent she is like an anthropologist > reporting and describing the practices of another world in which > things happen differently. > While the interview material shows us definitely that JKR sees > Snape as one who abuses his power, *within* the WW, there is a > morality which seems to say it's OK for children to be exposed to > this, to learn to deal with it. Within the confines of that > imagined world, characters regard Snape as a nasty git, but don`t > seem to think his behaviour merits particular censure. SSSusan: It's rather remarkable that variations of the same topic are running in three threads simultaneously just now. What you're arguing is the same thing I've been arguing (alas, less eloquently) in two other threads: #114967, BULLYING (was: spoilers), which arose out of a discussion of JKR's update of her website FAQ, and #114970, Snape-- Abusive? JKR answered a question about bullying in her "Other Stuff" section, rather than in her "About the Books" section, and I think you're pointing to precisely *why* with this post. Bullying in the RW & JKR's attitude toward it is not much like her treatment of bullying in the WW. Similarly, how we react to Snape and his interactions with Harry tends to depend in part upon how much consideration is given to this alternate world JKR has created vs. the here & now of RW. Eloise: > That doesn't meant that there is no social commentary going on, > that it is irrelevant or wrong to discuss the social issues that > arise from the books; I'm sure that JKR wants her readers to think > about RL parallels, particularly the abuse of power, prejudice and > exploitation of the weak which seem to be constant themes, but we > see these themes through a glass, darkly, as the fictional world > which is their vehicle is so different from ours and the writing > permeated by influences from so many genres. SSSusan: I agree totally. It gets *difficult* sometimes to discuss the social issues precisely because when one person comments based on what's seen in canon, another may react through the different lens of the RW. When aerson talks about abuse/not abuse in the WW, for instance, it can raise someone's hackles if it appears the post is claiming abuse is "okay," when in fact what I think is going on is simply one person writing about life in the very different WW of Hogwarts and the other responding with RL abuse in mind. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mnaperrone at aol.com Wed Oct 6 19:09:12 2004 From: mnaperrone at aol.com (mnaper2001) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:09:12 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114994 >Lisa wrote: > For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as > it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just > don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it > wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a > character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to > him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place > in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what > he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior." > > Dharma replies: > >Whether Sirius looked down on Kreacher or not is not the sum of the >inferior/superior issue. Kreacher is enslaved by enchantments and > attached to number 12 to some degree. Sirius is Kreacher superior > by "magical mandate" not by choice, and as such has the > responsibility to make sure that Kreacher is neutralized as threat to the Order. Ally: Dharma, I think that's exactly right. Regardless of WHY Sirius mistreats Kreacher or even whether Kreacher deserves it, Sirius is owner to Kreacher's slave. He is in a position of power over Kreacher, and according to his his own philosophy, how he treats that person - regardless of the reason - is telling. He was counseled by DD to take the high road, and instead he treated Kreacher like crap. Had he handled the situation with more delicacy, who knows if V ever would have learned that Sirius was a weakness for Harry. Here is what DD said about the matter, which I think echos JKR's quote and elaborates more on her own feelings on the matter: 'She was quite right, Harry', said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted twelve Grimmauld Place as our Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him that Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's-' AND: 'Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he is to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend Dobby's. He was forced to do Sirius's bidding, because Sirius was the last of the family to which he was enslaved, but he felt no true loyalty to him. And whatever Kreacher's faults, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher's lot easier-' Ally From manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Oct 6 19:13:23 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory References: <1097040921.5073.72221.m16@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001701c4abd8$8d6c7f00$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 114995 Meri wrote: >There've been, as you said, many discussions about whether >or not chapter titles can be counted as canon. IMHO this is just >what Harry believes Snape's worst memory to be, although I >personally can not possibly believe that is the truth. IIRC, Harry >saw scenes of who many listees believe to be Snape's parents >shouting at each other, I would think that would be worse. I would >think that a truly reconciled Snape would be far more haunted by >some of his activites as a DE or by what he is doing now as a double >agent. I just think this serves as a good chapter title, and really >can't think of another title that sounds so good. Unless there were some special features of the occasion that really do make it his worst memory. Perhaps - the public indignity - not having given a good enough account of himself - in front of Lily - or the final denouement which Harry didn't get to see. >Meri: Snape is, as the book says, clearly unpopular. I don't know >what he could do to be that unpopular, unless he hexed people >without warning, turned in rulebreakers with impunity and basically >acted as a one man Inquisitorial Squad. But IMHO this is a level of >unpopularity that isn't really seen in modern day Hogwarts. What I >want to know about this scene is where is Snape's gang of >Slytherin/future DE friends when he's getting humiliated? At least Someone recently surmised that the rest of the gang, all being older than Severus, had left by now and he was on his own. But given his alleged wide knowledge of hexes and the like even before he arrived at Hogwarts, maybe the Slytherin gang used his expertise in bullying other students. "Severus, come and show us that Fill-Your-Pants hex again on this little firstie..." "Whatever is that nasty smell? I say, Weasley, you seem to have had an accident!" and so on. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From doctor_fangeek at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 19:18:24 2004 From: doctor_fangeek at yahoo.com (doctor_fangeek) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:18:24 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114996 A not too long reply, starting with a qualification about an assumption made about my post (in regard to JKRs comments about Sirius on her website): Whether or not I am a "Sirius fan" seems irrelevant here, and neither did I actually indicate that I was. My point was that I found JKR's assessment of his character, as put forth on her website, both an oversimplification and also inconsistant with things she actually wrote in the books. My like or dislike of (or indifference toward) Sirius is not the point. I in fact agree with much of what you've said in terms of why Sirius' life circumstances might have made him less able to deal with various events, particularly in OotP. I think you've articulated some of these ideas well, and in ways that make sense, but it seems overly generous to ascribe your interpretations to JKR when what she said is not really the same as (nor does it really imply, I don't think) what *you* are saying. For example, you say regarding Kreacher: "Sirius might have been better able to cope with the responsibility of dealing with Kreacher, and everything the House Elf represented, if he would have had time to mature." Lisa: Or if he hadn't been forced by circumstances to live in conditions that constantly reminded him of a past he thought he'd left behind at 16, or if he'd had more time to 'recover' from Azkaban before being put in that position, or.... I agree that Sirius was perhaps not in a mental state and/or at a point in his life conducive to his being able to take Kreacher's antics more "in stride." However, saying that "the circumstances of Sirius' life and his maturity (or lack thereof) made it more difficult for him to deal with Kreacher and everything he represented" is NOT the same as saying "Sirius loathed Kreacher, which just goes to show that he is good at spouting philosophy but can't live up to it." I honestly still fail to see how this was about an inability to specifically treat an 'inferior' decently. As Jen says, "I completely believed, because of the way JKR wrote the story, that we were intended to see Sirius' hatred of Kreacher as a very personal hatred stemming from his bizarre family, their love of the Dark Arts and even Grimmauld Place. It never occured to me in reading OOTP that Sirius was treating Kreacher the way he did *because* he was a House Elf and Sirius looked down on him for it." What you're saying and what JKR's words say are two very different things, I think. Then later in your post, you say, "To me, she is implying that Sirius was unable to let go of his past experiences with Snape." and "Implying that he did not deal with Snape effectively in the context of the OotP really seems fair to me." Lisa: Again, I agree with you (although also, again, I'd say that this inability was pretty much mutual, but that's another discussion). I think both of these things are true, and if JKR had said them, I would have no issue with her. Sirius does have difficultly letting go of his past with Snape, and he doesn't deal well with him in OotP. However, as with the previous example, there is a difference between what you've just said and what JKR herself said. First of all she tells us that Sirius has put forth the philosophy that no one is wholly good or wholly evil, when that is not, in fact, what he said at all. Then she uses his "issues" with Snape to show that he is inconsistent. But if you compare what Sirius *actually* said ("The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters") to his opinion of Snape (as set forth pretty clearly in GoF), the two seem pretty consistent, I think. He doesn't like Snape, doesn't necessarily trust him, but allows that he could be a nasty git and still not be a Death Eater (it turns out he was wrong, and Snape *was* a Death Eater, but that's neither here nor there at the moment). So, just as Sirius says, the world isn't divided into "good" people and Death Eaters. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how these two things (Sirius' *actual* words and his opinion of Snape) don't track with one another. Such oversimplification and misstating of the facts is frustrating to me regardless of what character we're talking about and whether I like them or not. As I said in my original post, I'm sure I'm not meant to look this closely at comments made about a secondary character, but I have to wonder, as Jen did in her post, whether there is/was a consistent vision behind all of this. And it's disappointing to read an author's statements when they seem (to me at least) to speak of sloppy characterization. Like I said, I don't disagree with many of your points. I just don't see that they really follow from JKRs actual words. Lisa From averyhaze at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 20:00:59 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:00:59 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114997 Dharma replies: Severe Headache Severe Pain Sneakerus Slimypuss Slimerus Servilerus Whimperus Gitterus Cowardus Odorus Skulkerus Slitherus Blunderus Confunderous Oblivious Nausea-us Mel wrote: Wow, I bet you had lots of enemies in school. Mel, who'd slap either one of her kids if she heard them using any names like that Dharma replies: Not at all actually ;-) Unlike either Snape, I found negotiating between the cliques in my school days, somewhat easier than most teens. Kids like Snape, Harry, Hermione and Hagrid, who were singled out for any number reasons, were as likely to be my friends as the kids who hung around in big social groups. Because of that experience, I really try to reserve judgment on issues like: Was James/Sirius a jerk? Was Snape a jerk? Why is James calling Snape "Snivellus?" Some time in my teens it really struck me that differing value systems converge in unique ways in schools. Pretty early on I gathered that understanding the context of the conflict from the perspective of the individuals involved really clarifies why's and how's of escalating negative interactions. I'm under the impression that quite a bit of the personality conflict between Sirius/James and Snape will come down to the assumption that each party must adopt the other's value system to be a decent person. I'm assuming that specific conflicts preceded "the prank" and "upside down business." Books 6 and 7 will hopefully clear some of that up for me. How do other list members perceive the conflict between James/Sirus and Snape during their school days? Do we adequate information on the topic to make specific determinations about their behavior? It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on this topic From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 20:04:35 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:04:35 -0000 Subject: OWLs, NEWTs, and Aurors (was: Hogwarts Homework ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > ...edited... > > Ron hopes to be an Auror - will he? (considering you need NEWT in > potions, and in order to be in class, he must get O in his OWL) No > idea what Ginny plans to do once she leaves Hogwarts, or Hermione > for that matter... > > Finwitch boyminn: I'm going to make a complete change in subject to make a point I've made several times before. People are making what I consider unfounded assumptions about what is required to become an Auror. They are fair assumptions, but I think they read more into McGonagall's statements in the Career Advice meeting than was actually there. McGonagall initially states the requirments, then goes on to give the most reasonable and logical application of those requirements. The requirements are a minimum of 5 NEWTs of at least "E"-level. Then she gives Harry a list of classes that would most likely benefit an Auror on his job and enhance his chances of getting the job. These are not absolutely etched in stone. The classes she mentions are Charms and Transfigurations which are core classes taken for your entire school career that everyone is expected to master. Then Harry mention with equal logic and reason, DADA, and finally McGonagall, much to Harry's dismay, mentions Potions. The fifth NEWT is never mention due to Umbridge's interuption. So, Potions is not mandatory, it's just a reasonable, logical, and beneficial course for an Auror to take. I speculate that a potential Auror who has proven outstanding skills in other areas could get by with Herbology as a substitute for Potions; an 'O' in DADA (OWL & NEWT), an 'E' in OWL Potions, and an 'E' or 'O' in OWL and NEWT Herbology. Charms and Transfigurations are a given as they seem to be at the core of all magic. Certainly and most logically, you want an Auror who has demonstrated knowledge and skill in Defense Against the Dark Arts. Potions seems a reasonable and logical area of knowledge, but as I (somewhat) demonstrated in the paragraph above, it is possible for a student to show that they have a fair working knowledge of poisons and antidotes without an 'E'-level NEWT in Potions. Beyond the three core classes (Charms, Transfigurations, and DADA), I think the remaining two are up for grabs as long as the combination combined with personal talent, skill, and experience establishes to the commitee that selects Auror candidates that you have a cross section of skills and knowledge that would allow you to become an effective Auror. I would speculate that one of the five could be Divination, if and only if, you could establish that you were truly gifted at it. Being psychic would allow you to foresee the actions of an opponent and anticipate his movements. In addition, it would probably contribute to you being an outstanding Dueler. It seems only reasonable that the Auror Selection Commitee would take a look at a candiates special talents and proven skills as well as his list of academic qualifications. Therefore, I can only conclude that NEWT Potions is NOT a requirement to become an Auror, just a generally valuable area of expertise, an area of expertise that I think can be demonstrated without NEWT Potions. Remember, you heard it here first. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 6 20:22:44 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:22:44 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 114999 Lisa wrote: > Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to > his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as > well. Why bother to tell us so much about his family and > childhood, about how he left home because of his beliefs and his > opinion of his family's beliefs, if none of that means anything > with regard to Sirius' character???? Jen wrote: > I'm convinced now that the intricacies of each character and their > story arc is ever-changing, even as the overall story is the same. SSSusan: AND that maybe JKR just shouldn't mess w/ answering Q's on her website unless she can really devote significant time to the responses, perhaps? I don't mean that to sound either disrespectful to JKR *or* flippant to Jen, either! I mean that some of us fans have invested a lot into contemplating these characters, but she addressed Sirius' character so briefly that she may well have done a disservice by oversimplifying. So maybe you should just HANG ON to what you believed about Sirius, Jen, because I don't think it's *that* far off what she said, really, given the brevity of the response. I mean, *I* still think of him as loyal, even if her response only talked about loyalty to James & Harry. Perhaps she grabbed a few quick examples of flaws & strengths, and in doing so, left out a lot of things we all have thought about and would've liked to have seen addressed in more detail. Maybe what you said about Sirius' feelings about Kreacher fall into that category; she said so little that it implied it was ALL about Kreacher's station, when her more lengthy writings in canon seemed to show it was about his history with that one particular house elf and the family's connection to the Dark Arts. Am I making any sense?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 6 20:42:48 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:42:48 -0400 Subject: Remember My Last - SPOILER Message-ID: <001c01c4abe5$0b02a640$9cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115000 >From jkrowling.com "Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that." OotP says "Remember my last, Petunia," not, remember 'my last letter' as JKR stated in her answer. Remember my last could mean any type of communication they had, not necessarily a letter. The problem is, he must have sent a letter to the Dursley's regarding the incident with the car. In PoA Dumbledore says: "But I must impress upon both of you the seriousness of what you have done. I will be writing to both your families tonight." We know Mrs. Weasley got a letter since her Howler to Ron arrived the very next morning. So 'his last letter' would have been the letter about flying the car to school, not the letter he left on the doorstep with Harry. Mrs. Weasley, in GoF says, "I've had more owls from Hogwarts about them [the twins] than the rest put together." Harry's been in plenty of trouble why wouldn't Dumbledore send letters home about his behaviour as well? Only stands to reason that he would. DuffyPoo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 20:52:01 2004 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:52:01 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for New Elves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115001 The HPfGU Administration Team is looking for A Few Good Elves. All elves are expected to perform one or both of the following duties: ? Welcoming new list members -- Send personal welcome e-mails to all of the people who join the list on your assigned day and enter related information in a database. ? Participation in the list-reading rota -- Read every message posted to HPforGrownups (the main list) on your assigned day, check for compliance to posting guidelines, and note the non-compliant posts in a database. ADDITIONAL TASKS In addition, if you are interested in assisting with the following additional (optional) tasks, please note this in your Elf Enslavement Application: ? Pending Messages -- Approve, reject, or edit moderated posts from new members and explain why a message was rejected or edited. ? Help Desk -- Those who have problems with grammar, spelling, and punctuation (non-native English speakers, people with dyslexia or visual impairments, etc.) submit their messages for editing before they post them to the list. ? Technical Support -- Please have one or more of the following skills: knowledge of the mysterious inner workings of Yahoomort, HTML markup, using or writing scripts (Perl, Java, SQL, etc.), security measures, or other Internet technologies. ? Public Relations -- Respond to messages sent to the HPforGrownups- owner account. ? Database Maintenance -- Clear out old entries, ensure the accuracy of database entries, and cull relevant information. (We use the databases provided by YahooGroups.) ? Monitoring HPfGU Sister Lists -- Check OT-Chatter, Movie, and other HPFGU lists for spammers, flame wars, and other irregular or illegal behavior. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS An elf candidate must ? Have been a member of HPfGU in good standing for at least 6 months -- "Good standing" means that you are not on permanent moderated status. (Those few who are permanently moderated have been notified.) ? Have a good sense of HPfGU's posting conventions -- You understand the basic HPfGU standards of snipping, attribution, and courtesy. (You don't need to have the rules memorized, though.) ? Have good spelling, punctuation, and grammar skills -- You don't have to be a Master Linguist, but you should know the difference between a semicolon and a hole in the ground. :-) Non-native English speakers are welcome to apply. ? Have good communication skills -- It is important that you know how to express your ideas (especially disagreement) courteously and with clarity. ? Have good interpersonal skills -- Your fellow List Elves will come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of communication styles. You'll need to know how to get along with people you may not particularly like or understand, how to go along with decisions with which you don't necessarily agree, and how to be discreet (not reveal confidential list business to non-admins). ? Be reasonably level-headed -- You should be slow to react when insulted, slow to jump to conclusions, and quick to forgive misunderstandings. If you are in the habit of responding in anger (instead of waiting before posting), this might not be the job for you. Patience is definitely a virtue in HPfGU list admin; a sense of humor (especially in the face of the absurd) is mandatory. ? Score respectably well on the Percy scale -- If you have some perfectionist tendencies, you'll fit right in! ? Have no life -- Just kidding! However, we do ask that your real life not be so full as to prevent you from performing your elfly duties. (You can negotiate how many elfly duties you have.) We prefer that you commit to a minimum of six months in List Admin; however, you can don clothing sooner if the need arises. The ability to keep the rest of the Team supplied with eclairs is a bonus but is not required. :-) BENEFITS Becoming an HPfGU List Elf allows you to ? Blow your Harry Potter Obsession score through the roof. ? Imbibe all the butterbeer you want (except when on duty). ? Become the target of bitter and sometimes delicious insults, e.g., "Moderator Tart." ? Acquire a stylish new wardrobe of colorful tea cozies and lurid pillowcases. ? Get immediate first aid for ears-in-the-oven-door slammings, hand ironings, foot-in-blender jammings, and other self-inflicted punishments. If a large number of candidates apply, it may not be possible to accept every qualified candidate right away. Every application will be acknowledged, and we'll keep the applications on file for future consideration unless you notify us otherwise. You can find the Elf Enslavement Application (EEA.txt) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/ The application includes instructions on where to send the application. The deadline for sending in applications is Wednesday, 13 October 2004, 00:00 (midnight) Greenwich Mean Time. Best regards, The HPfGU List Administration Team From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 6 21:05:54 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Remember My Last - SPOILER In-Reply-To: <001c01c4abe5$0b02a640$9cc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20041006210554.74467.qmail@web52003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115002 Jo responded on her site that she was referring to the last letter strictly sent to Petunia when Harry was left on the doorstop. There have been other letters, but they were addressed to both the Dursley's not just Petunia. Cathy Drolet wrote:From jkrowling.com "Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that." OotP says "Remember my last, Petunia," not, remember 'my last letter' as JKR stated in her answer. Remember my last could mean any type of communication they had, not necessarily a letter. The problem is, he must have sent a letter to the Dursley's regarding the incident with the car. In PoA Dumbledore says: "But I must impress upon both of you the seriousness of what you have done. I will be writing to both your families tonight." We know Mrs. Weasley got a letter since her Howler to Ron arrived the very next morning. So 'his last letter' would have been the letter about flying the car to school, not the letter he left on the doorstep with Harry. Mrs. Weasley, in GoF says, "I've had more owls from Hogwarts about them [the twins] than the rest put together." Harry's been in plenty of trouble why wouldn't Dumbledore send letters home about his behaviour as well? Only stands to reason that he would. DuffyPoo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Oct 6 14:18:24 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:18:24 -0400 Subject: Snape References: Message-ID: <004201c4abaf$599ceee0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115003 >>Finwitch: How would it happen? Is Neville going to take Potions Newt (because it's needed to become a Healer or whatever job he wants) and flame at Snape about scaring him so that he can't concentrate? (Since he could do well without Snape there?) Or is Neville going to save Snape's life by his knowledge of Herbology? And um - learning to deal with emotions - it is going to be important to Harry. Will it be important to Neville, too? << Kethryn now - Wild theory time because the scene just popped into my head. Neville isn't going to confront Snape or save his life or anything like that. Nope, I think Neville will actually (physically) push Snape aside to get to Bellatrix and Snape will let him go, giving him a nod of grudging respect for being willing to stand up to a piece of trash like that. That could be one hell of an intense scene but one that begs the questions; does Neville kill Bellatrix, stop himself from killing her, or someone else stop him from killing her? And if Snape stops Neville, the grudging respect that was blossoming between them would die a quick and painful death. I also think that Snape's students will have an easier time of it this year...I think he is going to be rather distracted. Kethryn From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:09:16 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:09:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; time travel Message-ID: <20041006170916.5701.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115004 Hi all! I've been reading many of the interesting posts lately but haven't had time to join in the fray. I don't know if this question has come up before. Has anyone found in canon, JKR website, etc., any reference to whether DD has ever transformed himself into anyone or anything else? It occurred to me that he's likely to have animagus abilities since he's a former transfiguration teacher (e.g. we all know that current transfig. teacher McGonagall can transform herself into a cat). But I've read all the books at least once and think I would remember that particular detail about DD. JKR has said that his patronus is a phoenix, so that got me wondering about his animagus. Seems like an obvious and odd bit of info. To leave out about a major character like DD, and a former transfiguration teacher at that. Just wondering too if such a detail about DD might become relevant to the story later. FWIW I was also wondering lately about DD's and McG.'s apparent expertise with time travel as evidenced in PoA. A time turner seems like a potentially powerful and versatile tool to use for the side of good in the dark days ahead. Of course it would need to stay out of evil hands... which makes me wonder what happened to all the time turners that got loose (didn't they?) from their case during the MoM battles in OotP... is there a time turner factory somewhere cranking them out...? (Someone please let me know if they remember that scene better than me -- I don't have the book at hand). Regards, Kim R. (who is clearly full of wonder from thinking about animagi and time travel) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 22:06:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:06:37 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115005 Sophierom wrote: > > Here's what I find most interesting in the update of the JKR site > (I'll put more spoiler space below in case you still haven't gone to > read the site yet): > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > > > > JKR wrote in response to the FAQ Poll Question: > > "What did Dumbledore's Howler to Aunt Petunia mean? ('Remember my > last'?)...So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, > of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry > was one year old. But why then(you may well ask) did he not just say > 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last > letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that Now > let > the speculation begin, and mind you type > clearly, I'll be watching " > > Sophierom: > > Why would Dumbledore have been in correspondence with Petunia before > Harry came into the picture? I know there was, at one time, some > speculation that Petunia or Dudley was actually magical, which might > give Dumbledore reason to write Petunia... but I've also heard that > these rumors were squashed by JKR. Can anyone point me to the webchat or other interview where she might have indicated that neither Petunia nor Dudley would develop magical ability late in life? > > I believe that someone else has postulated (I'm sorry, I can't > remember who) that Death Eaters killed Lily and Petunia's parents. > Other reasons why Dumbledore would have written to Petunia before > Harry landed on her doorstep? Carol responds: Quite probably he knew that the Potters, especially Harry, were in danger and had been in correspondence with her for some time, preparing her for the possibility that she might have to take Harry in, and persuading her to do it if necessary (no easy task). He may also have asked her whether there were other relatives on her side of the family and found out that there weren't (which leads me to believe that he *might* have consulted with *Lily* about "ancient magic" as yet another last-ditch protection). I think that Petunia was hoping against hope that the Potters would not be killed and Harry would not end up on her doorstep and she screamed in shock when she discovered that it had actually happened. She would have known, though, even without Dumbledore's "last," that she had no choice but to take him in. (Notice her reluctance to talk about the Potters in the first chapter of SS/PS, *before* Harry shows up on the doorstep. Surely she's hiding something, and maybe afraid?) Anyway, I'm sure that others have already directed you to the interview in which JKR first states that Petunia isn't a witch and tries to explain that Muggleborns like Lily are the magical children of nonmagical parents and Squibs (which Petunia can't be, by definition) are the nonmagical children of magical parents. You can find it easily through Quick Quotes if no one has directed you to the specific interview. And of course there's the recent addition to JKR's website where she reiterates the statement made in all the books, that Petunia is a Muggle. So, yes, IMO Petunia knows a lot more about the WW than she lets on to Vernon--or Harry, and we'll learn more about that in Book 6 or 7. Maybe she'll even talk to Harry about his mother, but that seems out of character. But, no, she's not a Witch or a potential Witch or a Squib, and she can't produce magic any more than you or I can. (A much more likely candidate for the person who does magic for the first time *at an advanced age* is Mrs. Figg, who is not only the child of magical parents, thoroughly familiar with magic even though she's never been able to do anything more than talk to cats and see Dementors, but is also *old,* whereas Petunia is presumably in her late thirties or early forties--not an "advanced age" even by Muggle standards.) Carol From hockeybug1994 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:11:57 2004 From: hockeybug1994 at yahoo.com (DawnnieC) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Judgements about Snape-Lovers In-Reply-To: <1097040921.5073.72221.m16@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041006171157.83568.qmail@web60705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115006 Matt wrote in message 114911: > loving Snape suggests (although it does not require) any of the > following: > SSSusan: > You forgot the possibility that the Snape-lover simply enjoys snarky, > intelligent, witty reparte. :-) Or that we enjoy reading a character who is neither wholly good nor wholly evil, thereby making him that more "real" to us, a character who constantly surprises us with his actions. Dawnnie ~ who admits to liking Snape from the books, but adores him because of Alan Rickman (I ?m such a girlie girl at times). --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hockeybug1994 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 17:29:40 2004 From: hockeybug1994 at yahoo.com (DawnnieC) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape Abusive In-Reply-To: <1097040921.5073.72221.m16@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041006172940.12523.qmail@web60709.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115007 >kmc: >Or did Snape just want Neville to have a compelling reason to figure >out what he did wrong and fix it? In my first few readings of the >books, I would have argued along side of you but I gradually began to >realize that Snape is dealing with a dangerous subject. Students must >learn to correct their errors. I agree that Snape knew what the >results of the potion would have on Trevor. > >Neville rises to the occasion as part of the DA group after Bellatrix >escapes Azkaban, in spite of his fears. Hermione's helping him may >have prevented him from fixing the solution himself. This is an excellent point and it makes perfect sense. The hardest thing for me to impart on my students was the idea of natural consequences and doing for yourself. And I must admit, when I first started teaching it was hard for me to **not** rush in and fix/correct student errors/mistakes/problems. I have no doubt that Hermione meant well when she whispered the correct ingredients and steps to Neville, she in fact was/might have been a hindrance. If Neville (or even Harry and Ron) knew that Hermione was going to be around to provide them with solutions, what motivation would they have for doing the work on their own? Oh, and please don?t take this as a Hermione bash . . . it?s not. Dawnnie ~ ~ whose now responded to two posts in one day, setting a new personal record. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 18:50:47 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What does it say about you? Was: Re: Snape In-Reply-To: <20041006170038.42692.qmail@web60505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041006185047.20124.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115008 >Mrs. Tonks Dumbledore wrote: I lust for movie Snape, like most do. But in the books I want to marry DD. My friends say that he is too old for me. I also want to be like him, he is my role model. So what does that say about me??? tell me ... go ahead.. >Karyn replied: I love Hermione. And Ginny after she gets over her crush on Harry. I don't really like any of the male characters. What does it say about ME? That my general queerness makes me go for the girls, not the boys? :) >[signed] Karyn... whose husband keeps telling her she's a mix of Hermione and Lisa Simpson, just not as outspoken in the whole telling people what's right and wrong. I guess THAT makes me a huge dork. ;) Can I join the love fest? If 30-something me could be 14 again, I'd be HOH in love with Harry (books and movies). If I could time-turn back to my real 14 yr. old self and ask her her preference, she'd probably say Sirius (books, though probably not the current movie)! My actual 30-something self really loves book Snape (I adore A. Rickman the actor, but the stringy black hair and dark robes ruin movie Snape for me, superficial as that sounds) and thinks movie Lucius is really luscious (though I can't stand book Lucius). What does that say about me? Hmmm, not to mention ...as a girl house elf, I'd just adore Dobby... as a girl hippogriff, I'd worship at the altar of Buckbeak... and don't get me started on Fawkes (audible sigh)... FWIW, I love almost all the non-villain female characters, though in a motherly or sisterly way, but am particularly fond of Hermione, Luna, Ginny (of course), Minerva, and fussy Poppy Pomfrey ...sorry for getting carried away :-) Kim, the totally mixed up love leprechaun From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 19:52:28 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room (Sirius) In-Reply-To: <1096579773.34809.55333.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041006195228.70484.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115009 Angie responds: >> One thing we know for sure, then, is that either you or I will be disappointed, because I will be disappointed if Sirius is dead. :) I agree it is a good thing that JKR has children's characters that deal with death. But I also think if her goal is to help with that, she should have written Sirius off in such a way that his death would could not be questioned. Here, she clearly left the door open, so IMO it's not a case in which a dead relative suddenly pops back. I agree that would not be good. I would hope that any child reading the series would be old enough to understand Sirius's disappearance behind the veil can be interpreted as something other than him being dead. << Kelsey: When I read that Sirius had died, I threw my book across the room. Along with every Sirius fan, I was (am) in denial of his death. I think he is truly dead, although I hate it. There is too much foreshadowing before his death (he becomes more of a problem than a solution to Harry?s and the WW?s problems). There is too much closure at the end (Dumbledore, Remus, and Hagrid saying he?s dead and Nick saying he won?t be a ghost). And his death is teaching Harry too many lessons (not to mention readers). On the other hand, Sirius had one heck of a tragic life (abusive/neglectful childhood, failing to save the life of his best friend, years in Azkaban, year on the run, year in ?prison? of his family?s home). Sirius seemed to be such an important figure for Harry and the story (an entire book named after him). His death was sudden and left us hanging. Not to mention, mysterious (what the heck is that veil?). So, here?s my theory and compromise. Sirius is dead, but we haven?t heard the last of him. Harry and Sirius are just too devoted to each other to let the ball drop at the veil. Harry and Sirius both risked life and limb and soul-sucking in order to save, help, and be with each other. The fact that there is a gateway into death (not to mention the mysterious mirror) leaves a literal opening for communication. Harry (the archetypical hero figure) will journey into the underworld. JKR isn?t going to cop-out and have Sirius come trotting back with Harry into the upper-world for a happily ever after. But there will be some sort of resolution (an allegorical way for Harry to say goodbye and to see Sirius at peace). I don?t think Harry?s going into the underworld just because he?s a hero figure. Something will get him there. Also, I think that the two keys to Voldemort?s undoing (that he?s obsessed with never dying and that he can?t understand love) are both connected to Sirius (he?s dead and also the object of Harry?s love). I think that Sirius will play a key role in aiding Harry to defeat Voldemort. Maybe just by luring Harry and Voldemort into the underworld. This may all be wishful thinking considering how much I really like the (very flawed) character of Sirius Black and hope that we haven?t seen the last of him or that his role in the saga wasn?t just as a shadowy figure and a corpse. Kelsey, who should have seen Sirius' death coming because she's cursed into loving dead characters. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 22:24:31 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041006222432.75141.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115010 --- Alex Boyd wrote: > So, my conclusion is that I can't definively call Snape's behavior > abuse based on the information that we *do actually have*. I don't > consider his behavior very professional. If my kids were in his > class, I would keep a close eye to make sure that he wasn't being > harsher with them than they could handle. But I wouldn't say > outright that he's abusive. I agree with Alex: Snape is mean-spirited, petty, snide, sarcastic, and a git, but he's not abusive. Harry doesn't like potions and certainly strongly dislikes - even hates (as much as a teenager understands that word) - Snape, but as Alex says, he's not crying into his pillow at night or feeling ill at the thought of potions class. And he's not constantly aware of Snape's presence either - often getting caught not paying attention in class or talking to Ron and Hermione. So I think abusive is definitely an over-the-top description of Snape's behaviour. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 22:28:00 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stopping Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041006222800.6737.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115011 --- Alex Boyd wrote: > Oh, and here's another random thought--eductional decree number 26, > banning all teachers from giving students information not "strictly > related to the subjects they are paid to teach" is in effect by the > time Snape refuses to teach Harry Occlumency anymore. And > Dumbledore > is gone. I'm not totally sure, in Snape's place, that I would be > entirely willing to *break the law* to teach a student I didn't > like, > and who didn't like me. Particularly when the student in question > hates the lessons. *We*, since we have been inside Harry's head > for > the last five years, know that he's not about to run to Umbridge > and > say "Snape's violating Eductional Decree 26 every week by teaching > me Occlumency." But does Snape know that? Yes, I think Snape knows that. He thinks Harry is full of bravado, egotistical, vain, rules-breaking and all the rest but I do think he gives him credit for being on the right side. He doesn't think Harry will deliberately harm the Order - although he might feel that it's likely that Harry will inadvertantly do something harmful. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From margotcragg at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 18:31:37 2004 From: margotcragg at hotmail.com (pookasmorning) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:31:37 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115012 Jen wrote: > I completely believed, because of the way JKR wrote the story, that > we were intended to see Sirius' hatred of Kreacher as a very personal > hatred stemming from his bizarre family, their love of the Dark Arts > and even Grimmauld Place. It never occured to me in reading OOTP that > Sirius was treating Kreacher the way he did *because* he was a House > Elf and Sirius looked down on him for it. From what we knew up to that > point, Sirius had befriended a werewolf, his best friend married a > person considered by some to be inferior because of her heritage, > and Sirius was a long-time member of the Order, whose philosophy is > inclusive rather than exclusive. None of those instances prepared me > to believe he was classist or prejudiced. I don't think she's suggesting that he's prejudiced at all; it's a very personal dislike. Rather, she's explaining that while Sirius says the measure of a man is in how he treats his inferiors, he treats his *own* inferior with intense dislike and contempt. Yes, Kreacher is horrible. Sure, Sirius doesn't hate house elves in general. Absolutely, Sirius hates him because he reminds him of his own horrible childhood. The fact remains that he treats with open hatred someone who has nowhere else to go and is magically bound to serve him. The fact that it's personal doesn't change the fact that Kreacher is a dependent and an inferior and Sirius is violating his own convictions. In my opinion, JKR is simply pointing out that Sirius is perfectly comfortable making exceptions for people he doesn't like. Exhibit A: Snape. Sirius has a double standard. Who doesn't? > Jen: I thought Sirius, for all his faults, was a man of conviction. > Reckless, rash, harsh, immature but a loyal man who was true to his > word. If JKR was leaving clues along the way to prepare me otherwise, > I failed to grasp them. I'm not sure where you get this "man of conviction" thing. Nothing he did in PoA suggested that he was fighitng for some ideal. He may hate the Dark Arts, but he didn't escape Azkaban to fight evil; he's there to take revenge out of loyalty to James. Sirius has convictions, but they're subjective. Anything tainted with the Dark Arts is purely evil, and his ideals needn't apply to them. He's loyal and true to his word, but only to those he feels deserve his respect. And so on. That doesn't make him any less good or likable, mind, but he is a force of loyalty and friendship rather than of abstract moral convictions. If James kicked a house elf and told Sirius the elf deserved it, who do you think Sirius would believe? - Pooka in the morn' From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 19:08:46 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:08:46 -0000 Subject: HBP website. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115013 TLC has created a special HBP website. http://www.hphbp.org Got some good info. Some of which is appropriate to some speculative discussions here. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 22:42:54 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:42:54 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041006222432.75141.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > So I think abusive is definitely an over-the-top description of > Snape's behaviour. Perhaps what we should, communally, try to think through is the difference between 'abusive towards a person' and 'abuse of power'. The latter is, of course, JKR-interview-canon, and has been cited so repeatedly that I don't think I need to go hit the quote again ('this particular teacher abuses his power', you know the drill). But we might see that as a different thing to being abusive towards a person. I find myself leaning towards the position that Snape isn't outright so abusive to Harry, but is, to some degree, to Neville. I think he is fully conscious of what his words and attention do to the kid, knows that it isn't really getting through or doing anything, but does it anyway. Part of it is frustration, but keep in mind that keeping tight control on a class does not require that one be continually abrasive, *outside* of one's own class as well. (Badmouthing a student to another teacher is something best done in private, after all.) I think Snape has a canonical tendency to rather enjoy causing discomfiture to others, primarily of the emotional kind, EVEN THOUGH he often does not actually take physical action against them. [Side note: isn't this something of what's going on in the Shrieking Shack scene? He may well have no intention of actually turning Black directly over to the Dementors (and he doesn't--he takes Black into the castle when he wakes back up), but boy howdy does he enjoy turning the screws, even when Black is begging him to listen.] That's why I'd call him *something* of a sadist--although certainly not Bella or Umbridge class. All slippery slope arguments against this qualified application of the world can take the twisty slide down. :) [Side note two: anyone here know the famous Dostoyevsky personal story, about how he was going to be executed and right before it was going to happen they said "Oh, we're not actually going to do it-- just a little encouragement to scare you good so you'll straighten up and fly right?" That falls under the heading of sadism, to me.] I hope this might be a useful distinction to make. -Nora watches the sun set entirely too early, and treks out into the cold From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 22:49:55 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:49:55 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pookasmorning" wrote: > I'm not sure where you get this "man of conviction" thing. Nothing > he did in PoA suggested that he was fighitng for some ideal. He may > hate the Dark Arts, but he didn't escape Azkaban to fight evil; > he's there to take revenge out of loyalty to James. Sirius has > convictions, but they're subjective. Anything tainted with the Dark > Arts is purely evil, and his ideals needn't apply to them. He's > loyal and true to his word, but only to those he feels deserve his > respect. And so on. I ain't Jen, but I've always read his rejection of his family and all of their principles as an action taken on conviction--he clearly disapproves of the pureblood philosophy, and mocks the idea that 'to be Black was practically to be royal' (I'm misquoting, but you get the idea). Now, if you're requiring this decision to be made on something like the Kantian categorical imperative, I think *everyone* in the series is going to fail a test of convictions. Maybe only DD has morality on that level of abstraction, and I have my doubts about him. Joining the Order seems to be a choice made out of some sort of conviction, for everyone involved. It's also a conviction to have nothing to do with the Dark Arts, to reject that path which does seem to lead to real power. > That doesn't make him any less good or likable, mind, but he is a > force of loyalty and friendship rather than of abstract moral > convictions. If James kicked a house elf and told Sirius the elf > deserved it, who do you think Sirius would believe? I don't know, and neither do you. :) He might believe blindly in James, he might stare at James and ask him why he was being such a git. It's an interesting hypothetic, but I don't think it tells us much. -Nora sez: Anyone want to help me transcribe some music from partbooks? From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Oct 6 22:50:51 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius (was: what were Malfoys) (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041006225051.81151.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115016 --- Hannah wrote: > I agree there is more to Sirius than meets the eye. Something made > DD mistrust him even before GH, and apparently not even question > his guilt afterwards. Something also made Lupin, one of his best > friends, believe he was a spy before and after GH. There's > the 'prank' and the issue of why he was never expelled. There's > Snape's apparent conviction that Sirius was guilty of betraying the > Potters. For me, this is an important reason why I never felt very kindly towards Sirius. There is just something a little off about him - a hair-trigger, "ready-fire-aim" quality that makes me think that while his devotion to James and Harry is rock-solid and absolute, he's the kind of high maintenance pal that is almost more trouble than he's worth. (Sirius-philes: please note I said "almost".) He is in many ways best compared to Snape. Just as we see Snape at his worst because we see him through Harry's eyes and in Harry's presence, so we see Sirius at his best for the same reasons. For me, if we remove the Harry-filter, Sirius is a much more ambiguous character. And since JKR has posted some of her own comments about Sirius on her website, I might add that I found them quite believable and in conformity with my views on him, although she's obviously more fond of him than I am. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From averyhaze at hotmail.com Wed Oct 6 22:51:10 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:51:10 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115017 Lisa wrote: A not too long reply, starting with a qualification about an assumption made about my post (in regard to JKRs comments about Sirius on her website): Whether or not I am a "Sirius fan" seems irrelevant here, and neither did I actually indicate that I was. My point was that I found JKR's assessment of his character, as put forth on her website, both an oversimplification and also inconsistant with things she actually wrote in the books. My like or dislike of (or indifference toward) Sirius is not the point. I in fact agree with much of what you've said in terms of why Sirius' life circumstances might have made him less able to deal with various events, particularly in OotP. I think you've articulated some of these ideas well, and in ways that make sense, but it seems overly generous to ascribe your interpretations to JKR when what she said is not really the same as (nor does it really imply, I don't think) what *you* are saying. For example, you say regarding Kreacher: "Sirius might have been better able to cope with the responsibility of dealing with Kreacher, and everything the House Elf represented, if he would have had time to mature." Lisa: Or if he hadn't been forced by circumstances to live in conditions that constantly reminded him of a past he thought he'd left behind at 16, or if he'd had more time to 'recover' from Azkaban before being put in that position, or.... I agree that Sirius was perhaps not in a mental state and/or at a point in his life conducive to being able to take Kreacher's antics more "in stride." However, saying that "the circumstances of Sirius' life and his maturity (or lack thereof) made it more difficult for him to deal with Kreacher and everything he represented" is NOT the same as saying "Sirius loathed Kreacher, which just goes to show that he is good at spouting philosophy but can't live up to it." I honestly still fail to see how this was about an inability to specifically treat an 'inferior' decently. As Jen says, "I completely believed, because of the way JKR wrote the story, that we were intended to see Sirius' hatred of Kreacher as a very personal hatred stemming from his bizarre family, their love of the Dark Arts and even Grimmauld Place. It never occured to me in reading OOTP that Sirius was treating Kreacher the way he did *because* he was a House Elf and Sirius looked down on him for it." What you're saying and what JKR's words say are two very different things, I think. Then later in your post, you say, "To me, she is implying that Sirius was unable to let go of his past experiences with Snape." and "Implying that he did not deal with Snape effectively in the context of the OotP really seems fair to me." Lisa: Again, I agree with you (although also, again, I'd say that this inability was pretty much mutual, but that's another discussion). think both of these things are true, and if JKR had said them, I would have no issue with her. Sirius does have difficultly letting go of his past with Snape, and he doesn't deal well with him in OotP. However, as with the previous example, there is a difference between what you've just said and what JKR herself said. First of all she tells us that Sirius has put forth the philosophy that no one is wholly good or wholly evil, when that is not, in fact, what he said at all. Then she uses his "issues" with Snape to show that he is inconsistent. But if you compare what Sirius *actually* said ("The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters") to his opinion of Snape (as set forth pretty clearly in GoF), the two seem pretty consistent, I think. He doesn't like Snape, doesn't necessarily trust him, but allows that he could be a nasty git and still not be a Death Eater (it turns out he was wrong, and Snape *was* a Death Eater, but that's neither here nor there at the moment). So, just as Sirius says, the world isn't divided into "good" people and Death Eaters. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how these two things (Sirius' *actual* words and his opinion of Snape) don't track with one another. Such oversimplification and misstating of the facts is frustrating to me regardless of what character we're talking about and whether I like them or not. As I said in my original post, I'm sure I'm not meant to look this closely at comments made about a secondary character, but I have to wonder, as Jen did in her post, whether there is/was a consistent vision behind all of this. And it's disappointing to read an author's statements when they seem (to me at least) to speak of sloppy characterization. Like I said, I don't disagree with many of your points. I just don't see that they really follow from JKRs actual words. Lisa Dharma replies: JKR still has two books to publish, and to the best of my understanding, really tries hard not to give away information that might be relevant to up coming events. Given those things, I offered a different interpretation of the information she gave us on her site in the context of the books that have already been published. I stated that my interpretation was based on the information on her site and on her books. I never claimed that it had to be true, only that her response where fair and reasonable in the context of her work from my perspective. It seems reasonable to reference the work in which the character is featured. If the source of information being used is JRK's site, her books or both, it is subject to the interpretation of the reader. I offer up as an example this statement: Lisa wrote: >I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to >his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as >well. JKR said: Sirius is brave, loyal, reckless, and embittered and slightly unbalanced by his long stay in Azkaban. He never really had a chance to grow up and has had very little normal adult life. Sirus's great redeeming quality is how much affection he is capable of feeling. He loved James like a brother and went on to transfer that attachment to Harry. Dharma replies: I don't agree that JKR's statements are reductionist when looked at in the context of her work. Sirius embraces Remus like a brother in PoA, after admitting he thought Remus was the spy. Sirius shows concern for Ron's health after breaking his leg dragging him into the Whomping Willow. Sirius faults himself for Ron no longer having a pet, and offers him Pigwigeon. He invites the Weasleys to stay at number 12 over Christmas to be close to Arthur while he is in the hospital, after having conflict with Molly and the twins. These examples are consistent with Sirius being able to feel great affection for others, not just James. Therefore, her statement is consistent with her work. She mentions the relationship with James and subsequently Harry, but her statement about redemption is native to Sirius as a character. His capacity to feel is evident in the character's statements and actions. As to whether you are a Sirius fan or not...I can't say, nor does it have any particular influence on my opinions. I like Sirius, and can speak from that perspective. The information on the site is not exhaustive, and I (a Sirius fan) would have been interested to hear more. But for the reasons stated in my last post on this topic, it is perfectly understandable to me why she might not give us too much detail. On issues like wholly good and wholly evil, I'm personally willing to accept that both Sirius' words in canon, and the words used by the author, who created the character, can be interpreted to mean- fundamentally good people and fundamentally bad people are capable of a range of behaviors. As many people have pointed out in the past on this list, JKR is writing for a general audience, not necessarily people who are sticklers fine details. If she chooses to give us information about canon without quoting from the books, it makes sense to me think about both sources. JKR's words about her work do not exist in a vacuum separate from the work. She is the source of both. So I'd like to agree to agree on most points. On the issue of characterization if Sirius has not been developed as a character, and there is a problem with the cohesion of the story, would JKR's statements about any character really correct those issues? That sounds to me more like a critique of the writing style, rather than a discussion of how she views the character. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 6 23:00:01 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:00:01 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > s. > > Remus does actually say this, and Harry ultimately ignores this > advice: "Harry, I know you don't like Snape, but he is a superb Occlumens and we all - Sirius included - want you to learn to protect yourself, so work hard, all right?"(527) This to me is another sign another sign that Harry wasn't taking this as seriously as he should have, and it also makes me wonder that if someone else, someone like Lupin, had been the teacher, how much more Harry would have learned. < Except that Lupin bugged out of the anti-dementor lessons before Harry could actually conjure a corporeal patronus. He told Harry that the partial patronus would help him, but so far, even facing just one Dementor in Book Five, it didn't. Whether it was because Lupin couldn't bring himself to make Harry face those old memories or because of some ESE!plot, I don't know, but either way it seems he might not have finished the Occlumency task either. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 00:09:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:09:42 -0000 Subject: Now *that* is interesting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115019 > Katrina wrote: > > Someone on mugglenet said something about this FAQ that reminded me > of one of your [Kneasy's] theories, so I thought I'd pass it on. > > This person posited that the pre-GH correspondence was DD preparing > the Dursleys in case they had to take Harry. The implication being > that not only did DD know that Harry's parents would be killed, but > that Harry would survive the attack. > > Grist for the theory mill. Carol responds: Not necessarily "knew." Anticipated, maybe? Carol, noting that she *paid attention* to Kneasy's spoiler space and wonders if he put two y's in on purpose From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 7 00:18:27 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:18:27 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115020 Jen: > > I thought Sirius, for all his faults, was a man of conviction. > > Reckless, rash, harsh, immature but a loyal man who was true to > >his word. Pooka replied: > I'm not sure where you get this "man of conviction" thing. Nothing > he did in PoA suggested that he was fighitng for some ideal. He may > hate the Dark Arts, but he didn't escape Azkaban to fight evil; he's > there to take revenge out of loyalty to James. Jen again: Loyalty to James, and the belief that it's better to die than to betray your friends, is Sirius' personal conviction. An ideal can be anything a person believes in wholeheartedly and strives to live up to, whether it relates to the community or an individual. No one has to agree with you, and the conviction doesn't have to be "good", for you to hold it! Sirius wholeheartedly believed that Peter deserved to die for the chain of events that started when Peter divulged the Potter's secret location. Not only did Peter betray the Potter's, he betrayed Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore & the Order, and ultimately the WW at large. Peter's one act had devastating consequences for several generations. It's another issue whether a personal or social/political conviction, and the actions a person takes to reach their goal, is the *right* thing to do. Pooka: > Sirius has convictions, but they're subjective. Anything tainted with the Dark > Arts is purely evil, and his ideals needn't apply to them. He's > loyal and true to his word, but only to those he feels deserve his > respect. And so on. Jen: Whose convictions aren't subjective? Name me a cause and I'll find someone who doesn't agree with it. I hold a conviction that Sirius was a "man of conviction" and I found someone who disagrees with me in a few short hours! *And* I feel you've made a very good point to show that JKR's comments weren't entirely accurate--Sirius does hold convictions and acts on them in a consistent way. He may be wrong, but he's true to his belief system. He never believed in the Dark Arts and hasn't wavered in his belief. He was loyal to James and hasn't wavered in that belief. In fact, I'd say one of Sirius' weaknesses is that he *doggedly* (hee,hee) follows a course of action to the bitter end, come hell or high water. He may "spout personal philosophy" but he tends to back it up with corresponding actions. Jen Reese From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 00:21:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:21:15 -0000 Subject: "Constant as the Northern Star" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115021 > Hester wrote: > Maybe I see too much of myself in Hermione. I have often been > critised as being overly logical without enough heart. I read that > episode as if Hermione had gotten an idea and rushed off to the > Library to check it out (or maybe she was already their studying > before the match). When her suspicion was confirmed she realized she better have some precaution. I certainly would. She found someone who (conveniently) was vain enough to carry around a pocket mirror (I > knew plenty of girls in High School who did). She also grabbed the > page out of the book and scribbled "pipes" on it just in case she > didn't make it back. This seems reasonable considering she is a > "Mudblood" and in greater risk than other purebloods. If I had any > fear of being petrified or dying I would do the same for my friends. > To a logical mind, the sequence doesn't really seem all that > contrived. The convenience of someone with a mirror being in the > library just then is about as contrived as it gets. And even that is > not *that* unbelievable. Carol responds: I agree with you. Hermione (at least after the first few chapters of SS/PS) doesn't mind breaking a few rules (such as making polyjuice potion from stolen ingredients) if she thinks there's sufficient reason, and the danger of an impending attack by a basilisk is certainly sufficient reason to scribble a word on a page of a library book and tear it out. Her first priority is to get out of the library and back to Harry; her second is to be sure he gets her message if she's attacked. The mirror is probably an afterthought; she must have convinced Penny Clearwater, another Muggleborn, that they were both in terrible danger. I do see plotholes in CoS, or at least unanswered questions, but not that particular one. Carol From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 00:25:30 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:25:30 -0000 Subject: H-BP clue (?) & WW Nobility (was Re: Peerage and Rank in WW) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > on the theme of royalty and rank - we know little so far about > princes, kings or queens in the WW. Sir Nick was clearly a peer, but > a muggleworld peer? (he's a wizard or else couldn't be ghost if I've > read it right). If a WW peer, then that suggests WW royalty. We have > rank clearly already - Malfoys (blacks) old, pureblood and > rich/respectable, Weasleys lowly and poor salt-of-the-earths. In > general the WW seems strange compared with the muggleworld. Mac now: Having been directed there by a recent thread, I was re- reading Ch.6 OoP (the noble and most ancient House of Black). A couple of tiny things leapt out that might address the issue of WW nobility and may even be clues to where to look for H-BP identity: Sirius says 'my parents, with their pure-blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal' He then later beats off a dark magical object from attacking Harry using a heavy tome entitled 'Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy' Usual apologies if this is a belated 'me too' posting. From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 00:34:58 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:34:58 -0000 Subject: Kreacher's use of 'Dark Lord' title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115023 Why does Kreacher refer to Voldy as the dark lord? Only DE's (e.g. Lucius) and Snape seem to. Who was it that encouraged or taught kreacher to use this, rather than either Voldemort or he-who must- not-be-named? At the least it seems to gainsay what Sirius suggests that his family may have sympathised with LV, but never were DE's (that and the fact also that both his brother Regulus and cousin Bellatrix joined up) Methinks the Godfather doth (again) protest too much. From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Oct 7 00:30:29 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:30:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) Message-ID: <20041006.204105.3636.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115024 SS Susan said: >that I think how she > answerws a RL, child of today on the topic of bullying is not at all > the same as Author Rowling might answer the question at Hogwarts. Well, I think what she'd say is that Harry SHOULD tell, but he won't. > But we really don't > see any reporting of bullying going on nor a mechanism for > assistance. IMO, that's what house heads are for. Hogwarts is full of little kids living away from their parents; heading a house can't just be an administrative position. And there's an on-staff mediwitch who surely would have healed Harry's hand and then told to DD about the psycho bitch who hurt a student. And in normal circumstances, Umbridge would have her fat can kicked out so fast .... Ahem. Went into fantasy land there for a minute. What I mean is, while there isn't a specific guidance counsellor, no, but Hermione and Ron's insistance that Harry tell someone about Umbridge shows that even in the WW, students do have adults they can turn to. As for how Harry would deal with another Draco? For one thing, I don't think Harry really needs help there; he's holding his own against his rivel. But, if things were to get intolerable, Harry could go to McG or DD's office and say, "I'm having a problem, I need help," and they'd listen. But Harry wouldn't because of that schoolboy code of silence and self-reliance. It isn't the school's fault if the students don't make use of the resources available to them. > doesn't seem to > correspond w/ JKR's personal view of bullying in the RW. It does in that JKR means to show that real world students should do what Ron and Hermione *said* and not what Harry *did*. It's right there in the chapter: Harry should talk to someone about Umbridge. > if Snape was in my basement o' > love, he'd only be there if he washed his hair first & used some > Crest Whitening Strips. Then I'd give him what-for for picking on > Neville. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors.... Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 00:51:18 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:51:18 -0000 Subject: The Black Bloodline Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115025 usual apolgies if this is 'me too' or stepping on the toes of earlier posts I haven't seen. Grimmauld Place belongs to the 'Blacks' and the tapestry is about the noble and ancient house of Blacks. Yet in the chapter of the same title (OoP, Ch.6) Kreacher clearly owes his allegiance much more to Sirius' mother than his father and her portrait in an earlier chapter screams of half breeds and, above all, 'how dare you befoul the house of my fathers -'. SURELY, it isn't HER father's house (meaning either her actual father or her forefathers) since she (presumably) gained the name Black by marriage? Here are some equally peculiar possibilities; -Sirius' mother didn't change her name upon marriage. -It was such a close intermarriage that both were called Hubby and Wife-to-be were Blacks already and she insisted on living in 'her' home. - She made HIM adopt HER name. -She didn't marry Sirius' father (unthinkable I think in WW) -She has so embraced her 'new' (as opposed to birth) family to the point of feeling 'descended' - through her children at least - A Flint (unlikely) Another of those things that make you go hmmmmmmmm From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 01:11:56 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:11:56 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115026 In chapter 9, Woes of Mrs Weasley. Harry finds out he is not a prefect. In a book where Harry is feeling both angry and persecuted, this sems the final straw. DD 'explains' it later as being that he didn't want to load Harry with too much and since his father was not a prefect but WAS head boy it isn't the hurdle one might think, even though Mrs Weasley tells Ron 'you could end up head Boy just like Bill and Percy, it's the first step!' - which suggests to me that it's highly unusual NOt to be a prefect before being HB. My own view on why DD didn't make Harry prefect was because it was inflammatory enough that he *existed* and was still at the school after attempts to ensure he wasn't, let alone would be a prefect, to the new ministry spy/DADA appointee, Umbridge. In justifying to himself that this decision has sense, HArry has an inner voice arguing both the pros and cons: " ... But if he *had* thought about it ... what would he have expected? *Not this*, said a small and truthful voive inside his head. ..." emphasis on word truthful. This voice argues for Harry. Is it the vestige of the baby boy formed by James and Lily's union (pre-GH), as opposed to LVfusion!Harry, the being created at GH, who dominates a large part of OotP, whether consciously or subconsciously? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 01:17:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:17:25 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? (Was: SPOILERS. . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115027 annegirl11 wrote: > > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > So, this Petunia-DD letter thing! Interesting! Maybe Petunia did get an invitation letter to Hogwarts? Carol responds: Surely if she'd had a letter to Hogwarts, she'd have gone there and learned witchcraft rather than being jealous of Lily? Her parents were proud of having a witch in the family. Wouldn't they have been equally proud of both girls if both were witches? But JKR has firmly and frequently said that Petunia is a Muggle, and Muggles don't get Hogwarts letters. > annegirl11 wrote: > > I think this was an older question, but I noticed that Jo answered a q, "What is your advice for kids who are being bullied." Her answer is an emphatic, "TELL SOMEONE." Carol responds: Is this advice in an interview somewhere? I can't find it on her site. (BTW, it sounds as if she doesn't approve of the traditional British public school/Hogwarts stiff upper lip philosophy of enduring hardships without complaining--all those "bracing" remarks from Fred and George, etc. And yet Hogwarts students *do* need to endure hardship because life in the WW is difficult and dangerous and no one does anything about students bullying and hexing each other. Maybe Umbridge's quill takes bullying too far? (And how about Apollyon Pringle, Filch's predecessor, who punished Arthur so severely that he still has the marks? Should Arthur have "told someone" in JKR's view? Or should he have maintained a stiff upper lip as Harry does with Umbridge? Does JKR consider the silent endurance of suffering a kind of courage? If so, how does that fit with "tell someone"? Or maybe her advice to kids in the RL differs from what she considers admirable in the WW? distaiyi wrote: It still irritates me, though, that the Dursley's abuse is ignored and protected by the books. When it comes to "Harry" at home, given that this is his only home, I think she is treading quite nicely the line between abuse and disfunction and where a child needs to be removed from a home. He is safe, clothed, and fed but not loved. There are lots of kids who are far worse off who don't get taken out of their homes. If anyone here can come up with a good, fair demarcation of when a child is abused enough to be taken out of a home you'll go down in history... Carol responds: They also keep him in a cupboard under the stairs, complete with spiders, at least till he receives his Hogwarts letters. Now, granted, he has an advantage over Ron in that he's learned to endure spiders, but the Dursleys' treatment of him is not exactly the ideal child-rearing method, nevertheless. And they make him share Dudley's grapefruit diet (though admittedly, Vernon and Petunia do, too--I'm betting Vernon cheats on it at work.) Still, he isn't beaten or subjected to punishments of the sort that, say, Victorian children had to endure. Setting aside the snide remarks that the Dursleys occasionally make about his parents, which again take us into the grey area of emotional abuse, maybe he's neglected by the Dursleys rather than abused? Carol, who is reminded of Rousseau's cold bath philosophy in "Emile" From macfotuk at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 01:23:43 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:23:43 -0000 Subject: OotP Photo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115028 When Moody shows Harry the photo containing the members of the original OotP in Ch.9 (Woes of Mrs Weasley), it is notable that Wormail, the sneak, is present and, of course, Prongs, but neither Moony nor Padfoot. Of course, Harry does not ask why (as usual - curses! JKR yet again concealing plot!). nd yet again here is a chapter title that can be read with more than one meaning - the one we're supposed to assume (that Boggart!Weasley family members are the woes of Mrs Weasley) and the hidden one (Fabian and Gideon in the photo - her brothers killed in the service of the OotP). Has there been a post on chapter titles and their (frequent) double meanings? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 01:29:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:29:11 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115029 RedLena wrote: > As intriguing as some people's theories have been to read, I > don't think Petunia's going to turn out to have any magic powers. > My support for this opinion comes from JKR's talk at the > Edinburgh Book Festival this August (find full transcript here: > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80). > > In answer to the question, "Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?" JKR says > "No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a > Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. > You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to > Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. > She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am > giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet." > > Granted she does cloud the issue with all the "but--" business > but she does explicitly say "[Petunia] is a Muggle." And, afaik, > that by definition means she's not magical. > > > Dungrollin: > > PS what odds are you giving on Petunia's house? I can't see > > how she'd fit anywhere, perhaps the hat spat her out again. > > RedLena responded: > My above opinion about Muggle Petunia aside, *if* she *were* a > witch and sorted into a Hogwarts house, I'd expect her to be put > into Hufflepuff. Here's why... she's not brave enough to be a > Gryffindor, she's not smart enough to be a Ravenclaw, and she's > clearly not a pureblood which seems to cut Slytherin out of the > running. Though I'd expect she'd be unlikely to be very popular in > any case. > > -- RedLena, who likes to hypothesize even when she doesn't > believe a theory Carol adds: Like RedLena, I firmly believe that Petunia is a mere common Muggle who happens to have had a witch for a sister. But *if* she had been a Muggleborn witch yet still had all the personality traits she has now, she wouldn't have fit into any house, including Hufflepuff ("those loyal Hufflepuffs are true," etc.). Remember Harry's fear in SS/PS that he'd sit for a long time under the Sorting Hat and then be sent home on the next train because he didn't belong at Hogwarts? That's what would have happened to the magic-fearing, nosey, mean-natured Petunia, IMO. But since she's a Muggle, it's all hypothetical anyway. Carol From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 01:34:37 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:34:37 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115030 Lisa wrote: For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior." Dharma replies: Whether Sirius looked down on Kreacher or not is not the sum of the inferior/superior issue. Kreacher is enslaved by enchantments and attached to number 12 to some degree. Sirius is Kreacher superior by "magical mandate" not by choice, and as such has the responsibility to make sure that Kreacher is neutralized as threat to the Order. Ally: Dharma, I think that's exactly right. Regardless of WHY Sirius mistreats Kreacher or even whether Kreacher deserves it, Sirius is owner to Kreacher's slave. He is in a position of power over Kreacher, and according to his his own philosophy, how he treats that person - regardless of the reason - is telling. He was counseled by DD to take the high road, and instead he treated Kreacher like crap. Had he handled the situation with more delicacy, who knows if V ever would have learned that Sirius was a weakness for Harry. Here is what DD said about the matter, which I think echos JKR's quote and elaborates more on her own feelings on the matter: 'She was quite right, Harry', said Dumbledore. 'I warned Sirius when we adopted twelve Grimmauld Place as our Headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with kindness and respect. I also told him that Kreacher could be dangerous to us. I do not think Sirius took me very seriously, or that he ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's-' AND: 'Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he is to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend Dobby's. He was forced to do Sirius's bidding, because Sirius was the last of the family to which he was enslaved, but he felt no true loyalty to him. And whatever Kreacher's faults, it must be admitted that Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher's lot easier-' Dharma replies: Ally, thanks for kind acknowledgment :-) I think that the issue of Kreacher and Sirius comes up over and over again partly because, it is difficult discuss the obligations of the Wizard as it relates to the Wizard/House Elf relationship. What are the obligations of the dictatorial party in a power relationship that is as unequal as enslavement? (It is difficult for me to even formulate this question because I find the idea of slavery completely unacceptable.) The question of what a Wizard *should do* in regard to a House Elf's well being in general is so murky. The particular issue of Kreacher, as a threat to the Order, is just as much about keeping the members safe as it is about finding a way to manipulate/change Kreacher's loyalties. I'm inclined to agree that Dumbledore's approach may have been more effective too, but I don't envy the next person who has the deal with Kreacher. From feklar at verizon.net Thu Oct 7 01:40:39 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:40:39 -0400 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" References: Message-ID: <014a01c4ac0e$a78b2450$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115031 > Dharma replies: > relationship with Lucius. I'm guessing that Severus had an > attachment to Lucius at school that was similar to the attachment > Peter had to James. I always thought the LM/SS childhood relationship was fannon and the lapdog comment referred to LM being an infamous and powerful DE. I think SB thinks LM was probably as powerful as a DE as he clearly is in everyday life, and Snape was probably a potions-making nobody much as he is in real life. On JKR's FAQ she says Sirius went into Azkaban at age 22 (1981). Assuming SS and SB are roughly the same age, that means when Harry was in his fith year SS was 36. In OOTP, Lucius is 41--five years older than Snape. When snape was 11, LM was 16, that's a hell of an age gap to overcome, especially for a teenager who is more likely to be both socially selfish and self-conscious. In my RL experience, I can't think of a 16 y-o I knew who would willingly spend time with an 11 y-o for anything other than money (i.e. babysitting). While I can imagine an 11 yo might idolize an older student, I can't see why a 16 y-o LM would have any interest in a kid, any kid, five years behind him. LM would have graduated in SS's second or third yearwhich doesn't really leave much time for This seems to be reflected in canon as well. The only older kids who cross age lines to have significant social contact are the Weasleys and they only do so to talk to their siblings (and friends) (who are only one year behind) and later to test their products, but they don't have any real social interaction with their guinea pigs. Percy doesn't have more than peripheral contact even with his siblings. Even the older members of the Quidditch teams don't seem to have much social contact with the much younger Harry. It seems that the DA is big enough that it might actually foster some cross-age (and inter-house) friendships if it continued. Feklar From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 01:48:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:48:32 -0000 Subject: HP as Morality Play (was Re: Harry learning from Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" > wrote: > > snip. > > > Actually, I don't think HP really corresponds very well to any > fixed > > analogy. Certainly some moral themes wind through the books, > > however, and I find, so far, that the themes smack more of a > Morality > > Play than a Passion of Christ (talking in general terms, not about > > the Mel Gibson movie). > > > > > Alla: > > Thank you very much, Dzeytoun. I do appreciate the information > about morality plays. > > I also think JKR mixes a lot of different genre in the books and she > blends it quite well for the most part, at the same time I do see a > lot of cristian themes, but the same time as SSS said these themes a > re quite similar for many moral systems. Carol: Just an additional quick point re medieval morality plays, which most modern readers find excruciatingly boring: There's no ambiguity or complexity in a morality play, and the audience knew exactly what to expect from every character. Unlike the one-dimensional, wholly unrealistic characters in such a play, JKR's characters, at least the majority of them, are a mixture of good and evil rather than being defined by a single trait. (I suppose a rather weak case could be made that Voldemort "out-herods Herod" in his bombastically villainous speeches, but I won't go into that.) IMO, JKR shares Tolkien's "cordial. . . dislike [of] allegory in all its manifestations." Here's a link to the morality play "Everyman" if you really want to sample the genre: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/everyman.html Carol From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 02:08:30 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:08:30 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room (Sirius) In-Reply-To: <20041006195228.70484.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115033 > > Kelsey wrote: > > > I think he [Sirus] is truly dead, although I hate it. There is too much foreshadowing before his death (he becomes more of a problem than a solution to Harry's and the WW's problems). There is too much closure at the end (Dumbledore, Remus, and Hagrid saying he's dead and Nick saying he won't be a ghost). Angie asks: Where does Remus say he is dead? He didn't finish that remark, did he? > Kelsey wrote: > So, here's my theory and compromise. Sirius is dead, but we haven't heard the last of him. The fact that there is a gateway into death (not to mention the mysterious mirror) leaves a literal opening for communication. Angie replies: It seems from what I've read on this page, most people who believe Sirius is dead would agree that we haven't heard the last of him. I just keep holding out hope that it's in the "corporeal" form! Kelsey again: > Harry (the archetypical hero figure) will journey into the underworld. Angie wonders: Why do you say Sirius is in the "underworld?" If Sirius is in the underworld, where do bad wizards go? Can't he be in a "happy place?" Just thinking of Harry going into the underworld gives me the willies! Kelsey again: > Also, I think that the two keys to Voldemort's undoing (that he's obsessed with never dying and that he can't understand love) are both connected to Sirius (he's dead and also the object of Harry's love). >snip> Angie again: As to Voldemort's undoing, what I'd like to see is for Harry to be able to use LV's own rage against him when performing the AK curse (something to do with the wands connecting, maybe?). Bella told Harry in OOP that he had to really mean it to use an Unforgivable Curse; that righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for very long (words to that effect). Harry's anger is nothing but righteous, and I fear, alone it will not be enough to do LV in. From feklar at verizon.net Thu Oct 7 02:13:55 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:13:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice References: Message-ID: <01a201c4ac13$4cf5cdb0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115034 From: > In chapter 9, Woes of Mrs Weasley. Harry finds out he is not a > prefect. In a book where Harry is feeling both angry and persecuted, > this sems the final straw. DD 'explains' it later as being that he > didn't want to load Harry with too much and since his father was not > a prefect but WAS head boy it isn't the hurdle one might think, even > though Mrs Weasley tells Ron 'you could end up head Boy just like > Bill and Percy, it's the first step!' - which suggests to me that > it's highly unusual NOt to be a prefect before being HB. Personally, my first reaction was, "Why would Harry have expected be a prefect? And how the hell did Ron become one?!" Harry and Ron might be heroes, but they aren't exempliary students; you don't need heroes for prefects, you need good, responsible students who can help others be good students. At the very least, "prefect" implies someone who is supposed to keep order and remind (and exemplify to) others obeying the rules and meeting (academic)obligations. Harry seems to be indifferent about both academics and rules, so why on earth was he even interested in being a prefect, much less think he qualified? By the same token, I have no clue how Ron became prefect. Part of me felt that the writer's hand was a bit too evident there, a "Well, I have to do *something* with Ron..." And Ron was a bad prefect, he undercut the rules (even before they went insane), he didn't protect the younger kids from his brothers, he wasn't a responsible student. In short, he set a bad example for other students, exactly the opposite of what a prefect should be. Feklar From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Thu Oct 7 02:24:55 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:24:55 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: <014a01c4ac0e$a78b2450$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115035 feklar wrote: > I always thought the LM/SS childhood relationship was fannon and > the lapdog comment referred to LM being an infamous and powerful > DE. I think SB thinks LM was probably as powerful as a DE as he > clearly is in everyday life, and Snape was probably a potions- > making nobody much as he is in real life. Yb replies: Ahhh, yes, but one more thing about LM that we must realize: he is a smooth-talking conniving git. Lucius isn't the best people person, but as shown by his dealing with theMinistry, the School Board, and Fudge in particular, he can smooth-talk almost anyone. He surrounds himself with the smart, powerful people, mostly to further his own agenda. I';d be extremely surprised if that behavior emerged post- Hogwarts. > When Harry was in his fifth year, SS was 36. In OOTP, Lucius is 41- > -five years older than Snape. When Snape was 11, LM was 16, > that's a hell of an age gap to overcome, especially for a > teenager who is more likely to be both socially selfish and self- > conscious. In my RL experience, I can't think of a 16 y-o I knew > who would willingly spend time with an 11 y-o for anything other > than money (i.e. babysitting). While I can imagine an 11 yo might > idolize an older student, I can't see why a 16 y-o LM would have > any interest in a kid, any kid, five years behind him. Picture this: Little Sevvie comes into Hogwarts knowing plenty of hexes and curses and the like. Plus, he is a Potions professor, so he must have had a knack for brewing things. These sort of things, especially the hexes part, would show up rather early in his career at Hogwarts, like the first time some of the other students started teasing him about being thin, pale, and probably greasy-haired. Sevvie would fire a couple of hexes and send the tormentors running for cover, and little Lucius would take notice. Then little Sevvie whips up a potion in his first class, and the professor maybe puts him in an advanced class, maybe some after- school training. Whatever the case, word gets around to little Lucius that this Snape kid is SMART. Lucius thinks, "Hmmm. Knows some great hexes, good at potions... He could be good to have around..." So LM takes Sevvie under his wing for a little while. I've always seen "Lucy" as somewhat comparable to DD, just evil. He knows everyone can bring something to the table, regardless of age, gender, etc. If you don't agree, remember: DD has the likes of good ol' Dung in the Order. Lucius is not likely to cut out a skilled person from his gang just because they're a first year. He's an opportunist. If he saw this little firstie dueling with the big guys and winning, he'd keep the kid close, because he may come in handy. Let's do some math: LM is 41 in OotP, when Harry is 15. When Harry was 1, (fall of LV), LM was 27. LV had been wreaking havoc for 11 years prior, so LM was 16 when LV started making waves. I would imagine that LM was a DE at the beginning. Maybe his father was one too, and recruited Junior, or maybe his grandfather was one of those in Tom Riddle's "inner circle" of friends. Either way, LM was probably a DE by the time he left Hogwarts. So he had two years to notice Severus Snape, and recruit him into his gang, which would probably be a prelude to joining the DEs after graduation. > This seems to be reflected in canon as well. The only older kids > who cross age lines to have significant social contact are the > Weasleys and they only do so to talk to their siblings (and > friends) (who are only one year behind) and later to test their > products. Yes, but the Weasleys have no reason to cross years, really. Lucius knew he was leaving Hogwarts soon; he'd want someone to take his place in Hogwarts as a DE recruitment officer, maybe? Someone who'd be there for a while? They'd have to be smart and skilled, enough to impress the other students into joining the gang. > It seems that the DA is big enough that it might actually foster > some cross-age (and inter-house) friendships if it continued. In fact, I was going to compare the "gang of Slytherins" to the DA. Lots of inter-year connections in both. Lucius may have formed the little gang, and had little Sevvie in it with him, but I doubt he (LM) socialized with Snape all that much when the others weren't around, much like the Gryffindors, etc. in the DA. ~Yb, who just can't get comfortable. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 02:40:14 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:40:14 -0000 Subject: Insights into Draco and Lucius (maybe) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115036 Draco in SS: "I do feel so sorry for all those people who have to stay at Hogwarts for Christmas because they're not wanted at home." In COS, Draco stayed at Hogwarts during Christmas. Now, I now it was necessary to the plot, but I'm wondering if it had a double purpose. Perhaps Draco's parents went on a trip and didn't want him to tag along (although, for some reason, I picture the Malfoy's marriage as a loveless marriage of convenience). It just seems to me that we get an inkling from this of what Draco's home life may be like. Lucius doesn't seem to be, shall we say, affectionate with his son? To the contrary, in COS Lucius berates Draco about his grades and we know from SS that Lucius had Draco convinced that it would be "a crime" if Draco wasn't' chosen to play Quidditch for Slytherin House. No pressure on Draco there, huh? I believe that Lucius' purchase of the Nimbus 2001s was to secure his son's place on the team, but for the sake of the family name, not to help Draco. This is quite a lesson for Draco: Lucius'family honor seems more important than his son's welfare. We also learn a bit about Lucius and Draco in COS, in the scene in the Dark Arts shop. It seems pretty unreasonable for a Dark Wizard to take his son, whom he obviously wants to follow into his footsteps, into a Dark Arts shop and say, "Touch nothing." I don't believe it was for Draco's safety. I find Lucius' remark,"Touch nothing" to be indicative of how I see their relationship. Draco seemingly has everything at his disposal, but his life is tightly controlled by his father, who is cool and distant, and very much concered with appearances. I dare say he was thorougly disappointed that Draco couldn't make friends with Harry, as I imagine Lucius instructed him to do. I can just hear Lucius whenever Harry & Co. get the best of Draco: "You can't keep up with s Scarface, a Mudblood, a Longbottom, and a couple of Weasleys!?" I know there have been numerous posts about Draco's "character arc" or whatever it's called, but even if Draco doesn't develop a heart, then I'd like to know more about he didn't develop a spine -- that is, why he chose to act the way his father does. He didn't have to -- some kids rebel. Angie (who fervently believes that JKR must have put a spell on her books,'cause they're magically delicious!) :) From dzeytoun at cox.net Thu Oct 7 03:13:54 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:13:54 -0000 Subject: Positive Spin on Snape, Occlumency, and Albus writing Petunia In-Reply-To: <00e901c4ab40$2b5d2dc0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > > Dzeytoun - >> The argument about the letter wouldn't be all that weak actually...except > I don't think they have a self addressing envelope spell. Remember Lockhart > and Harry's detention? Lockhart had him addressing the letters. Still, > Lockhart wasn't all that and a bag of chips as a wizard so he may not have > known the self addressing envelope spell. Oh, yeah, and Rita Seeker does > have that whole Quick Quill thing so maybe the envelopes aren't that big a > deal. But you would think the person attaching them to the owls would have > noticed at the very least. Well, actually, someone did notice eventually, > hence Hagrid's introduction. > Well, we do know that they have a magical quill that records the birth of wizards and witches, so an address charm doesn't seem like a wild supposition. Also, giving the letters to the owls may be a House Elf job. An elf wouldn't be inclined to notice such things. Not arguing for this. But it is a plausible scenario, I suppose. Dzeytoun From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 03:15:44 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:15:44 -0000 Subject: OotP Photo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > When Moody shows Harry the photo containing the members of the > original OotP in Ch.9 (Woes of Mrs Weasley), it is notable that > Wormail, the sneak, is present and, of course, Prongs, but neither > Moony nor Padfoot. Of course, Harry does not ask why (as usual - > curses! JKR yet again concealing plot!). > > nd yet again here is a chapter title that can be read with more than > one meaning - the one we're supposed to assume (that Boggart! Weasley > family members are the woes of Mrs Weasley) and the hidden one > (Fabian and Gideon in the photo - her brothers killed in the service > of the OotP). > > Has there been a post on chapter titles and their (frequent) double > meanings? mhbobbin: The Photo: Lupin and Sirius are there. Top of Page 174 (Scholastic): "and that's Emmeline Vance, you've met her, and that there's Lupin, obviously" and in the middle of the page " Sirius, when he still had short hair". What is significant is that Wormtail sits with the Potters. I think your observation about the Prewetts as a Woe of Mrs. Weasley is interesting---and would be significant if it was revealed in the story rather than by JKR herself. Or is it in the book somewhere? As for the titles--there is much to watch out for. Irony. Wit. ETC in the titles. mhbobbin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 7 03:16:44 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:16:44 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115039 > SSSusan: > AND that maybe JKR just shouldn't mess w/ answering Q's on her > website unless she can really devote significant time to the > responses, perhaps? I don't mean that to sound either disrespectful > to JKR *or* flippant to Jen, either! I mean that some of us fans > have invested a lot into contemplating these characters, but she > addressed Sirius' character so briefly that she may well have done > a disservice by oversimplifying. Jen: YES! The website is getting frustrating now (for me, anyway). I love those little tidbits and clues, but at the same time the inconsistencies and mistakes are wearing down my faith in JKR's self- described "tight plot construction." I don't *want* to doubt that the story will pull together in the end, but here I am... SSSusan: > So maybe you should just HANG ON to what you believed about Sirius, > Jen, because I don't think it's *that* far off what she said, really, > given the brevity of the response. Jen: The only other choice seems to be abject disappointment, so I'll keep hangin' on. ;) SSSusan: > Maybe what you said about Sirius' feelings about Kreacher fall into that category; > she said so little that it implied it was ALL about Kreacher's > station, when her more lengthy writings in canon seemed to show it > was about his history with that one particular house elf and the > family's connection to the Dark Arts. Jen: Now that's a possibility. Another thing I'd like to keep believing is JKR is *not* influenced by fan reaction and statements. Unfortunately, now I'm wondering if that's naive. She obviously knows many of the fansites and visits them periodically. Reading certain ideas may influence her to change her mind--she's only human after all. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 04:01:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:01:49 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115040 Pippin wrote: > It wouldn't be very satisfying to me if Harry > > was noble enough to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew for killing > > his parents and then took out his wrath on Snape for insulting > > them. To paraphrase something Ron never said, he'd really > > need to rethink his priorities. > > > > Pippin > > Dzeytoun responded: > But he wasn't going to forgo vengeance on Pettigrew, Pippin, he was going to send him to Azkaban. That's hardly forgoing vengeance, or justice as the case may be. Now, it's true he believed that there are certain places you shouldn't go for justice/vengeance, and I'm sure that he still believes that. Which is probably going to be a big deal for him as he wrestles with having to kill Pettigrew. > > It would be an enormous disappointment for me if he did not put Snape in his place in some appropriate fashion. That doesn't mean I think he should kill Snape. But just as he was ready to appropriately punish Pettigrew by sending him to Azkaban, I expect him to appropriately punish Snape for his behavior. Public humiliation would probably be best. Carol notes: For the record, vengeance is not justice. Merriam-Webster defines "justice" (in part) as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal," which forces us to define "just" (again partially) "2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS." "Vengeance," OTOH, is "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION." Surely righteousness and retribution are not the same thing. One requires fairness, the other returns injury for injury. Snape, I'm sorry to say, wants vengeance against Sirius in PoA. He may think, and probably does think, that justice and vengeance are the same thing, that Sirius *deserves* to be given over to the Dementors and that therefore such a punishment is good and right, but (IMO) JKR wants us to see him as wrong in this view. By the same token, when Harry imagines vengeance against Snape (chopping him into little pieces, IIRC), he is making the same mistake. Snape's making him and Ron help the supposedly injured Draco with his potion is hardly worthy of such harsh punishment (or even, for that matter, a reprimand from Dumbledore). In OoP, Harry is almost certainly *wrong* to seek vengeance against Bellatrix, to want to punish her for Crucioing Neville by trying to Crucio her himself (which only a person who enjoys hurting another can do successfully). Surely one of the chief lessons Dumbledore is trying to teach Harry (and perhaps to teach Snape as well) is that vengeance is not justice. Evil in return for Evil cannot, by definition, be Good. Turning Pettigrew over to the authorities, who in turn will send him to Azkaban is justice (as the WW rather arbitrarily defines that concept). Murdering him, as Black (and later Lupin) intended to do, is vengeance, the desire to punish Pettigrew as retribution for personal injury. It returns evil for evil and in so doing, stains the soul or the conscience of the person who commits it (as Tom Riddle is permanently stained and corrupted by the murder of his family). Harry saves Black and Lupin from the corruption of murder and vengeance, at the same time making possible what you acknowledge would have been an appropriate punishment (carried out not by the victims getting revenge but by MoM officials appointed to deal with criminals)--sending him to Azkaban. That is justice, not vengeance. (Too bad the rat escaped.) Snape in his capacity as teacher is an entirely different matter. All he has done is to criticize or ridicule and dish out a few unfair marks and detentions. Vengeance, IMO, is simply inappropriate in this case, not only because it returns evil for a very minor evil but because getting even for a perceived injustice is neither mature nor noble, and Harry, to defeat Voldemort, must surely be both. Nor is it his job or his responsibility to bring Snape to justice, if justice is even called for here. All Harry needs to do is to stop following Sirius's example of rising to the bait. As soon as Snape no longer receives the satisfaction of seeing Harry seethe with helpless rage, he'll stop ridiculing him. (And a respectful manner and a greater regard for the rules would rob Snape of his excuse for punishing Harry.) And what, if anything, would constitute justice for Snape--in the WW, where strict teachers and obedient students are the norm, not the RL where are expected to respect their students' feelings? I, for one, think it will be sufficient for him to understand at last that Harry is not James and to somehow come to terms with him. Shake hands and realize they're on the same side. I'm not saying that it will happen, but it's the best possible outcome that I can foresee, as much for Harry as for Snape. And it involves justice, in the sense of doing the right thing, on both their parts. And what about the person who really has harmed Harry, seriously and irreparably--Voldemort? Even here I think we should separate justice (which is impersonal and right) from vengeance (which is personal and wrong). I'm certainly not saying that Harry should turn the other cheek and let Voldemort kill him (only I do hope JKR will find a way to make him defeat Voldemort without AKing him). And he will have a much more difficult time distinguishing between vengeance and justice in dealing with Voldemort, the murderer of his parents, than with Snape, a critical and sometimes unfair teacher. As the hero of a book whose primary theme, according to JKR herself, is Good vs. Evil, he cannot fight evil with evil or he will cease to be good. He must be noble and powerful, like Dumbledore, who has powers that he is too noble to use. He must find a way to bring Voldemort to justice without succumbing to the lust for vengeance. And just maybe figuring out how to deal with Snape without the immature and ignoble satisfaction of getting even is the means by which he'll learn that critical lesson. Sorry about the "musts." I mean "must" in my view, not ABSOLUTELY MUST WITHOUT QUESTION. The distinction between vengeance and justice exists within the language and has nothing to do with you or me. My application of those terms to HP is, as I'm fully aware, just my opinion. Carol, who hopes that certain onlist friends will understand the experimental nature of this post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 04:25:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:25:58 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius / Stubby Bored Man? In-Reply-To: <004e01c4aa84$bca40f90$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115041 mhbobbin wrote: > > Boardman. Bored Man. I don't mean the whole story as reported in The Quibbler is legitimate. But what would have prevented Sirius from sneaking out of Grim Old Place to sing with The Hobgoblins. He was, after all, a Bored Man. And this particularly far-fetched article is mentioned twice. First, when Kingsley gives the paper to Arthur thinking Sirius would find it interesting. Second, when Harry picks up Luna's magazine. Carol responds: Wasn't it an article about a flying motorcycle that Arthur thought would interest Sirius? And I think the part about Harry picking up Luna's magazine was just to introduce us to the Quibbler (Fudge baking goblins into pies and all that). And of course we get Hermione's reaction to the Quibbler before she knows that Luna's father owns it, setting up the contrast between the two girls which will surely be further developed in future books. > charme wrote: > > Bored man is right :) This appears to be Sirius' modus operandi, time and time again. Remember, the Snape Pensieve scene in OoP where James picks on Snape? One of the reasons that happened was Sirius was "bored." I thought the interaction between Snape and Sirius at GP toward the latter part of Christmas break was quite telling, and I don't take DD statements to Harry after Sirius' demise at the DoM to heart WRT Sirius not being provoked by Snape's insinuations. Sirius, whitefaced and angry, wanted to put down with Snape once and for all. > > IMO, Sirius most likely did sing with The Hobgoblins, and in OoP at > Christmas in GP again, there's canon that Sirius was walking the halls singing "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs." No one else (other than Peeves) has been referred to has specifically "singing," have they? Carol responds: I'm not quite sure that I see the connection between Sirius's treatment of Snape (except in the Pensieve scene) and his boredom. Can you clarify the argument a little? I do agree that Sirius is almost out of his head with boredom (combined with frustration and the company of his mother's portrait and a psycho house-elf). As for singing with the Hobgoblins as Stubby Boardman, the only evidence for the truth of that story is the bad pun. I personally don't think Sirius was getting any recreation beyond screaming at Kreacher and drinking himself into oblivion. Unless, possibly, he was reading Snape's reports! ;-) As for singing, have you forgotten the rousing choruses of "Weasley Is Our King" (written by the multi-talented Draco Malfoy)in OoP? IIRC, we also had valentines sung by dwarfs in CoS, the Hogwarts school song (sung to any tune you please) in SS/PS, and singing suits of armor (who forgot half the words) at Christmas (I forget which book). Carol From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Oct 7 04:42:43 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:42:43 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115042 Lisa wrote: > I *know* > Sirius is flawed. I accept that. I think most/all of the > characters in these books are flawed, and that is a good thing. I > accept that JKR thinks he's flawed as well. But several of her > comments really bugged me, in that she actually puts forth > interpretations that I found frustratingly simplistic when I saw > *readers* spouting them. [snip] > > On the issue of characterization if Sirius has not been developed as > a character, and there is a problem with the cohesion of the story, > would JKR's statements about any character really correct those > issues? That sounds to me more like a critique of the writing style, > rather than a discussion of how she views the character. And Neri wrote on a completely different thread: > I liked your log, sophirom. It is takes considerably more effort to > actually read JKR, especially in a methodical way, than sprout fandom > opinions and theories. I hope you'll also get to CoS and the other > books, because as you mention yourself Snape's characterization in > SS/PS is problematic. JKR uses him there as the red herring villain, > so she must make him look very suspicious. This is why I don't give > much weight to sentences like "cold and empty eyes that made you > think of dark tunnels" in SS/PS. However, it will be interesting if > such characterization appears again in CoS and PoA because in these > books Snape is not a suspect. > I'm combining comments to both because my thoughts converge. Neri asserts that Snape's character is problematic in PS/SS because he is serving a dual purpose. In addition to introducing and developing Snape's character, Snape must act in a certain way to sidetrack readers on a major plot point. I think those same problems reappear tenfold in POA with respect to Sirius (perhaps explaining why the Snape vs. Sirius wars erupt periodically) and hamper readers' understanding of his character. In order to serve the needs of the plot she had to make Sirius act in ways that appear very inconsistent with the loving godfather that suddenly appears in the Shrieking Shack and continues (along with the sage counsellor) in GoF. The result of this dichotomy is that many readers either discredit the irrational behavior or excuse it because of his 12 years in Azkaban, or they distrust Sirius altogether. If I were asked for one word to describe his character, I would waver between *complex* and *inconsistent*. I'm not entirely convinced of his believability. I believe that this is one of the weaknesses in the books: where she needs characters for plot reasons, it often requires them to do things that take away from their characterization. In CoS and GoF, where she used magical means to create characters that weren't as they seemed, this seemed to be less of a problem. And this weakness is one of the things that leads to readers asking whether the author *likes* a character - to which the proper response is "yes" (or perhaps "yes, despite his faults (or perhaps because of them)") or "no", and to the author feeling compelled to *explain*, which can lead to all kinds of mischief. Jen Reese wrote: I completely believed, > because of the way JKR wrote the story, that we were intended to see > Sirius' hatred of Kreacher as a very personal hatred stemming from > his bizarre family, their love of the Dark Arts and even Grimmauld > Place. It never occured to me in reading OOTP that Sirius was > treating Kreacher the way he did *because* he was a House Elf and > Sirius looked down on him for it. From what we knew up to that > point, Sirius had befriended a werewolf, his best friend married a > person considered by some to be inferior because of her heritage, > and Sirius was a long-time member of the Order, whose philosophy is > inclusive rather than exclusive. None of those instances prepared me > to believe he was classist or prejudiced. Dumbledore told Harry at the end of OOP that Sirius *did* loathe Kreacher because he represented the family he so utterly rejected, but Dumbledore also told Harry that Sirius "regarded [Kreacher] as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice." However, this exchange did not occur until after Sirius was dead. JKR did not really show this through Sirius' actions or statements. I think the key is that Kreacher was a servant, not that he was a house-elf; however, I agree that JKR did not develop this point by showing us Sirius attitude toward servants. His statement in GoF turns out to be misleading but the only clue we have that the statement is unreliable is the fact that he held a grudge against Crouch Sr. Even knowing that Sirius did not feel obliged to treat beings that he loathed with the human dignity they deserved (which I think is adequately shown through JKR's treatment of Snape and Kreacher combined; there are hints of Sirius as bully well before OOP) does not lead to the conclusion that Sirius thought house elves unworthy of notice. Lissa: > > Bear in mind that this is her website and a FAQ. She wrote maybe two paragraphs about Sirius there, after proofreading 20 chapters in a sitting. She made two other mistakes in what she wanted to say in the same update. Methinks JKR isn't writing long essays on characterization for this FAQ! > > I don't think Sirius as he is in the books boils down to such a simple character. I think she did that for the FAQ to answer the question "do you like Sirius Black?" Given how the world is howling for book 6, I doubt she's spending tons of time writing her answers for this... I'm assuming she's writing the book instead. > I agree that JKR puts little time into her answers, leading me to the conclusion is that the website has so little credibility that it's barely worth reading. Just considering the number of answers she's had to change, why should we credit anything she says there? Would it not be better for JKR to put her energies into getting it right in the books? (Yes, this is a longwinded way of saying that the website is not reliable enough to be considered to be canon, because she can't be trusted to remember the details in her books.) I am particularly offended that JKR felt compelled to *explain* Sirius' character to the readers. Having told fans that Sirius was "dead sexy" once, I didn't think that this was a question that needed answering. Also, I believe that an author should allow the work to speak for itself. Sirius' character should be based on what JKR has written between the covers of the books. It's the responsibility of a good writer to use the text to develop a character. Using a website to convey characterization information suggests that perhaps she did not adequately convey what she intended. Or, perhaps, she just forgot what she wrote. What she really needs is a fan review board, composed entirely of L.O.O.N.s. ;-) Jen: Now that's a possibility. Another thing I'd like to keep > believing is JKR is *not* influenced by fan reaction and statements. > Unfortunately, now I'm wondering if that's naive. She obviously > knows many of the fansites and visits them periodically. Reading > certain ideas may influence her to change her mind--she's only human > after all. I hope she won't change her mind, but the cumbersome inclusion of answers to fan questions in OOP (like why Hermione wasn't sorted into Ravenclaw) leaves me a bit nervous, too. I think there's something of the same issue in her comments on bullying. SS Susan said: >that I think how she > answerws a RL, child of today on the topic of bullying is not at all > the same as Author Rowling might answer the question at Hogwarts. I hope so, because the message JKR sends in the books about bullying is mixed at best, and not solely because Harry will not seek help. I think a strong case can be made that the books condone bullying *if* the victim's own actions are reprehensible enough. For example (from OOP ch. 29): "[Harry] had been so sure his parents were wonderful people . . . . Hadn't people like Hagrid and Sirius *told* Harry how wonderful his parents had been? (Yeah, well, look what Sirius was like himself, said a nagging voice inside Harry's head . . . he was as bad, wasn't he?) McGonagall . . . had described them as forerunners of the Weasley twins, and Harry could not imagine Fred or George hanging someone upside down for the fun of it . . . not unless they really loathed them . . . perhaps Malfoy, or somebody who really deserved it." Was anyone else bothered when they smashed Montague's head into a Vanishing Cabinet and locked him away just because he tried to dock them points? JKR plays bullying for laughs, and despite what she says on the website, the books are written from Harry's POV and Harry clearly approves of retaliatory bullying. I just don't see how she thinks she can undo this with a little comment on a corner of the website. Debbie apologizing for ranting, but I feel JKR has handled the canon responses on the website very badly From garybec101 at comcast.net Thu Oct 7 01:43:15 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:43:15 -0000 Subject: Scabbers at Grimmauld Place? (wasThe other 'interesting' answer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115043 Entropy : (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were shaped like serpents." Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld Place! Now that would be interesting! Becki here; But Grimmauld Place is protected by the Fidelius Charm. You need the Secret Keepers directions to find it's location. How would scabbers know where it was and furthermore, that it actually exists? I myself do not find it odd that Scabbers is MIA. He is suppose to be dead, right? If Voldy is keeping a low profile, so should Scabbers. If he is discovered, then Sirius is proven innocent of his crime. Even Voldy says in his graveyard speech that he could not use Wormtails body because he is suppose to be dead. If he is kept underground, better ammunition for Voldy. I am curious what will happen, or what part Wormtail will play now that Voldy is outed. There is still no proof that he is still alive other than Harry's account of the Graveyard, and the kids in the Shrieking Shack. Perhaps the WW will believe him about Wormtail since he was proven to be telling the truth about Voldy. Becki ( who thinks that the Wormtail question was the boring answer one.) Hannah: I don't believe Wormtail is dead, since remember DD's end of PoA. Becki's back; Sorry Hannah, I think you misunderstood me. In the WW, Wormtail is *suppose* to be dead, at least as far as the wizarding community is concerned. It wouldn't be a smart thing for him to be showing his ratty-face if he wants to keep his cover. Cheers, Becki From musicofsilence at hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 04:55:33 2004 From: musicofsilence at hotmail.com (lifeavantgarde) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:55:33 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? (Was: SPOILERS. . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115044 >>Carol: They also keep him in a cupboard under the stairs, complete with spiders, at least till he receives his Hogwarts letters. Still, he isn't beaten or subjected to punishments of the sort that, say, Victorian children had to endure. Setting aside the snide remarks that the Dursleys occasionally make about his parents, which again take us into the grey area of emotional abuse, maybe he's neglected by the Dursleys rather than abused?<< Stefanie (making a reappearance!): "Harry paid dearly for his moment of fun. As neither Dudley nor the hedge was in any way hurt, Aunt Petunia knew he hadn't really done magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his head with the soapy frying pan." (CoS 1 [pg 16 - Bloomsbury Paperback]) In the whole beginning sequence of CoS, we see the Dursley's and Harry at *breakfast* conversing about the Masons' visit, pause for the obligitory back story, resume at breakfast, Harry v. Dudley action, gets in trouble and is "[given] work to do, with the promise he wouldn't eat again until finished," (CoS 1) and then we're told that he finishes working at 7:30. If this isn't abuse, I can't see what is. Here you have a twelve- year-old boy who is allowed a couple slices of bread at, let's round it out at 8:30ish (Vernon *was* woken early by Hedwig), is put to work that has "his back aching [and] sweat running down his face" for about 11 hours and then is given a bit more bread and a lump of cheese for dinner before being sent to his room to act non-existant. Not to mention the fact that Petunia seems to not think twice about *aiming* at his head with a large, metal kitchen implement even though she knows he's done nothing. And this is just one book. And we're not getting into the disgusting jail-cell he's put into later in the next chapter where he's living on vegetable broth for three days with the intention of keeping it up for another month. Harry is certainly emotionally abused (can you really picture Petunia hugging Harry at all as a child? comforting him when he was scared or ill?), but it's clear he's physically abused, as well -- The Dursley's intentionally cause Harry physical pain: back-breaking work, being used as a punching bag, intentional malnourishment... If they simply left him to fend for himself, there may be a case for neglect, but they're far too actively and deliberately invested in the horrid situation for it to be left at that. Stefanie, on who's "poop list" the Dursley's top out From dzeytoun at cox.net Thu Oct 7 02:32:04 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:32:04 -0000 Subject: Positive Spin on Snape, Occlumency, and Albus writing Petunia In-Reply-To: <00e901c4ab40$2b5d2dc0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115045 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > The argument about the letter wouldn't be all that weak actually...except > I don't think they have a self addressing envelope spell. Remember Lockhart > and Harry's detention? Lockhart had him addressing the letters. Still, > Lockhart wasn't all that and a bag of chips as a wizard so he may not have > known the self addressing envelope spell. Oh, yeah, and Rita Seeker does > have that whole Quick Quill thing so maybe the envelopes aren't that big a > deal. But you would think the person attaching them to the owls would have > noticed at the very least. Well, they do have a magic quill that records magical children at birth, so a magical address spell doesn't seem that far off base. As for someone noticing when giving them to the Owls, yes that certainly is a problem. Perhaps that is a House Elf's job? The elves would not be particularly inclined to pay attention to such things. Dzeytoun From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 05:13:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:13:10 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115046 Valky wrote: > That's not fair Casey! Harry *really* did want to acknowledge what > Snape did. He *was* grateful, but Snape never exactly gave him the > chance to show it. > The next time Harry sees Snape after he discovers that Snape saved > him their eyes meet and Harry *knows* Snape still hates him as much > as ever so he keeps his distance. > It's not fair to say that Harry did not want to acknowledge it when > clearly he didn't because he couldn't. > Whether he wanted to or not doesn't come into it, but I sincerely > believe Harry would have walked right up and thanked Snape > personally had Snape ever appeared open to it. Carol responds: Hi, Valky. I distrust that word "knows" every time I come across it. (Or rather, the word "knew.") "Harry *knew* he was going to die, for example. Or he "knew" Snape was going to poison him. A teacher poison a student? He'd end up in Azkaban or soul-sucked by Dementors. He "knew" Snape hated him? How could he know that? He can't read Snape's mind. It's that limited omniscient narrator again, presenting what Harry perceives as if it were the objective truth. One of these days I'll make a list of the times the narrator uses "knew" for something that later turns out to be untrue. We know that Harry hates Snape. We know that Snape either dislikes Harry or appears to do so (because of James or because Harry all too frequently breaks the rules and gets away with it). But we don't know that he hates Harry. Odd how often he's tried to save his life if that's really the case. Also, to address a point that Alla made, we don't really *know* that Snape's criticism of Harry (and Neville) is "constant" rather than "occasional." We see only a very few Potions classes per year, those that stand out most clearly in Harry's mind. Those in which nothing interesting happens (no snide exchanges, no spilled potions) are not reported. Carol From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Thu Oct 7 05:18:09 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:18:09 -0000 Subject: Scabbers at Grimmauld Place? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115047 Entropy : > > (OOP, Ch4): "...and age-blackened portraits hung crooked on the > walls. Harry heard something scuttling behind the baseboard. Both > the chandelier and the candelabra on a rickety table nearby were > shaped like serpents." > > Perhaps Peter's been scuttling behind the baseboards at Grimmauld > Place! Now that would be interesting! > > > Becki here; > > But Grimmauld Place is protected by the Fidelius Charm. You need > the Secret Keepers directions to find it's location. How would > scabbers know where it was and furthermore, that it actually > exists? > > I myself do not find it odd that Scabbers is MIA. He is suppose > to be dead, right? If Voldy is keeping a low profile, so should > Scabbers. If he is discovered, then Sirius is proven innocent of > his crime. Even Voldy says in his graveyard speech that he could > not use Wormtails body because he is suppose to be dead. If he is > kept underground, better ammunition for Voldy. I am curious what > will happen, or what part Wormtail will play now that Voldy is > outed. There is still no proof that he is still alive other than > Harry's account of the Graveyard, and the kids in the Shrieking > Shack. Perhaps the WW will believe him about Wormtail since he > was proven to be telling the truth about Voldy. > > Becki ( who thinks that the Wormtail question was the boring > answer one.) > Now Yb: It's a bundimun infestation. See my post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownUps/message/114884 ~Yb, who is ready for bed, after one /really/ long day. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 05:23:56 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:23:56 -0000 Subject: Remember My Last - SPOILER In-Reply-To: <20041006210554.74467.qmail@web52003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115048 JKR said on her website: "So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that Now let the speculation begin, and mind you type clearly, I'll be watching P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :)" Tonks now: So the letter that he left with Harry that night was to PETUNIA. I assumed all of this time that it was addressed to both of the Dursleys, but it was not. And there were other letter before that one. So this is telling us something.. perhaps Dumbledore, as I mentioned before, knew that LV would try to kill Harry and that Lily would give her life to invoke the ancient magic (charm). It was arranged by DD and Lily and probably Neville's mother too, in case LV came for Neville first. I think someone else mentioned that DD probably wrote to Petunia to prepare her for the possibility. But again he calls her Petunia every time. So he must have know her long ago when she was a child and her sister was going to Hogwarts. Humm... what does it all mean? Where is that 6th book?!!! (I am going to have to learn to bi-locate so I can peek over JKR's shoulder while she writes!) Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 05:24:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 05:24:59 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115049 I (Carol) wrote: > > > Carol, who thinks that learning to cope with Sirius's death is an > > important lesson for Harry, much more important than any > > contribution the living Sirius made or could have made in helping > > him grow up > > Wow. I think that's one of the *coldest* things I've seen anyone > post on here lately. Learning to deal with the death of the person > he loved more than anyone (note, who Harry loved, regardless of how > we feel about the character) is more important or beneficial than, > perhaps, learning what it's like to build a relationship of trust and love, even when the person in question *is* unquestionably damaged? > Sirius gave Harry something that no one else in the series has, at > least from Harry's POV--and when you're talking about emotions, each > individual POV is all you have to go on. To reduce that to an object > lesson about death and mourning is to ignore those contributions. > > -Nora adds, for the sake of being contrary: don't cite those 'good > qualities' without the 'latent' qualifier Carol responds: Cold or not (thanks for your courtesy, Nora), I do believe that Sirius's death is crucial for Harry. He is about to face a war; other friends will almost certainly die. He must face that and deal with it, and that, in my *cold* opinion, is his greatest contribution. Alive, what could he have done? He's the most wanted fugitive in the WW. He sits in Grimmauld Place feeling bored and stir-crazy. I suppose that things might have been different if he had not landed himself in Azkaban by going after Peter Pettigrew and had somehow managed to persuade Dumbledore of his innocence. Even then he would have played no role in Harry's life until he attended Hogwarts because Dumbledore wanted Harry to be placed with the Dursleys. And Sirius at his best is not much of a role model for the boy destined to be the one who destroys Voldemort. He's arrogant and reckless, qualities that Dumbledore can't allow Harry to develop. I'm sorry if that view strikes you as cold. Your saying so strikes *me* as rude. Carol, who thought the List Elves had dealt with the incivility issue and is sorry to discover that she was wrong From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 7 05:52:28 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:52:28 EDT Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) Message-ID: <1e4.2bfa3c83.2e96339c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115050 > Carol adds: > Like RedLena, I firmly believe that Petunia is a mere common Muggle > who happens to have had a witch for a sister. But *if* she had been a > Muggleborn witch yet still had all the personality traits she has now, > she wouldn't have fit into any house, including Hufflepuff ("those > loyal Hufflepuffs are true," etc.). Remember Harry's fear in SS/PS > that he'd sit for a long time under the Sorting Hat and then be sent > home on the next train because he didn't belong at Hogwarts? That's > what would have happened to the magic-fearing, nosey, mean-natured > Petunia, IMO. But since she's a Muggle, it's all hypothetical anyway. > > Carol Maybe Petunia wanted to learn magic to be like her sister, but Dumbledore sent her a letter saying, "I'm sorry, but you don't really fit in any of our houses at Hogwarts." Even though she had latent magical ability, she couldn't learn how to use it! That would explain the earlier letters and Dumbledore's "Remember my last." Okay, that's probably not what happened... Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 7 05:56:33 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:56:33 EDT Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room (Sirius) Message-ID: <127.4c2ca090.2e963491@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115051 > Kelsey again: > >Harry (the archetypical hero figure) will journey into the > underworld. > > Angie wonders: > Why do you say Sirius is in the "underworld?" If Sirius is in the > underworld, where do bad wizards go? Can't he be in a "happy > place?" Just thinking of Harry going into the underworld gives me > the willies! Actually, in Greek mythology the Underworld isn't a good or bad place. It just the "other" world, where everybody went after they died. Some drank wine and danced, while others pushed rocks up hills, over and over, throughout eternity. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 06:07:32 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:07:32 -0000 Subject: SPOILERS. JKR site update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > > > So funny. JKR changed her answer about Collin and added something > about Dumbledore's letter to Petunia. > > What I found the most interesting is her last sentence in the answer > about Collin (something about proofreading 20 chapters in a row :o)) > > > Alla Carol adds: Unfortunately, she said "reading through twenty chapters," not proofreading them. So we know she's written (or at least drafted) twenty chapters, which means she's about halfway through the book if it's as long as OoP and almost done with the manuscript if it's as short as PoA (which seems unlikely). However, she has to revise it and then submit it to her editor, who will recommend a few changes (additions, deletions, etc.) Then it will go to a copyeditor, who will check grammar, punctuation, spelling, sentence structure, inconsistencies, etc. Then JKR will make her own changes and corrections and approve or disapprove the copyeditor's corrections. Only then will it be set in type and ready to be proofread, both by JKR herself and by a professional proofreader. Then the corrections will be set in type and doublechecked before the final set of proofs is run and the book is bound and distributed. At a guess, we have at least six months more to wait for the process to be complete. It could be less if the book is as short as PoA, but I doubt it. Especially if JKR is on the lookout for flints, as I hope she is, thanks to her devoted readers. Carol From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 06:22:23 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:22:23 -0000 Subject: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room (Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > Kelsey again: > > Harry (the archetypical hero figure) will journey into the > underworld. > > Angie wonders: > Why do you say Sirius is in the "underworld?" If Sirius is in the > underworld, where do bad wizards go? Can't he be in a "happy > place?" Just thinking of Harry going into the underworld gives me > the willies! Tonks here: I don't know what Kelsey had in mind. But the term underworld does not necessary refer to Hell. It is just a place for the dead. This is before any religion with ideas of Heaven/Hell. Tonks_op From jmrazo at hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 00:27:41 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:27:41 -0000 Subject: Snape Abusive In-Reply-To: <20041006172940.12523.qmail@web60709.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115054 > kmc: > > Or did Snape just want Neville to have a compelling reason to > > figure out what he did wrong and fix it? In my first few readings > > of the books, I would have argued along side of you but I gradually > > began to realize that Snape is dealing with a dangerous subject. > > Students must learn to correct their errors. > Dawnnie: > The hardest thing for me to impart on my students was the idea of > natural consequences and doing for yourself. And I must admit, when > I first started teaching it was hard for me to **not** rush in and > fix/correct student errors/mistakes/problems. "phoenixgod2000": There is still a big difference between making someone answer their history homework on their own and threatening to poison their pet. Even if Snape knew that there was not going to be a negative effect on Trevor, Neville had no way of knowing that. Snape did it to simply inspire terror in Neville. He is at the very least an emotional sadist. JK has herself described him as being based on a hated teacher of hers. Never once has she said that he was a hated teacher who taught her a lot. I don't think we are supposed to find deep education reasons for his actions in potions class. I think we are simply supposed to be sympathetic towards Neville. From sunflowerlaw at cox.net Thu Oct 7 02:31:45 2004 From: sunflowerlaw at cox.net (Lindsay W.) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:31:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Black Bloodline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041006190833.01e6ce68@pop.west.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115055 macfotuk at yahoo.com wrote: > > >SURELY, it isn't HER father's house (meaning either her actual >father or her forefathers) since she (presumably) gained the name >Black by marriage? Here are some equally peculiar possibilities; > >-Sirius' mother didn't change her name upon marriage. >-It was such a close intermarriage that both were called Hubby and >Wife-to-be were Blacks already and she insisted on living in 'her' >home. >- She made HIM adopt HER name. >-She didn't marry Sirius' father (unthinkable I think in WW) >-She has so embraced her 'new' (as opposed to birth) family to the >point of feeling 'descended' - through her children at least >- A Flint (unlikely) Lawless replies: I've always figured that Mr. and Mrs. Black (Sirius's parents) were cousins, and probably first or second, since that wasn't completely unusual for royal families to do (in fact it was standard operating procedure sometimes), and the Blacks I certainly see as one of the WW's royal families. :) I even made a little family tree of what *I* theorize that what we know of the Black Family Tree to look like (a bit different from HP-Lexicon one - http://www.cityofwayside.com/BlackFamilyTree1.jpg ). I have them down as second cousins. If she isn't related to him (at least by surname), then I can certainly see her embracing the Black Family with vigor, especially if she came from a not-so-grand (in terms of bloodline and/or money) family. She loved being apart of the family and took its mantra to the next level. I think Kreecher's devotion, though, has to do with the woman's personality and his own twisted views of what is right or wrong. I don't think House Elves are quite so slavish as they've been perceived - after all, Dobby was able to betray Lucius Malfoy and Winky showed devotion to Crouch Jr. over Crouch Sr., who was technically head of the household. So it's completely believable that while Kreecher isn't supposed to have a choice, in reality, he does, and it may not be because of Mrs. Black's bloodline that he is devoted to her memory, but rather, because he liked her so very much. --Lawless From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 06:48:27 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:48:27 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? /No Empathy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115056 > > Stefanie (making a reappearance!): > "Harry paid dearly for his moment of fun. As neither Dudley nor the > hedge was in any way hurt, Aunt Petunia knew he hadn't really done > magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his > head with the soapy frying pan." (CoS 1 [pg 16 - Bloomsbury > Paperback]) > > In the whole beginning sequence of CoS, we see the Dursley's and > Harry at *breakfast* conversing about the Masons' visit, pause for > the obligitory back story, resume at breakfast, Harry v. Dudley > action, gets in trouble and is "[given] work to do, with the promise > he wouldn't eat again until finished," (CoS 1) and then we're told > that he finishes working at 7:30. > > If this isn't abuse, I can't see what is. Here you have a twelve- > year-old boy who is allowed a couple slices of bread at, let's round > it out at 8:30ish (Vernon *was* woken early by Hedwig), is put to > work that has "his back aching [and] sweat running down his face" > for about 11 hours and then is given a bit more bread and a lump of > cheese for dinner before being sent to his room to act non- existant. > Not to mention the fact that Petunia seems to not think twice about > *aiming* at his head with a large, metal kitchen implement even > though she knows he's done nothing. > > And this is just one book. And we're not getting into the disgusting > jail-cell he's put into later in the next chapter where he's living > on vegetable broth for three days with the intention of keeping it > up for another month. > > Harry is certainly emotionally abused (can you really picture > Petunia hugging Harry at all as a child? comforting him when he was > scared or ill?), but it's clear he's physically abused, as well -- > The Dursley's intentionally cause Harry physical pain: back- breaking > work, being used as a punching bag, intentional malnourishment... If > they simply left him to fend for himself, there may be a case for > neglect, but they're far too actively and deliberately invested in > the horrid situation for it to be left at that. Finwitch: Indeed. Harry is abused at and by the Dursleys. And let's not overlook the fact that Vernon tried to strangle him, but that somehow (magically) Harry became impossible to hold. Vernon Dursley has done *more* than just abused Harry - he tried to kill him! Still, they prefer ignoring Harry. Snide remarks of Harry's parents - Vernon and Petunia *avoid* discussing them to the point of forbidding Harry to ask questions, whereas Marge insists on insulting them *to* Harry! As well as *literally* treating him worse than a dog! (giving him dog biscuits). Marge is the one obliviated after Harry's uncontrolled magic turned her into a balloon. Vernon, Petunia and Dudley are not. The little amount of decency from Vernon and Petunia towards Harry is forced by their fear of magic, because when they act *too* rashly, Harry will feel angry or scared and therefore, magic happens... I'd think they got the point before Harry was three. Also, Dursleys have *not* taught about empathy to Harry nor to Dudley! Quite the opposite - Vernon *encouraged* Dudley to hit Harry with his Smeltings stick, and is of the opinion the stick is *for* hitting people with! I pretty much doubt the Smeltings authorities think that... they're horrible. Dudley is a bully because his father made him to be one. Finwitch From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 06:52:08 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:52:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: <014a01c4ac0e$a78b2450$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115057 Dharma replies: relationship with Lucius. I'm guessing that Severus had an attachment to Lucius at school that was similar to the attachment Peter had to James. Feklar wrote: I always thought the LM/SS childhood relationship was fannon and the lapdog comment referred to LM being an infamous and powerful DE. I think SB thinks LM was probably as powerful as a DE as he clearly is in everyday life, and Snape was probably a potions-making nobody much as he is in real life. On JKR's FAQ she says Sirius went into Azkaban at age 22 (1981). Assuming SS and SB are roughly the same age, that means when Harry was in his fith year SS was 36. In OOTP, Lucius is 41--five years older than Snape. When snape was 11, LM was 16, that's a hell of an age gap to overcome, especially for a teenager who is more likely to be both socially selfish and self- conscious. Dharma replies: I think that you are probably right about Snape's relationship to Lucius. I thought the Malfoys were the couple that he was hanging out with in school, but it was the Lestranges, according the Sirius in the GoF chapter 27. Rosier, Wilkes and Avery are the other people mentioned who turned out to be Death Eaters. Feklar wrote: In my RL experience, I can't think of a 16 y-o I knew who would willingly spend time with an 11 y-o for anything other than money (i.e. babysitting). While I can imagine an 11 yo might idolize an older student, I can't see why a 16 y-o LM would have any interest in a kid, any kid, five years behindhim. LM would have graduated in SS's second or third yearwhich doesn't really leave much time for Dharma replies: This is actually another reason why I thought, mistakenly, that Snape had an attachment to Lucius that was comparable to Pettigrew's attachment to James. From what we have seen in OotP and what McGonagall told us in PoA, Peter idolized James. There did not to seem to be much in the way of reciprocity going on there. Feklar wrote: This seems to be reflected in canon as well. The only older kids who cross age lines to have significant social contact are the Weasleys and they only do so to talk to their siblings (and friends) (who are only one year behind)and later to test their products, but they don't have any real social interaction with their guinea pigs. Percy doesn't have more than peripheral contact even with his siblings. Even the older members of the Quidditch teams don't seem to have much social contact with the much younger Harry. It seems that the DA is big enough that it might actually foster some cross-age (and inter- house) friendships if it continued. Dharma replies: I agree with your analysis. The kids really do seem to stick with others in their year. Perhaps the some incarnation of the DA will introduce some new age dynamics but I guess that this really would depend on how the original group continues to interact. Without Umbridge, or some oppressive interloper, interfering inside the school, I wonder if they will have the same kind of unity. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 07:10:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:10:28 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115058 Angie wrote: > I posted elsewhere before I saw this. The question was how could > Colin's camera work, being a Muggle camera and JKR said something > like, "Who said it worked?" > > Well, respectfully, she did. I remember in SS, Colin showed Harry > the pic he took with Lockhart and Harry was pleased to see that his > photographic self was putting up a fight. So, I don't understand > her comment at all. Except maybe she's human like the rest of us! Carol responds: Of course you know about the update to her site since you posted this, so I won't say any more on that topic. But, yes, she is human, as she has shown a number of times with inconsistencies like the date of Sir Nick's death or the number of students at Hogwarts. And her statement that Charlie is three years older than Percy may take care of his not being Seeker when Harry entered Hogwarts, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of its being seven years since Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup. Charlie was the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had before Harry, yet Gryffindor never won during the whole seven years he was on the team? Or am I misremembering McGonagall's words and the time frame here? Carol, who knows she ought to look it up but is bound and determined to get caught up on posting instead From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 07:13:16 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:13:16 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: <01a201c4ac13$4cf5cdb0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "feklar" wrote: > > Personally, my first reaction was, "Why would Harry have expected be > a prefect? And how the hell did Ron become one?!" ...edited... > Harry seems to be indifferent about both academics and rules, so why > on earth was he even interested in being a prefect, much less think he > qualified? By the same token, I have no clue how Ron became prefect. > > ...edited... > > Feklar bboyminn: First remember that there is a very small pool of candidates for Gryffindor Prefect; Harry, Ron, Neville, Seamus, & Dean. Neville, Seamus, and Dean certainly haven't done anything outstanding in their school careers. Academically, they seem roughly the same as Harry and Ron, but Harry and Ron have shown that they can take initiative, and keep their heads (in more ways than one) under pressure. If the Death Eaters start kicking down the front door, ask yourself, who better to guide and protect the first years, Harry and Ron, or Dean and Seamus? Personally, I'd prefer Harry and Ron. As far as Ron being a good or bad prefect, this has been debated at length, and no one has swayed me from the opinion that Ron was no better or worse than a majority of the other Prefects. I didn't see any of the other four Prefects stepping in to rein in Fred and George, so why should Ron take all the heat. No, Ron didn't live up to the /idealized/ version of a Prefect, but neither did any of the other Prefects. In Hermione's case, she may have actually over-stepped her bounds. Given the presents of Umbridge at the school, and all the weight Harry was already carrying, and knowing that Dumbledore would, in all likelihood, have to place upon Harry the 'ultimate' weight, it's more than fair that he chose Ron. And Ron, took care of his routine Prefect duties as well as any other Prefect, but in a /pinch/, I'd rather have Ron as a Prefect. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 08:40:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:40:56 -0000 Subject: SYOS!Snape? (Was: Stopping Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115060 Yb wrote: > Meaning that we're starting to see that DD doesn't know everything? > I agree completely. And it is very clear in the books that DD trusts > Snape. I suppose JK is showing us that DD is too wise to judge a > book by its cover, so to speak. I am also leaning towards not an > evil!Snape, but a SYOS!Snape (Save Your Own Skin). He is a > Slytherin, and ol' Phineas told us that that's a trademark Slytherin > trait. I wouldn't be surprised that if push came to shove, Snape > would haul buns and leave the good guys in the lurch. So maybe DD's > trust isn't misplaced, but he's betting a lot of the ranch on a > Slytherin's sense of altruism/take-one-for-the-team. Carol responds: If that were the case, wouldn't Snape have left Hogwarts after Harry returned from the graveyard with Cedric's body, fleeing like the cowardly Karkaroff? ("Flee, then! Flee. I will remain at Hogwarts.") Karkaroff fled (so did Ludo Bagman, for different reasons), but Snape kept his word and remained at Dumbledore's side, going into unknown danger at Dumbledore's request at the end of GoF--after courageously revealing to Fudge that he was a former DE. Surely if Snape intended to desert Dumbledore to save his own skin, he would have done so by now. And his life is really in jeopardy now, or will be if Voldemort finds out that he sent the Order to the MoM. Carol From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 10:05:03 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:05:03 -0000 Subject: Dark? Sirius / Stubby Bored Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115061 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > mhbobbin wrote: > > > Boardman. Bored Man. I don't mean the whole story as reported in > The Quibbler is legitimate. But what would have prevented Sirius from > sneaking out of Grim Old Place to sing with The Hobgoblins. He was, > after all, a Bored Man. And this particularly far-fetched article is > mentioned twice. First, when Kingsley gives the paper to Arthur > thinking Sirius would find it interesting. Second, when Harry picks up > Luna's magazine. > > Carol responds: > Wasn't it an article about a flying motorcycle that Arthur thought > would interest Sirius? And I think the part about Harry picking up > Luna's magazine was just to introduce us to the Quibbler (Fudge baking > goblins into pies and all that). And of course we get Hermione's > reaction to the Quibbler before she knows that Luna's father owns it, > setting up the contrast between the two girls which will surely be > further developed in future books. > mhbobbin: Kingsley mentions a flying motorcycle as cover for what he wants to give to Arthur, which is The Quibbler. He goes on to ask Arthur about that report on firelegs he wants. There is no article on flying motorcycles. This is an unprovable point. I just am curious about the lengthy detail of the Quibbler in that chapter. I think we'll see them again. mhbobbin From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 10:09:28 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:09:28 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115062 Allright, what I'm up to, is a bit of Weasley-sibling-dynamics. Firstly, siblings compete for their parents' attention... Weasleys, Arthur is at work most of the time - wheras Molly stays at home. Now then - their first son, Bill. for two years, Bill is getting the sole attention of his mother while Dad is at work... lots of it, anyway. Then Charlie is born. Family has 2-year-old Bill and baby Charlie. Probably Bill is a bit jealous at all the mothering Charlie gets at first (can't expect much from a 2-year-old, now can we?). Molly keeps telling Bill that he got just as much when he was a baby, and that as the elder brother, he's to care for and show example to his little brother. And Arthur pays more attention to Bill at this time. Time passes, and Bill gets used to Charlie. Then, as Bill is 5 and Charlie 3, Percy is born. Now, Charlie's gets a bit jealous over Percy, but he's used to sharing since birth and Bill's there to distract Charlie by playing with him. (they're both old enough to play together now). Possibly Molly begins to teach Bill the three R's (and what not) while both Charlie and Percy are taking a nap. Partly so that the other two won't wake. Bill likes this, as he's now getting all the attention again... Two years later, Fred&George are born. Molly's very busy with TWO babies. Bill&Charlie have no trouble accepting that babies need that extra care (they've done it before). Percy doesn't. Percy may well seek the company of his older brothers - 7 and 5 - but Percy's a bit too young, at 2, to join them fully. Percy probably seeks to please the mother, but still seeks approval of Bill&Charlie. A year later, the two eldest accept him to play "if he does as they tell him to"... Molly's teaching two boys, and putting two 1-year-olds to nap. 3-year- old Perce can play with Bill&Charlie unless he behaves. (Bill enforced that "shut up, Perce" into him with 'we won't play with you if you don't obey'-threat) A year later, there's the 9-year-old Bill, 7-year-old Charlie and 4-year-old Percy join lessons(Percy mainly because he's not wanting a nap, and Molly can't leave him alone either). Bill cautions that Percy is to behave himself. (so Percy has oveying rules enforced into him by both his mother and two older siblings). 2-year-old Fred&George get their nap, and Ron is a baby, also sleeping. Percy may have tried to boss Fred&George, but is usually shut up by Bill - who doesn't mind the twins playing 2-year-olds tricks (he's seen it twice already)... ----- (Voldemort's been in power all this time and no doubt the kids aren't allowed out!) A year later, Ginny comes. This is also the year that Voldemort was first defeated by Harry Potter. (Is this when Percy finds Scrabbers?) So now we have 10-year-old Bill, 8-year-old Charlie, 5-year-old Percy, 3-year-old twins, 1-year-old Ron and baby Ginny. Note that Ron is younger than the others were when the new baby came around. Twins have had each other since birth, so they are playing together, Bill,Charlie and Percy have their schooling... I think Ron's really getting a bit less attention during this year than others. There's the baby, the schooling of the three eldest and the mischievous twins to take away most of Molly's attention. Is this the year when the infamous Fred turning Ron's teddybear into a spider happened? Next year. Bill's going to Hogwarts. This is great fuss -- partly because he's the FIRST. Ron's two, Ginny's one. Ginny may well have said something like "Want too" at that point, (meaning all that attention), thus creating a family story about Ginny wanting to go to Hogwarts ever since Bill went. (To think that Ginny hears all about Harry Potter defeating Voldemort just before/on the day she was born) For the kids who are left at home, now it's Charlie, Percy and the twins schooling whereas Ron&Ginny are sleeping. (Molly at least hopes to begin with them as early - Percy did just fine at that age). However, the twins are not content to sit still, (and Bill's away, so he's not there to help keep the younger ones in line). Charlie&Percy probably *try* to enforce rules on them. However, the rules that were necessary when Voldemort was about, are that no more. Nor does 'we won't play with you' have any effect on twins, who always have each other to play with... Then, two years later, it's Charlie's turn to begin Hogwarts. Not so BIG a fuss, since Bill's going to be there to watch over him. Also, Bill's going for the permission slip. At home, there's now 8-year old Percy, 6-year-old twins, 4-year-old Ron and 3-year-old Ginny. If Charlie and Percy together had trouble to muster some control over twins, Percy alone is at a loss. As the eldest kid home, he thinks he *should* be respected by the twins, Ron and Ginny, but no deal. Twins keep telling him he has no business telling them what to do, and Ron and Ginny look up to the twins. Molly may well begin to teach Ron now, or wait a year to begin with both Ginny and Ron together, so they won't be alone. Bill probably helps Charlie with homework... Next Year (I think) Charlie, 12, makes it into Quidditch Team. A bit of a fuss for that. Bill's 14, Percy 9, twins 7, Ron 5 and Ginny 4. Molly teaches 5 kids at home. Next Year. Bill's a Prefect. Again, fuss over him. Charlie's 13 and gets to go to Hogsmeade for first time. (although I think he got things from Bill before that). Percy's 10 and definately yearning for Hogwarts to get all that fuss. twins are 8, Ron's 6 and Ginny 5. Molly's still with 5 kids to teach at home. Next year. Bill's 16 (and got a good number of OWLs I suppose), Charlie may have made it to Quidditch Captain already, at 14. Percy goes to Hogwarts for first time. His both elder brothers are there, Bill as a *prefect*, Charlie as Quidditch Captain (I think). They continue the old elder-brother authority over Percy, only this time it's also due to having special titles... titles their Mother appreciates. (Did Percy get his rat at age 5 or now, as beginning the school gift?) At home, there's now 4 kids. 9-year-old Twins steal Mom's attention by mischief, Ginny gets it both by being the youngest and the only girl. Ron's a bit lost still. Next year, Bill makes it to Head Boy. (It is possible that Charlie makes it to Prefect, but it was never mentioned). Molly's overly pleased, again. Percy's off for second year. Twins are 10, probably planning all sorts of pranks already. Or practicing for Quidditch. Ron's 8 and Ginny 7... I'd say Ron&Ginny grew pretty close after Ron got over the baby-jealousy. Next year, twins are starting Hogwarts, while Bill has left (with some good NEWTs?). It is altogether possible that Bill gave his old wand to one of them (George?) while the other still needed a new wand. (Fred?). Ron and Ginny are at home, and no doubt hear all about all the pranks Fred&George make. Percy, as a third year, is proud to be allowed in Hogsmeade. Twins pay no heed to him, as they've found the map and go to Hogsmeade trough a secret passageway whenever they want, whereas Percy is limited to Hogsmeade weekends. They *do* appreciate Charlie the Quidditch Captain (6th year), however. Next year, twins get themselves into Quidditch team as beaters (earliest time). Percy's pissed that *They* got something he didn't. Ron&Ginny still at home. Now we get into the year Harry & Ron begin... As Charlie just left, he gave his old wand to Ron. Percy, getting an owl for being made a prefect, gives Ron his old pet, Scabbers... and now Fred&George have their Hogsmeade-permission. About Fred&George's OWLs: I think that Fred got one for transfiguration (he DID change Ron's teddybear into a Spider before even starting Hogwarts), Charms and DADA. (I think Fred got the new wand, if Bill gave his to one of them), while George got his OWLs in Herbology, Potions and DADA. (he's got more patiece and consideration, so I think this would be more his style). And yes, both for DADA, and neither for any theoretical OWL. (and I certainly don't see either of those two being content at staring at stars!) These 5 are what they would be using for pranks, as well. In addition, I think the twins shared duty thus from the beginning. and since there's pairing in all Potions, Herbology, Charms and Transfiguration, those two always being a pair - why not? I certainly see them doing it. DADA seems a more *individual* subject to me, so they both did the matter themselves... And I do think that those two will be successful with their business. I wonder, did they perhaps consult Molly's second cousin (accountant) about running a business? Also, as they got that careers councel during fifth year, I think they gave the map to Harry right afterwards and concentrated on building stock and making the OWL-forms instead of pranking (though, they DID need to test their products, I suppose). I wonder what McGonagall said to them about it... Finwitch From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 7 10:38:21 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:38:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115063 > feklar wrote: > > I always thought the LM/SS childhood relationship was fannon and > > the lapdog comment referred to LM being an infamous and powerful > > DE. I think SB thinks LM was probably as powerful as a DE as he > > clearly is in everyday life, and Snape was probably a potions- > > making nobody much as he is in real life. > Hannah: No, I think there's more to it than that. Note Snape's favouritist treatment of Draco (even more so than of other Slytherins), the way Draco speaks to Snape, and that Lucius speaks 'most highly' of Snape to Umbridge. Yb wrote:> > When Harry was in his fifth year, SS was 36. In OOTP, Lucius is 41- > > -five years older than Snape. When Snape was 11, LM was 16, > > that's a hell of an age gap to overcome, especially for a > > teenager who is more likely to be both socially selfish and self- > > conscious. In my RL experience, I can't think of a 16 y-o I knew > > who would willingly spend time with an 11 y-o for anything other > > than money (i.e. babysitting). While I can imagine an 11 yo might idolize an older student, I can't see why a 16 y-o LM would have any interest in a kid, any kid, five years behind him. > Hannah: I agree with that, Yb. I don't think the relationship was ever a friendship between equals. I always take that term 'gang' very loosely, especially since it comes from the perceptions of Sirius, an outsider who'd have not had much idea what really went on in the Slytherin common room. I expect Dennis Creevy would assure everyone he was in Potter's 'gang,' and people from other houses might see it like that from their limited knowledge. But in actual fact, Dennis does relatively little socialising with Harry. Yb continued:> Picture this: Little Sevvie comes into Hogwarts knowing plenty of > hexes and curses and the like. Plus, he is a Potions professor, so > he must have had a knack for brewing things. These sort of things, > especially the hexes part, would show up rather early in his career at Hogwarts, like the first time some of the other students started teasing him about being thin, pale, and probably greasy- haired. Sevvie would fire a couple of hexes and send the tormentors running for cover, and little Lucius would take notice. > Hannah: My theory is that Severus didn't know as many curses as Sirius thinks, at least, not immediately. I think he was picked on by a gang of students from another house, and prefect Lucius saw what was going on, and stepped in out of house loyalty. He's heard of the name 'Snape' and knows they're 'the right sort.' So he takes malicious pleasure in teaching little Sevvie some curses so he can defend himself. Snape thinks Lucius is wonderful for this, and Lucius gains a younger boy who's willing to run errands for him. >Yb wrote: I would imagine that LM was a DE at the beginning. Maybe his father was one too, and recruited Junior, or maybe his grandfather was one > of those in Tom Riddle's "inner circle" of friends. Either way, LM > was probably a DE by the time he left Hogwarts. So he had two years to notice Severus Snape, and recruit him into his gang, which would > probably be a prelude to joining the DEs after graduation. > Hannah: I don't imagine people becoming DE's until after Hogwarts, or at least until they're of age. I can't imagine LV having any patience with a gaggle of children who aren't allowed to do magic outside of school. Of course, there may be some kind of 'junior DE' oraganisation, but I think it would be risky at Hogwarts. LV never dared interfere at Hogwarts, and DD knows 'everything' that goes on. I think he would react very strongly to anyone trying to recruit his students for LV's army. There may have been whispers of it amongst the students, but I don't see anything too official. Hannah From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 7 11:18:13 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:18:13 -0000 Subject: Insights into Draco and Lucius (maybe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: Angie: > I know there have been numerous posts about Draco's "character arc" > or whatever it's called, but even if Draco doesn't develop a heart, > then I'd like to know more about he didn't develop a spine -- that > is, why he chose to act the way his father does. He didn't have to -- > some kids rebel. Geoff: Can I start by quoting something I wrote long ago in message 83661... "I have very mixed feelings about Draco. Once, I considered him to be an absolute pain in the backside but I sometimes find myself harbouring more then a little bit of sympathy for him; who couldn't, with a father like Lucius?! He obviously wanted, for some reason or another, to befriend Harry right at the beginning but managed to mess this up in no uncertain terms because of his arrogant approach and that has coloured their relationship ever since." I then made one or two more comments about him in messages 110442 and 110465 at which folk might like to glance. LPicking up on Angie's comment about him rebelling, I wonder whether he's had the experience to prompt him. Young people tend to rebel against their parents or mentors because they have a different template with which to compare experiences at home. For example, Harry realises that the Dursleys don't love him and that his environment is not the same as others because he went to a real world school and, although the glimpse of school we have in PS is of Dudley and his gang of hangers-on - Piers, Dennis, Malcolm and Gordon - bullying him, there must have been other pupils to whom he spoke whose families were a little more normal than Harry's. On the other hand, I get the vibe that Draco is essentially a lonely boy; he has no siblings and his only associates seem to be Crabbe and Goyle, whose intellectual input is not much higher than that of a troll. I wonder why Lucius and Narcissa had him in the first place. Perhaps it was a case of ensuring the "succession". He has only had Lucius' input throughout his life and so has had nothing against which he can compare the pro-pure blood indoctrination plus Lucius' niggling put-downs which have only heightened his dislike of Harry and friends. Lucius falls i to the trap of thinking that the only way to get Draco to improve is to belittle what he has done. A few words of encouragement might have made him more personable. To be honest, I would greatly like to see Draco have some sort of "Damascus Road" experience but he reminds me very much of some friends I have who, because life has dealt them a bad hand, have become bitter, morose and with their prejudices set in stone. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From tinainfay at msn.com Thu Oct 7 11:25:23 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:25:23 -0000 Subject: Remember My Last - SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115065 > > JKR said on her website: > (little snip) > P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that > Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with > baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning > Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I > differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and > messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the > subject - though I doubt it will be yours :)" > > Tonks now: > And there were other letter before that > one. So this is telling us something.. perhaps Dumbledore, as I > mentioned before, knew that LV would try to kill Harry and that Lily > would give her life to invoke the ancient magic (charm). It was > arranged by DD and Lily and probably Neville's mother too, in case > LV came for Neville first. I think someone else mentioned that DD > probably wrote to Petunia to prepare her for the possibility. But > again he calls her Petunia every time. So he must have know her long > ago when she was a child and her sister was going to Hogwarts. > Humm... what does it all mean? > Tonks_op Although I certainly can't tell you what it all means, I can think of another reason for DD to write to Petunia (I'm so glad Jo cleared that up...). He could have written to tell her of her parents death (well, the *real* reason behind it). Whenever something happened in the WW that effected her, he may have provided the explanation. I wonder how many other letters there were? Was this a usual occurence. It also makes me read the early chapters of PS/SS differently. When they saw Harry's letter and it had Harry's name on it - she had a lot more knowledge than we thought (not just Lily's experience but her own...) C'mon Book 6! ~tina From vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz Thu Oct 7 12:06:59 2004 From: vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz (Vinnia) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 01:06:59 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scabbers at Grimmauld Place? (wasThe other 'interesting' answer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041007120659.21220.qmail@web41214.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115066 Hannah wrote: > I don't see how he could be at Grimmauld Place > because of the secret > keeper thing. I got the impression it wasn't used > as HQ for the > Order in the first war. But what would happen if > Peter had visited > Sirius there while they were school friends, before > Sirius ran > away? Vinnia: Unless Peter went there before the fidelius charm is cast. Like you said, he could have visited before Sirius ran away, or Voldemort/Lucius told him to go to there. I think if you are inside the house when the charm is cast, you can still see the house and the people inside it. But once you step out of the house, you can no longer see it. Which might be why Peter stayed inside... Though now I wonder...did he stay because Voldie told him to, because he thought that Voldie wants him to, or because he's trying to hide from Voldie? Vinnia Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 12:54:43 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:54:43 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > I suppose that things might have been different if he had not landed > himself in Azkaban by going after Peter Pettigrew and had somehow > managed to persuade Dumbledore of his innocence. Even then he would > have played no role in Harry's life until he attended Hogwarts > because Dumbledore wanted Harry to be placed with the Dursleys. Do we know this for sure? Perhaps an active, sane, growing-up Sirius could have provided some *much* needed counter-balance to the Dursleys. DD had him placed there out of safety, but I can see several scenarios developing from there on. This is, of course, all hypothetical. > And Sirius at his best is not much of a role model for the boy > destined to be the one who destroys Voldemort. He's arrogant and > reckless, qualities that Dumbledore can't allow Harry to develop. He's certainly not the only character in the books who is arrogant, but I'll let everyone fill in that blank for himself. And no matter what any of us think about him, Harry loved him deeply, and he loved Harry; and I think he had a lot to offer, in both that capacity and in others. (I'm a little frustrated because now we're never going to get some personal exposition of some events that only Black would really have the interesting perspective on, if you know what I mean.) If we're going to wipe out everyone who could be a bad role model for the kid, the Order is toast. > I'm sorry if that view strikes you as cold. Your saying so strikes > *me* as rude. I do think it is cold to make, as a hypothetic, what comes off as a "better off dead" value judgement, on a character. "much more important than any contribution the living Sirius made or could have made in helping him grow up". It may end up being true in the story that now Black's main purpose is teaching Harry how to grieve, but I don't think that was always necessarily true, and I think it's a somewhat reductionist treatment of the character. > Carol, who thought the List Elves had dealt with the incivility > issue and is sorry to discover that she was wrong Excuse me. I tried to phrase what I found, honestly, mildly disturbing about your message in as polite of terms as I could. I would prefer, in the future, that if I have personally upset someone on here, for someone to let me know about that in person, rather than dragging that aspect of it onto the main list. -Nora wonders where she got into using 'hypothetic' as a noun From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 13:08:26 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:08:26 -0000 Subject: Remember My Last - SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115068 Tina: > Although I certainly can't tell you what it all means, I can think > of another reason for DD to write to Petunia (I'm so glad Jo cleared > that up...). He could have written to tell her of her parents death > (well, the *real* reason behind it). Whenever something happened in > the WW that effected her, he may have provided the explanation. I > wonder how many other letters there were? Was this a usual > occurence. It also makes me read the early chapters of PS/SS > differently. When they saw Harry's letter and it had Harry's name > on it - she had a lot more knowledge than we thought (not just > Lily's experience but her own...) Finwitch: Dumbledore *has* been writing letters to Petunia! Probably ever since Lily left for Hogwarts, or close to that. One variety: Ages of Lily and Petunia... If Petunia was the older one, or Lily's twin, going to Smeltings (to meet Vernon there), perhaps she was concerned of her sister and Dumbledore wrote to ease her feelings, that Lily was managing even better than many born to wizard families? Or had trouble explaining about Lily to various persons along Smeltings? If, however, Petunia was the younger one, she probably expected to get a Hogwarts letter. She (obviously) didn't get one. SO - maybe she wrote to Dumbledore to ask about that, got a response and has been more or less in contact ever since? Oh, and if Petunia never applied to a Muggle school, expecting a Hogwarts letter, it may explain how she ended up as a house-wife instead of having a work of her own... all because of magic! (Would explain her attitude somewhat). What's more curious, though, is what did *the* letter include. The letter Albus Dumbledore left with Harry for Petunia, as that's what the curious Howler referred to. That letter was what had Petunia decide to take Harry in - twice. Did he explain about "Lily's sacrifice and thus the 'blood'-protection? Does Dumbledore's magic perhaps protect not just Harry, but also Petunia and Dudley? And um - Harry's magic has NEVER acted against Petunia! Not even when she was about to hit him with a frying pan!" Also, I think that over the years, *Dumbledore* filled Petunia in with what went on with her sister, and therefore, she had not been in contact with Lily, and yet knew what was going on with her! > C'mon Book 6! I yearn for it, too! Finwitch From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Oct 7 13:08:24 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:08:24 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115069 JustCarol: > But, yes, she is human, as she > has shown a number of times with inconsistencies like the date of Sir > Nick's death or the number of students at Hogwarts. And her statement > that Charlie is three years older than Percy may take care of his not > being Seeker when Harry entered Hogwarts, but it still doesn't resolve > the problem of its being seven years since Gryffindor won the > Quidditch Cup. Charlie was the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had before > Harry, yet Gryffindor never won during the whole seven years he was on > the team? Or am I misremembering McGonagall's words and the time frame > here? The sentence I focused on was the lament in PS/SS that Gryffindor hadn't won the cup "since Charlie Weasley left." So, according to JKR's calculation of their relative ages, that would have been last year (as of PS/SS), leaving no intervening time period for Slytherin to have won. If that's the case, then why can't McGonagall look Snape in the face? I think it would have been better to leave the inconsistencies alone for now. All these silly and inaccurate explanations take away from the stories. When the books are done, she can hire some good editors to go back and edit the complete work for consistency. That's what Tolkien did. Debbie who is astounded that as brilliant a storyteller as JKR can be that bad at maths From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Thu Oct 7 13:12:26 2004 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:12:26 -0000 Subject: Remember My Last - SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115070 Although I certainly can't tell you what it all means, I can think > of another reason for DD to write to Petunia (I'm so glad Jo cleared > that up...). He could have written to tell her of her parents death > (well, the *real* reason behind it). Whenever something happened in > the WW that effected her, he may have provided the explanation. I > wonder how many other letters there were? Was this a usual > occurence. It also makes me read the early chapters of PS/SS > differently. When they saw Harry's letter and it had Harry's name > on it - she had a lot more knowledge than we thought (not just > Lily's experience but her own...) > C'mon Book 6! > ~tina Which may have been part of Dumbledore's plan. If Petunia's parents were killed by Voldemort and Harry saved by Lillie's sacrifice, it might explain why she and Vernon took Harry in, when the so obviously didn't want to. Didn't Dumbledore say *he* used Lillie's sacrifice to protect Harry later? What if DD promised Petunia that her family could be protected by the same magic, if they allowed Harry to live with them? It would explain a lot. Her previous knowledge of Voldemort, Dementors, DD and such. Why DD's reminder of his last letter made her take Harry's side. Casey From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 13:29:02 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:29:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115071 Hannah wrote : " Some people laughed and cheered. Not everyone. Some people looked apprehensive (I wonder what other James/Snape fights they'd witnessed). I think this is a case of crowd mentality, with everyone rooting for the very popular Potter, and not bothering to wonder whether Snape deserved his treatment or not. Maybe he was unpopular, but that could just be because he was a 'greasy oddball,' which I've always suspected was MWPP's real objection to him." Alla commented : " Well, some people looked apprehensive, but OTHERS entertained, so besides the fact that the fight gathered many observers, the majority of such observers were entertained. I could be a case of crowd mentality, but is it possible that other reasons existed for the Snape to be so unpopular that NOBODY except Lily interfered on his behalf?" Del remarks : Draco has attacked Harry publicly quite often over the years. Very rarely have we seen anyone but Harry's close friends try and defend him. But quite often we have seen people laughing at Draco's taunts, and even supporting Draco ("Potter stinks" badges). Harry has been more or less unpopular several times already, and there was rarely a good *objective* reason for that. Most of the time, it's just a matter of what things *seem* to be, and what is the loudest opinion around. So maybe, maybe, it was just that Snape *seemed* to be a bad guy, and the Marauders were the loudest in voicing their opinion. I don't think things were that simple, but I do think it could count for a lot in the crowd's reaction. Del From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Thu Oct 7 13:14:16 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:14:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Call for New Elves Message-ID: <2D7CA07E071FDE43A5A8EB8D8BBC0183E90CAF@pbswmu00024.corp.pep.pvt> No: HPFGUIDX 115072 Thanks for the invitation, Phyllis, but I'm afraid I must politely decline. I do essentially all of my HPfGU'ing from the office, and my company has decided to block Yahoo! Groups. Ouch! So remaining active would prove to be too difficult. Thanks anyway, and good luck with the elving! Boyd Boyd T. Smythe Net Pricing Manager (972) 334-5730 -----Original Message----- From: Phyllis [mailto:poppytheelf at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:52 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Call for New Elves The HPfGU Administration Team is looking for A Few Good Elves. All elves are expected to perform one or both of the following duties: * Welcoming new list members -- Send personal welcome e-mails to all of the people who join the list on your assigned day and enter related information in a database. * Participation in the list-reading rota -- Read every message posted to HPforGrownups (the main list) on your assigned day, check for compliance to posting guidelines, and note the non-compliant posts in a database. ADDITIONAL TASKS In addition, if you are interested in assisting with the following additional (optional) tasks, please note this in your Elf Enslavement Application: * Pending Messages -- Approve, reject, or edit moderated posts from new members and explain why a message was rejected or edited. * Help Desk -- Those who have problems with grammar, spelling, and punctuation (non-native English speakers, people with dyslexia or visual impairments, etc.) submit their messages for editing before they post them to the list. * Technical Support -- Please have one or more of the following skills: knowledge of the mysterious inner workings of Yahoomort, HTML markup, using or writing scripts (Perl, Java, SQL, etc.), security measures, or other Internet technologies. * Public Relations -- Respond to messages sent to the HPforGrownups- owner account. * Database Maintenance -- Clear out old entries, ensure the accuracy of database entries, and cull relevant information. (We use the databases provided by YahooGroups.) * Monitoring HPfGU Sister Lists -- Check OT-Chatter, Movie, and other HPFGU lists for spammers, flame wars, and other irregular or illegal behavior. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS An elf candidate must * Have been a member of HPfGU in good standing for at least 6 months -- "Good standing" means that you are not on permanent moderated status. (Those few who are permanently moderated have been notified.) * Have a good sense of HPfGU's posting conventions -- You understand the basic HPfGU standards of snipping, attribution, and courtesy. (You don't need to have the rules memorized, though.) * Have good spelling, punctuation, and grammar skills -- You don't have to be a Master Linguist, but you should know the difference between a semicolon and a hole in the ground. :-) Non-native English speakers are welcome to apply. * Have good communication skills -- It is important that you know how to express your ideas (especially disagreement) courteously and with clarity. * Have good interpersonal skills -- Your fellow List Elves will come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of communication styles. You'll need to know how to get along with people you may not particularly like or understand, how to go along with decisions with which you don't necessarily agree, and how to be discreet (not reveal confidential list business to non-admins). * Be reasonably level-headed -- You should be slow to react when insulted, slow to jump to conclusions, and quick to forgive misunderstandings. If you are in the habit of responding in anger (instead of waiting before posting), this might not be the job for you. Patience is definitely a virtue in HPfGU list admin; a sense of humor (especially in the face of the absurd) is mandatory. * Score respectably well on the Percy scale -- If you have some perfectionist tendencies, you'll fit right in! * Have no life -- Just kidding! However, we do ask that your real life not be so full as to prevent you from performing your elfly duties. (You can negotiate how many elfly duties you have.) We prefer that you commit to a minimum of six months in List Admin; however, you can don clothing sooner if the need arises. The ability to keep the rest of the Team supplied with eclairs is a bonus but is not required. :-) BENEFITS Becoming an HPfGU List Elf allows you to * Blow your Harry Potter Obsession score through the roof. * Imbibe all the butterbeer you want (except when on duty). * Become the target of bitter and sometimes delicious insults, e.g., "Moderator Tart." * Acquire a stylish new wardrobe of colorful tea cozies and lurid pillowcases. * Get immediate first aid for ears-in-the-oven-door slammings, hand ironings, foot-in-blender jammings, and other self-inflicted punishments. If a large number of candidates apply, it may not be possible to accept every qualified candidate right away. Every application will be acknowledged, and we'll keep the applications on file for future consideration unless you notify us otherwise. You can find the Elf Enslavement Application (EEA.txt) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/ The application includes instructions on where to send the application. The deadline for sending in applications is Wednesday, 13 October 2004, 00:00 (midnight) Greenwich Mean Time. Best regards, The HPfGU List Administration Team Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT click here _____ 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 finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 13:38:12 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:38:12 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115073 Debbie: > > The sentence I focused on was the lament in PS/SS that Gryffindor > hadn't won the cup "since Charlie Weasley left." So, according to > JKR's calculation of their relative ages, that would have been last > year (as of PS/SS), leaving no intervening time period for Slytherin > to have won. If that's the case, then why can't McGonagall look > Snape in the face? Finwitch: Ok, it was an error, but it can be explained: Well, Charlie left *the team* at least. Nothing to say he also left the school. In OOP, Fred&George left school before last match (I think) of their 7th year and Harry was cut off the team during his 5th year. Couldn't Charlie have left the team at some point so that he could concentrate on studying Dragons or work part time or what ever? Another questions: How DID he get his wand so worn during his Hogwarts years? Guesses: Did something happen to it during a Quidditch match and he decided to quit to avoid it getting worse? Cedric's wand wasn't worn at all (he was 7th year, need to give some time) and many seem to be using the one they purchased for school and none is *worn*. Hmm... did Charlie cheat by summoning the Snitch instead of catching it or use his wand during Quidditch some other way? Or was it worn when he got it, being inheritance from a relative? Finwitch From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 13:52:52 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:52:52 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115074 Pippin wrote : "But "suffering" is not only emotional and "wanting to do something about it" need not be limited to providing emotional support." Del replies : Where did I say that I was talking about emotional pain and relief only ? I *did* mean all kinds of sufferings. Pippin wrote : " Would anyone really say that the researcher who puts in long and lonely hours to find a cure for a disease or the philanthropist who "gives till it hurts" aren't aware of others' pain and willing to suffer themselves to alleviate it? Isn't that compassion too?" Del replies : And how does that not fit with my definition ? Let me remind you : "To me, compassion has to do with relating to the *suffering* of others. (snip) it's about recognising that someone is suffering, validating that pain, and wanting to do something about it. " The researcher who is dedicated to finding a cure because he wants to do something about the suffering of the sick, and the philanthropist who keeps giving because he keeps seeing pain that needs relief around him, both fit my definition of compassion. Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 7 14:01:36 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:01:36 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: <20041006.204105.3636.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115076 SSSusan: > > But we really don't see any reporting of bullying going on nor a > > mechanism for assistance. Aura: > IMO, that's what house heads are for. Hogwarts is full of little > kids living away from their parents; heading a house can't just be > an administrative position. And there's an on-staff mediwitch who > surely would have healed Harry's hand and then told to DD about the > psycho bitch who hurt a student. And in normal circumstances, > Umbridge would have her fat can kicked out so fast .... Ahem. Went > into fantasy land there for a minute. > > What I mean is, while there isn't a specific guidance counsellor, > no, but Hermione and Ron's insistance that Harry tell someone about > Umbridge shows that even in the WW, students do have adults they > can turn to. SSSusan again: But, see, that's my point. Hogwarts *isn't* "normal circumstances." I *think* when you said that (please correct if wrong), you were referring to what we're used to in the here & now. I'm trying to point out that Hogwarts is very NOT here & now. In our world, Heads of Houses would serve the capacity you describe, but we've never seen that through 5 books. We do see Hermione go to MM over the Firebolt, but do we ever hear of Neville or Lee or Harry going to her over DJU or Snape or Draco or anything? No. I think it *is* indicative that no guidance counselor is seen. In fact, I think it is indicative of there being no guidance counselor! And I think there's no guidance counselor because it's not a part of the "culture of Hogwarts." The absense of a counselor and the total lack of any mention of psychologists, counseling, mental health services are ways of informing us that Hogwarts *isn't* here & now (imo). Aura: > But, if things were to get intolerable, Harry could go to McG or > DD's office and say, "I'm having a problem, I need help," and they'd > listen. But Harry wouldn't because of that schoolboy code of > silence and self-reliance. It isn't the school's fault if the > students don't make use of the resources available to them. SSSusan again: Oh, and I'm not saying it's the school's fault, either. I'm saying it's just the way it IS at Hogwarts. I just think that the "help me" mechanism isn't utilized because the mechanism isn't firmly in place there. SSSusan earlier: > > That's really what I was driving at -- that Hogwarts > > World & bullying's place within in definitely doesn't seem to > > correspond w/ JKR's personal view of bullying in the RW. Aura: > It does in that JKR means to show that real world students should > do what Ron and Hermione *said* and not what Harry *did*. It's > right there in the chapter: Harry should talk to someone about > Umbridge. SSSusan again: Indeed, it is in the chapter. And why doesn't Harry do anything? At least 4 possible reasons have been brought up: 1) it's "not done" in British schoolboy settings; 2) Harry's learned from his time w/ the Dursleys not to ask for help; 3) it's just not in Harry's nature to ask; 4) he feels abandoned already by DD and so doesn't necessarily trust that help will be forthcoming. I still contend that even though Ron & Hermione tell Harry he should report this, there *isn't* this support network like we'd expect to see in modern day, RW school systems. Why don't R&H report *for* Harry? One might say because they respect his right to do for himself. One might also say because they doubt much could/would be done. Hogwarts just isn't the "one stop shopping" education/social services/counseling center that so many expect of (at least American public) schools today. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's hoping she doesn't sound too antagonistic in this post! From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 14:06:24 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:06:24 -0000 Subject: Harry IS compassionate !! (was Harry's Compassion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115077 Eric Oppen wrote : "One thing that a lot of the people who're saying that Harry isn't compassionate tend to forget is simply that _he's a teenage boy,_ and one from an emotionally-abusive background, to boot." snip "At most of the other times cited in the "Harry's not compassionate!" thread, " Del replies : Problem is, Eric, there ain't no such thread ! I was not arguing that Harry is not compassionate, I was only saying that he is no more compassionate than other kids, and that he didn't save people out of compassion (as I've read many times on this forum). I know I wasn't clear and I'm sorry for that but I'm getting a bit frustrated about it. I mean, Harry shows compassion to a *snake* right at the beginning of PS/SS ! If that isn't compassion, I don't know what is. Del From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 14:27:03 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:27:03 -0000 Subject: Stubby Bored Man?/Hermione can be wrong! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115078 > mhbobbin wrote: > > > Boardman. Bored Man. I don't mean the whole story as reported in > The Quibbler is legitimate. But what would have prevented Sirius from > sneaking out of Grim Old Place to sing with The Hobgoblins. He was, > after all, a Bored Man. And this particularly far-fetched article is > mentioned twice. First, when Kingsley gives the paper to Arthur > thinking Sirius would find it interesting. Second, when Harry picks up > Luna's magazine. > Carol responds: > As for singing with the Hobgoblins as Stubby Boardman, the only > evidence for the truth of that story is the bad pun. I personally > don't think Sirius was getting any recreation beyond screaming at > Kreacher and drinking himself into oblivion. Unless, possibly, he was > reading Snape's reports! ;-) Finwitch: Perhaps. Still, they *did* state Sirius as innocent, yes? At least that much was right. Also, Quibbler was the paper that printed the *truth* Fudge didn't want the public to know... Harry didn't believe the article, but how would he know? And for the man not looking like Sirius, well, Sirius disguised himself. I'd love for it to be true... Anyway, if I were Harry, I'd subscribe to Quibbler. And Hermione WAS wrong about Thestrals! Maybe Luna and Quibbler are right about other things, too... And um - Luna is a Ravenclaw, so she has love for wit, intellect and learning. As to why she was reading the paper upside down - maybe it was just to get a different perspective or simply because ability to read upside down can be useful? And what comes to Nargles and all those other beings Hermione claims don't exist - well, Hermione probably thought magic didn't exist until she got her Hogwarts letter and someone showed her magic is real! She didn't believe when Trelawney gave her *true* prophecy Harry witnessed. She didn't believe thestrals exist. She doesn't believe that house-elves can be truly devoted, love working and take offer of freedom as an insult - in short, there *are* cases where Hermione has been wrong before. Why not this? And further.. The DADA-group. First she thinks it's a good idea, and it is HER idea to begin with. (Yes, I think it was). Then, she suddenly changes her mind just because Sirius supports it. (Never mind whether Sirius was living trough Harry or not.) Considering that, the fact that Harry did stop long enough to listen and try to contact Sirius when his vision tells him Voldemort is torturing Sirius - it IS really much. Harry's further disregard to Hermione - well, if she's SO against Sirius that she'd drop the idea of DA just because Sirius was for it... Why *would* Harry go with her, when it's SIRIUS who is (supposedly) in trouble? Also, Hermione could have said that just because Sirius pointed out her error in choosing Hog's Head instead of three Broomsticks... Oh, I wish I could read HBP.. Finwitch From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 14:34:07 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:34:07 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115079 feklar wrote: " Personally, my first reaction was, "Why would Harry have expected be a prefect? And how the hell did Ron become one?!" ...edited... Harry seems to be indifferent about both academics and rules, so why on earth was he even interested in being a prefect, much less think he qualified? " bboyminn replied : "First remember that there is a very small pool of candidates for Gryffindor Prefect; Harry, Ron, Neville, Seamus, & Dean. Neville, Seamus, and Dean certainly haven't done anything outstanding in their school careers. Academically, they seem roughly the same as Harry and Ron, but Harry and Ron have shown that they can take initiative, and keep their heads (in more ways than one) under pressure. " Del answers : I agree with Feklar that there was no reason Harry should have expected to be a Prefect. In fact, I was surprised that he was even jealous of Ron, because Harry never looked for honors or leading positions. He never dreamed of becoming anyone important at school, unlike Ron. So why would he have wanted to become Prefect ? Especially after the Percy fiasco. Percy was everything Harry never wanted to be : pompous, bossy, studious, and he was also the only Prefect Harry ever knew personally, so why ever would he want to become a Prefect ?? I disagree strongly that Harry was the only choice. For all we know, Dean, Seamus or maybe even Neville could have been just as good candidates, according to Steve's standards. Here are a few reasons why : 1. Neville did earn his House 10 points in PS/SS for trying to make his Housemates obey the rules ! 2. We know that Neville isn't a very good student, but then Ron isn't either. As for Dean and Seamus, we just don't know how good they are. For all we know, one of them might be second-best Gryffindor of the year, right behind Hermione. 3. Dean or Seamus could be president of a number of clubs in which they demonstrate high leadership qualities, just like Harry did with the DA. The fact that Harry doesn't know about it doesn't mean it isn't there. 4. I don't remember reading about either Dean or Seamus losing their heads while in difficult situation. And anyway, this doesn't seem to be a necessary quality, considering that Hermione was chosen as Prefect, and we *know* she can freeze when in danger. I personally think DD made Ron and Hermione Prefects in order to let the Trio free to act as they wanted. He didn't want to risk a dormitory-mate getting a big head and putting hurdles in the Trio's path. Steve asked : "If the Death Eaters start kicking down the front door, ask yourself, who better to guide and protect the first years, Harry and Ron, or Dean and Seamus? Personally, I'd prefer Harry and Ron." Del answers : Actually, no ! If the Dementors came to Hogwarts, Harry would have much better things to do than guiding the midgets to safety, like fighting the Dementors, for example. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 7 14:39:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:39:45 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115080 Finwitch wrote: > Allright, what I'm up to, is a bit of Weasley-sibling-dynamics. > Firstly, siblings compete for their parents' attention... snipping far too much Potioncat: Wow, great! Two quibbles. Given how much these kids are like mine, I think you overestimated the nap taking ;-) I think, but don't remember where it was, that the twins mention being in Herbology class together in 7th year. Although your breakdown of possible OWLs makes sense. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 14:43:59 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:43:59 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115081 finwitch wrote: " Nah, Snape shouldn't be teaching Occlumency to ANYONE." Del asks : Do you think he *wants* to, or ever wanted to ? Del From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 7 14:46:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:46:11 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115082 > JustCarol: > > But, yes, she is human, as shehas shown a number of times with inconsistencies like the date of Sir Nick's death or the number of students at Hogwarts. And her statement that Charlie is three years older than Percy may take care of his not being Seeker when Harry entered Hogwarts, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of its being seven years since Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup. Charlie was the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had before Harry, yet Gryffindor never won during the whole seven years he was on the team? Or am I misremembering McGonagall's words and the time frame here? Debbie: > The sentence I focused on was the lament in PS/SS that Gryffindor hadn't won the cup "since Charlie Weasley left." So, according to JKR's calculation of their relative ages, that would have been last year (as of PS/SS), leaving no intervening time period for Slytherin to have won. If that's the case, then why can't McGonagall look Snape in the face? < Pippin: 'Left" could refer to leaving the team (on account of injuries or wanting to prepare for his OWLs and NEWTs ), not leaving Hogwarts. In PoA Wood mentions injuries and bad luck -- he needn't be referring to Harry's injuries alone. We also know that a brilliant Seeker doesn't automatically mean you win the match. Perhaps the twins were thinking of Charlie when they bet that Krum would catch the Snitch but Ireland would win. Speaking as a longsufferng Cubs fan, there are plenty of examples of brilliant players in real life whose teams never win the championship. (It's the curse--I wonder if Aberforth is involved?) I find it perfectly plausible canon that despite having Charlie on their side, the only year that Gryffindor won the Quidditch cup was Charlie's second. That leaves room for the seven year losing streak mentioned in PoA. A heartbreaker, but that's Quidditch (and baseball.) Gryffindor also didn't win the House Cup for seven years prior to PS/SS, but that is a different award, though winning the Quidditch Cup contributes to it. Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 15:08:49 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:08:49 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115083 > > Del answers : > I agree with Feklar that there was no reason Harry should have > expected to be a Prefect. In fact, I was surprised that he was even > jealous of Ron, because Harry never looked for honors or leading > positions. He never dreamed of becoming anyone important at school, > unlike Ron. So why would he have wanted to become Prefect ? Especially > after the Percy fiasco. Percy was everything Harry never wanted to be > : pompous, bossy, studious, and he was also the only Prefect Harry > ever knew personally, so why ever would he want to become a Prefect ?? Finwitch: Because it'd show Dumbledore *trusts* him. Harry has so few adults who see him as more than a burden and let him know that. He's jealous of Dumbledore's attention and trust, not for the badge. After all, Dumbledore had been very *distant* previously - enough so for Harry to feel abandoned. If Harry had spent his time at Grimauld Place 12 instead of Dursleys, alone and cut off from news - it would have been different for Sirius would have given him the parental attention and guidance he sorely needs. Del: > I disagree strongly that Harry was the only choice. For all we know, > Dean, Seamus or maybe even Neville could have been just as good > candidates, according to Steve's standards. Here are a few reasons why : > > 1. Neville did earn his House 10 points in PS/SS for trying to make > his Housemates obey the rules ! > > 2. We know that Neville isn't a very good student, but then Ron isn't > either. As for Dean and Seamus, we just don't know how good they are. > For all we know, one of them might be second-best Gryffindor of the > year, right behind Hermione. > > 3. Dean or Seamus could be president of a number of clubs in which > they demonstrate high leadership qualities, just like Harry did with > the DA. The fact that Harry doesn't know about it doesn't mean it > isn't there. > > 4. I don't remember reading about either Dean or Seamus losing their > heads while in difficult situation. And anyway, this doesn't seem to > be a necessary quality, considering that Hermione was chosen as > Prefect, and we *know* she can freeze when in danger. > > I personally think DD made Ron and Hermione Prefects in order to let > the Trio free to act as they wanted. He didn't want to risk a > dormitory-mate getting a big head and putting hurdles in the Trio's path. Finwitch: Quite so. I particularly like the part about Neville... Still - now we're in a situation where Ron is a prefect and in the Q- team while Harry's not. Ron might even accomplish his heart's desire now... and he IS a good strategist. He's the one being the Wizard chess champion... Finwitch From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 15:11:11 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:11:11 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115084 Del wrote: > I disagree strongly that Harry was the only choice. For all we know, > Dean, Seamus or maybe even Neville could have been just as good > candidates, according to Steve's standards. Here are a few reasons why : > *snip* > > 2. We know that Neville isn't a very good student, but then Ron isn't > either. As for Dean and Seamus, we just don't know how good they are. > For all we know, one of them might be second-best Gryffindor of the > year, right behind Hermione. > > 3. Dean or Seamus could be president of a number of clubs in which > they demonstrate high leadership qualities, just like Harry did with > the DA. The fact that Harry doesn't know about it doesn't mean it > isn't there. Now Cory: I always love arguments like this. I'll respond the same way I always do. Yes Del, of course you're right -- we don't know what happens in parts of the story that JKR hasn't told us about. That's always going to be true in any story. It's also possible that Harry is not the only student at Hogwarts that has saved the world from Voldemort; perhaps when Seamus was a child, he also defeated Voldie, and JKR just hasn't told us about it. The point is, if you want to start assuming things about the characters that aren't in the story, we can make any of the characters into anything we want them to be. I'm not sure how helpful that is to interpreting the story, though. Just my opinion, of course. Del again: > > 4. I don't remember reading about either Dean or Seamus losing their > heads while in difficult situation. And anyway, this doesn't seem to > be a necessary quality, considering that Hermione was chosen as > Prefect, and we *know* she can freeze when in danger. Cory again: Reverting back to Del's logic from above -- you're right, we haven't read about Dean or Seamus losing their heads...but we haven't read about them *not* doing so either, right? For all we know, Dean and Seamus could be the two people in the entire world who are most likely to fold under pressure. After all, just because Harry hasn't seen it doesn't mean it isn't there...right? To defend Hermione for a second -- she has shown herself not to be perfect in that regard, but we have seen her in situations where she has responded well under pressure too, haven't we? In SS, she was able to remember how to escape Devil's Snare even though they were in a life-threatening situation. I know there are other examples of her responding well to pressure, but I can't spend the time to think right now. In short, I would argue that while she's not as good as Harry in that regard, she's not bad in that regard either. --Cory From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 7 15:14:11 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:14:11 -0000 Subject: Self-addressing envelopes? (was: Positive Spin on Snape...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115085 Kethryn: >> The argument about the letter wouldn't be all that weak actually...except I don't think they have a self addressing envelope spell. Remember Lockhart and Harry's detention? Lockhart had him addressing the letters.<< Dzeytoun: > Well, we do know that they have a magical quill that records the > birth of wizards and witches, so an address charm doesn't seem like > a wild supposition. SSSusan: I agree. Am I making this up, or isn't there a scene where the address *changes* and the recipient is moving? [Did I dream that?] Similarly, we know that as the Dursleys hit the road to escape the Hogwarts letters in SS/PS, the addresses changed along w/ their destinations. I think there HAS to be some kind of inherent magic, otherwise mail could be traced [for instance, to where Sirius is in hiding]. There is a difference between being able to capture an arriving owl & confiscating his/her messages [we know this was done] and being able to know where an owl is going. I just think there has to be some kind of super-duper self-addressing/address-altering-if-necessary charm in the ink or letter *or* with the owls. With apologies for asking what's probably a silly question whilst away from my books. Siriusly Snapey Susan From sunflowerlaw at cox.net Thu Oct 7 13:36:55 2004 From: sunflowerlaw at cox.net (Lindsay W.) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:36:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041007042118.01df2120@pop.west.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115086 > >Carol responds: >Of course you know about the update to her site since you posted this, >so I won't say any more on that topic. But, yes, she is human, as she >has shown a number of times with inconsistencies like the date of Sir >Nick's death or the number of students at Hogwarts. And her statement >that Charlie is three years older than Percy may take care of his not >being Seeker when Harry entered Hogwarts, but it still doesn't resolve >the problem of its being seven years since Gryffindor won the >Quidditch Cup. Charlie was the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had before >Harry, yet Gryffindor never won during the whole seven years he was on >the team? Or am I misremembering McGonagall's words and the time frame >here? > >Carol, who knows she ought to look it up but is bound and determined >to get caught up on posting instead Lawless replies: This has been running through my mind over and over, because I always had Charlie pegged as three to four years older than Percy before she answered this question, but that odd comment from Fred in Chapter 9 of PS/SS made me halt: "I tell you, we're going to win that Quidditch cup for sure this year," said Fred. "We haven't won since Charlie left, but this year's team is going to be brilliant. You must be good, Harry, Wood was almost skipping when he told us." Now, if Charlie is three years older than Percy, that means that in 90'-91', he would've been in his seventh year at Hogwarts, which is the year before Harry came. By Fred's comment, Charlie won it in his seventh year of school, but if it was 90-91, that wouldn't make sense, since it would be just last year for them. Unless, of course, Charlie left Hogwarts early - which is unlikely, as we would've most likely heard about it. Not completely unheard of, but I don't think Charlie Weasley did leave Hogwarts early. But let me go out on a limb here, and say, perhaps Charlie is three years older than Percy - BUT - four school years above him. Their birthdays are as such that Percy is probably a bit old for his year (his attitude in school can attest for that!) and/or Charlie is a bit young for his. And it makes Charlie's last year at Hogwarts as being 89'-90', which is acceptable for Fred's comment. Now, the Quidditch Cup and the House Cup are two completely separate things, as Ron tells us in Chapter 12 of PS/SS, when he's looking to the Mirror of Erised: "I am -- 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, the Quidditch Cup goes to whoever is wins the Quidditch Final, and the House Cup goes to who wins the house championship. In fact, McGonagall told us what wins the House Cup in Chapter 7 of PS/SS: "At the end of the year, the house with the most points is awarded the house cup, a great honor." Now Nick is the first one to tell us about the Slytherins six-year winning spree in Chapter 7 of PS/SS: "So -- new Gryffindors! I hope you're going to help us win the house championship this year? Gryffindors have never gone so long without winning. Slytherins have got the cup six years in a row!" Now since Gryffindor first-years aren't on the Quidditch team, and Nick is asking for their help, then the house championship must refer to the House Cup, separate from the Quidditch Cup. But it appears otherwise, we run into a problem with Quidditch vs. house championship. Chapter 13 of PS/SS: "If they won their next [Quidditch] match, against Hufflepuff, they would overtake Slytherin in the house championship for the first time in seven years." And to confirm that they're not just talking about Gryffindor (also Chapter 13, PS/SS): "The idea of overtaking Slytherin in the house championship was wonderful, no one had done it for seven years, but would they be allowed to, with such a biased referee?" Apparently, by that, the Quidditch season influences who wins the House Cup. How? It seems that teams get house points for winning matches (and I assume house points for playing spectacularly) as Percy shows us in Chapter 11 of CoS: "Oh, hello, Harry," he said. "Excellent flying yesterday, really excellent. Gryffindor has just taken the lead for the House Cup - you earned fifty points!" And winning the Quidditch Cup also gives (I assume) house points - or if not, it influences the House Cup, as we see in Chapter 22 of PoA: "Gryffindor House, meanwhile, largely thanks to their spectacular performance in the Quidditch Cup, had won the House championship for the third year running." So Charlie won the Quidditch Cup in his seventh year, but Slytherin still had enough points to win House championship for the last seven years (probably care of Snape ;P). But our problem isn't solved YET. In PoA, we have a very incriminating statement made by Wood in Chapter 15: "Gryffindor hasn't won [the Quidditch Cup] for seven years now." Rowling just likes the number seven a bit too much, because by that statement, the last time Gryffindor won the Quiditch Cup was in 87'-88'! And that completely outright contradicts Fred's statement in PS/SS if Charlie is 3-4 years above Percy. Luckily, there's not really any conflicting House Cup/Quidditch Cup themes in GoF/OotP, so we can begin to conclude what we've learned. But things don't add up. So here's four possibilities: 1) Fred's original statement is wrong - hey, it was the first book, Rowling is allowed to make a mistake or two, right? Fred probably should've said something that agreed to this statement in Chapter 15 of PoA: "The whole of Gryffindor House was obsessed with the coming match. Gryffindor hadn't won the Quidditch Cup since the legendary Charlie Weasley (Ron's second oldest brother) had been seeker." It confirms that Charlie Weasley won the Quidditch Cup, but not that he won it in his last year. He would've won it last in 87'-88' to agree with Wood's statement in PoA. That also corrects the "it was just last year" problem with Charlie's age, so we can assume he is only three years above Percy, again, and that he won in his fourth year. A bit young, yes, but not unheard of. Assume that he's four school years above Percy, and it puts him in his fifth year - which considering Wood was captain in his fifth year, again, it isn't completely bogus. 2) Wood's statement is wrong, because Rowling is bad at math and has a number seven-orientated mind (and I can see how she'd assume it was seven years, by a trick of the mind when dealing with school years like this). We can assume Fred is true, though we would still have to put Charlie at four school years above Percy at Hogwarts. 3) Both Fred AND Wood were wrong, and Charlie is just three years above Percy, and won the Quidditch Cup in his seventh year of Hogwarts, which would also agree with the statement I quoted in option 1. Rowling made some mistakes, oh well, it happens. 4) Sometime between PoA and now, Rowling has decided to close the age gap between Percy and Charlie, but that originally Charlie was a bit more than three years older. She changed her mind, and won't own up to it. =P While option 1 clears things up a bit more nicely, I'm going to probably assume that option 2 is probably what happened. I would also go for 3, and 4 is a worst-case scenario. Whew, that was a bit longer than I thought. Hope this helps, Carol. --Lawless From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 15:33:18 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:33:18 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115087 Cory wrote : " The point is, if you want to start assuming things about the characters that aren't in the story, we can make any of the characters into anything we want them to be. I'm not sure how helpful that is to interpreting the story, though. Just my opinion, of course." Del replies : You're perfectly right. Which is why we can't assume that Dean, Seamus and Harry are on the same level academically, or that Harry has better leadership qualities than Dean or Seamus, or that Harry is the only one who can keep a cool head under stress. Those are assumptions, not facts. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 7 15:36:19 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:36:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115088 Del wrote: > So maybe, maybe, it was just that Snape *seemed* to be a bad guy, and > the Marauders were the loudest in voicing their opinion. > > I don't think things were that simple, but I do think it could count > for a lot in the crowd's reaction. > Potioncat: Well, we often see Ron, Harry, and Hermione together. And we know Seamus and Dean are best friends. So if Neville wandered off alone and Malfoy decided to pick on him, the other Gryffindors might not be around to help. In fact we've seen at least once where Draco hexed Neville (Leglocker?) and Neville had to hop to the common room. We don't know that no one else helped who could, of course. I also agree with other posters that there was good reason not to interfere with James Potter. That said, I doubt that Severus the teen was any nicer than Snape the man. From mysticowl at gmail.com Thu Oct 7 15:37:38 2004 From: mysticowl at gmail.com (Alina Chimanovitch) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:37:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041007042118.01df2120@pop.west.cox.net> References: <6.1.2.0.0.20041007042118.01df2120@pop.west.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115089 > "I tell you, we're going to win that Quidditch cup for sure this year," > said Fred. "We haven't won since Charlie left, but this year's team is > going to be brilliant. You must be good, Harry, Wood was almost skipping > when he told us." I'm reaching here, but the chronology would still fit if we say that Fred meant they haven't won a quidditch match since Charlie left, rather than the Quidditch Cup. That way, the last time a Gryffindor team won could still be seven years ago. Wait, do we know that Charlie played quidditch all throughout his Hogwarts career? When Fred says, "Charlie left" it could mean "left the team" not "left the school." Alina. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 15:44:14 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:44:14 -0000 Subject: Stubby Bored Man?/Hermione can be wrong! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115090 Finwitch wrote: Luna is a Ravenclaw, so she > has love for wit, intellect and learning. As to why she was reading > the paper upside down - maybe it was just to get a different > perspective or simply because ability to read upside down can be > useful? Ginger, bouncing Hermione-like responds: Oh, Oh, I know! Pick me! OoP p. 193, US edition. "...and an article on ancient runes, which at least explained why Luna had been reading the Quibbler upside down. According to the magazine, if you turn the runes on their heads they revealed a spell to make your enemy's ears turn into kumquats." Not that the ability to read upside-down isn't useful. I find it helps in Scrabble. So does knowing how to spell kumquat. Must file that. Hope that helps, Finwitch, and may I add that I have enjoyed your posts as of late and I'm sorry I didn't respond to more. Ginger, who is finally caught up! From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 15:44:52 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:44:52 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Cory wrote : > " The point is, if you want to start assuming things about the > characters that aren't in the story, we can make any of the > characters into anything we want them to be. I'm not sure how > helpful that is to interpreting the story, though. Just my > opinion, of course." > > Del replies : > You're perfectly right. Which is why we can't assume that Dean, > Seamus and Harry are on the same level academically, or that Harry > has better leadership qualities than Dean or Seamus, or that Harry > is the only one who can keep a cool head under stress. Those are > assumptions, not facts. Both are true--but there's a further difference we might make, between assumptions from given evidence and assumptions from silence. Of course, it's not provable that Harry is the ONLY one who can keep a cool head under stress--but we've had positive evidence, in the text, of Harry's abilities, while we haven't of the other characters under discussion. So while we should always keep the door open for information to be filled in when we don't know things, or when things are simply not described (just because we don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't there, in JKR's world- -that's one of her best ways of springing things on us), I think we should generally priviledge what we have positive proof for. This invariably results in reversals and reinterpretations. Such is the fun of reading a WIP, where past events must be continually re-read in light of later revelations. -Nora ponders how different the experience will be for those who get to read all seven books at once From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 7 15:48:33 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:48:33 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115092 > Del wrote: > > > I disagree strongly that Harry was the only choice. For all we know,Dean, Seamus or maybe even Neville could have been just as good > > candidates, according to Steve's standards. > > > > 4. I don't remember reading about either Dean or Seamus losing their heads while in difficult situation. And anyway, this doesn't seem to be a necessary quality, considering that Hermione was chosen as Prefect, and we *know* she can freeze when in danger. > > Cory replied: > > Reverting back to Del's logic from above -- you're right, we haven't read about Dean or Seamus losing their heads...but we haven't read about them *not* doing so either, right? For all we know, Dean and Seamus could be the two people in the entire world who are most likely to fold under pressure. After all, just because Harry hasn't seen it doesn't mean it isn't there...right? > > To defend Hermione for a second -- she has shown herself not to be > perfect in that regard, but we have seen her in situations where she has responded well under pressure too, haven't we? In SS, she was able to remember how to escape Devil's Snare even though they were in a life-threatening situation. I know there are other examples of her responding well to pressure, but I can't spend the time to think right now. In short, I would argue that while she's not as good as Harry in that regard, she's not bad in that regard either. Hannah now: I don't understand why being calm under pressure is such an important quality for a prefect. Surely it's more about being reliable and well behaved, and a good role model. I think making Neville a prefect would have done him a lot of good. It would have been a boost to his self-esteem, and he could have gone to his Gran and said 'look, I've actually done something for the old family honour.' It's a shame that DD didn't, IMO. As for Dean and Seamus, it might be nice for them to get some attention for once. They are overshadowed by Harry and Ron (who also shares in some of Harry's glory and adventures, even though he himself feels overshadowed sometimes). Dean shows maturity and fairness in OotP by not getting embroiled in the row between Seamus and Harry. He manages to stay friends with both of them, and takes Seamus along to the DA once he sees sense. Harry and Ron aren't obvious choices for prefects just because of their heroics in the past. It makes more sense to me to have somone who *isn't* in the middle of an epic good vs. evil battle with the drak lord. Harry, Ron and Neville all have enough to do. Dean or Seamus could focus more on being a prefect. Hannah, whose time as a prefect consisted of standing around outside doors in the cold at breaktimes and trying to persuade kids twice her size that they shouldn't go through. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 15:52:37 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:52:37 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115093 Nora wrote : "there's a further difference we might make, between assumptions from given evidence and assumptions from silence. Of course, it's not provable that Harry is the ONLY one who can keep a cool head under stress--but we've had positive evidence, in the text, of Harry's abilities, while we haven't of the other characters under discussion." Del replies : I agree. Thus my conclusion would be : Harry is not a bad student, he's got good leadership qualities, he can keep his head cool under stress, so he was a good candidate for the Prefect badge. But I don't see that there's any way to jump from that conclusion to : Harry was the best candidate for the Prefect badge. Not without assuming a whole lot of things. Del From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 16:00:39 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:00:39 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115094 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Finwitch wrote: > > Allright, what I'm up to, is a bit of Weasley-sibling-dynamics. > > Firstly, siblings compete for their parents' attention... > > > snipping far too much > > Potioncat: > Wow, great! > Two quibbles. > Given how much these kids are like mine, I think you overestimated > the nap taking ;-) Finwitch: maybe - still, I'd say that's the only time she *could* teach. (otherwise her baby is crying for food, nappies, play... and the bit older kids find other ways to distract the matter) > I think, but don't remember where it was, that the twins mention > being in Herbology class together in 7th year. Although your > breakdown of possible OWLs makes sense. Finwitch: Fred could well be keeping George company. It's not like he has much *else* to do, nor would he wish to spend time without his twin. And Fred might be getting ingredients for their Products while George attends the class... and I'm not certain if Sprout required an accepted OWL for that class. (and George didn't pass his theoretical Herbology either). It's even possible that the two were having *private* lessons from Sprout! (Remember that ALL of the staff was anti-umbridge, so Fred&George may well have persuaded the teachers to give them lessons for anti-umbridge pranks...) Finwitch From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 16:19:10 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:19:10 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115095 Hannah wrote: feklar wrote: I always thought the LM/SS childhood relationship was fannon and the lapdog comment referred to LM being an infamous and powerful DE. I think SB thinks LM was probably as powerful as a DE as he clearly is in everyday life, and Snape was probably a potions- making nobody much as he is in real life. Hannah: No, I think there's more to it than that. Note Snape's favouritist treatment of Draco (even more so than of other Slytherins), the way Draco speaks to Snape, and that Lucius speaks 'most highly' of Snape to Umbridge. Dharma replies: Hannah, I like what you are offering up here. I think that Feklar was really questioning/objecting to my assertion that it was a *school* relationship. To me you guys both seem to be on to something. I'm wondering if they could have had an idol/fan or student/mentor relationship that started at a young age and continued, leading to Snape becoming a Death Eater? It just really seems like Snape has some investment in Malfoy other than the obvious. Why did Snape make that sudden movement when Harry said he saw Malfoy in the circle of Death Eaters (Chapter 36 GoF)? I guess it could be possible, but I doubt that was Snape unaware that Malfoy is part of Voldemort's inner circle. Yb wrote: When Harry was in his fifth year, SS was 36. In OOTP, Lucius is 41--five years older than Snape. When Snape was 11, LM was 16, that's a hell of an age gap to overcome, especially for a teenager who is more likely to be both socially selfish and self- conscious. In my RL experience, I can't think of a 16 y-o I knew who would willingly spend time with an 11 y-o for anything other than money (i.e. babysitting). While I can imagine an 11 yo might idolize an older student, I can't see why a 16 y-o LM would have any interest in a kid, any kid, five years behind him. Hannah: I agree with that, Yb. I don't think the relationship was ever a friendship between equals. I always take that term 'gang' very loosely, especially since it comes from the perceptions of Sirius, an outsider who'd have not had much idea what really went on in the Slytherin common room. I expect Dennis Creevy would assure everyone he was in Potter's 'gang,' and people from other houses might see it like that from their limited knowledge. But in actual fact, Dennis does relatively little socialising with Harry. Dharma replies: That is an interesting idea. Being around their common room Lucius could have gotten a feel for some of the younger Slytherins, without "hanging out" with the younger kids during lesson time and free weekends. Creevy/Potter relationship is closer to what I was trying to say, when I came up with Peter/James as a comparison. Snape and Lucius have no direct interaction in the books, so my impression is based on the "Lapdog"/"Snivellus" comments and the memories that Harry extracts during the Occlumency lessons. Yb continued:> Picture this: Little Sevvie comes into Hogwarts knowing plenty of hexes and curses and the like. Plus, he is a Potions professor, so he must have had a knack for brewing things. These sort of things, especially the hexes part, would show up rather early in his career at Hogwarts, like the first time some of the other students started teasing him about being thin, pale, and probably greasy-haired. Sevvie would fire a couple of hexes and send the tormentors running for cover, and little Lucius would take notice. Hannah: My theory is that Severus didn't know as many curses as Sirius thinks, at least, not immediately. I think he was picked on by a gang of students from another house, and prefect Lucius saw what was going on, and stepped in out of house loyalty. He's heard of the name 'Snape' and knows they're 'the right sort.' So he takes malicious pleasure in teaching little Sevvie some curses so he can defend himself. Snape thinks Lucius is wonderful for this, and Lucius gains a younger boy who's willing to run errands for him. Yb wrote: I would imagine that LM was a DE at the beginning. Maybe his father was one too, and recruited Junior, or maybe his grandfather was one of those in Tom Riddle's "inner circle" of friends. Either way, LM was probably a DE by the time he left Hogwarts. So he had two years to notice Severus Snape, and recruit him into his gang, which would probably be a prelude to joining the DEs after graduation. Hannah: I don't imagine people becoming DE's until after Hogwarts, or at least until they're of age. I can't imagine LV having any patience with a gaggle of children who aren't allowed to do magic outside of school. Of course, there may be some kind of 'junior DE' oraganisation, but I think it would be risky at Hogwarts. LV never dared interfere at Hogwarts, and DD knows 'everything' that goes on. I think he would react very strongly to anyone trying to recruit his students for LV's army. There may have been whispers of it amongst the students, but I don't see anything too official. Dharma replies: I'd like to throw out a general question on this topic. Given that there are differences in the social climate and the perception of Voldemort's power, will the Death Eaters change their recruitment strategies? There are a couple of reasons that this is interesting to me. First, there is the Voldemort's relationship to Harry. Harry is in school and is the only Wizard that has been able to stop Voldemort, even if it was temporary. Although, Voldemort seems to be bent on taking a personal vengeance, wouldn't he be interested in having someone with access to Harry and his friends strategically placed to act? Using Snape in this capacity could compromise his position as a "spy." Also from what I could gather, the first war did not start in earnest until the Marauders were on the verge of exiting school. There might not have been a great need to have school age people working for Voldemort's cause on the inside, but now the children in school include some of the victims of the first war (kids who lost family members on both sides). Will the kids in 6th and 7th year, really be detached from what is going on outside? I'm just curious about other people's predictions. From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 16:20:37 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:20:37 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115096 Del wrote: > I agree. Thus my conclusion would be : > > Harry is not a bad student, he's got good leadership qualities, he can > keep his head cool under stress, so he was a good candidate for the > Prefect badge. > > But I don't see that there's any way to jump from that conclusion to : > > Harry was the best candidate for the Prefect badge. > > Not without assuming a whole lot of things. > Now Cory: I guess for me, what it comes down to is this. If we *have* to assume anything about Dean and Seamus, I would assume that they are basically average. We don't really know enough about them to make judgments about their abilities or demeanors, and we probably never will because basically, they are little more than background characters. When it comes down to it, Hermione and Ron became prefects because they are main characters, and having them as prefects added an element to the story. If we knew, say, Parvati and Seamus better, maybe we would conclude that they would have been better choices, but we don't. Aside from the argument about Harry being better suited than Ron, we are never going to have enough information to know whether anyone would have been better than Ron or Hermione for the job. --Cory From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 7 16:24:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:24:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <20041006002657.88396.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115097 snipping summary<<< Alla wrote: > 1. So, what is the reason for the title of this > chapter? It had been discussed many times, but why not > give it another try? Potioncat: The more I think about it, "why" did Snape have to take thoughts out of his head anyway? You would think if he can match LV, he wouldn't need protection from an Occlumency student. I'm not sure if this is just the way JKR decided to work it, or if there is more to the process than we know. But, if you had to protect your memories from others, wouldn't you protect different memories from different people? So perhaps Snape wouldn't care if Harry saw some DE event in his memory, but wouldn't want Harry to see him in this humiliating circumstance. Just as Harry was determined that Snape not see him kissing Cho. You know, as often as this group discusses the events of the Pensieve scene, hardly ever does anyone refer to it as Snape's worst memory. > > 2. Do you agree with Fred and George that " a bit of > mayhem" is exactly what Umbridge deserves? > Is it an effective way of dealing with her? Do you > think that something similar should have been done > earlier? Potioncat: I think the timing was perfect. And although the teachers were limited in what they could do, they were resisting her before that as well. (Minerva offering her cough drop springs to mind.) Fred and George had nothing to lose at that point. They didn't need to finish school. They had confidence they would be able to get away. > > 3. What do we learn about Harry from his refusal to > drink the tea in Umbridge's office? Potioncat: He wasn't particularly quick on that one! But he is beginning to think. > > > 5. We witness Marauders and Snape taking their DADA > OWL. If we assume that this memory was Snape's worst > memory, could he remember this exam deep in his mind > and assign his werewolf essay in POA based on those > questions? Potioncat: Do you mean his real intent was to help the students pass OWLs? Such a concerned teacher! ;-) Actually, as you've asked, I happened to notice that the students studied werewolves in both first and second years. Under Quirrell they learned how to treat werewolf bites. So I wonder if Snape was correct that they should have been farther along in DADA? Of course, after Lockhart that would go without saying! Or, do you think it was the DADA OWL that tipped him off to Lupin being a werewolf? In which case did the prank happen before or after OWLs...Wait a minute. I'm supposed to be answering questions, aren't I? > > 6. This question is specifically for my benefit. Can > anybody please explain to me why Snape was still > reading his exam paper even though Flitwick collected > the parchments. Were they writing two copies of the > exam with one copy left for the student personal > records? I would appreciate the clarification. Potioncat: I've seen answers to this already. Someone recalled Blue books, used in tests at university level. Blue books! What a memory, I'd forgotten about them. Do you know who else reads over the exams afterwards? Hermione! She knows more hexes than most older students. She has been known to tell teachers about contraband in the common room. Who does she remind me of? 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any > indications in this chapter that he could have > feelings for her? Potioncat: He calls her a filthy little Mudblood. And unless that three word phrase is the common use, (and it could be) he was being deliberate instead of simply reacting. But, and it isn't clear, it seems he has use of his wand at this point, but he doesn't use it. He regains his wand, is struck rigid and falls, then the hex is lifted and he gets up. Either he doesn't grab it as he scambles to his feet, or he does, but doesn't use it. So is Lily the reason he is particularly distracted in the middle of a fight? > > 10. What do you make out of Snape's reaction after > Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his > office again? Potioncat: Did he ever want to see Harry in his office before? They've continued as teacher and student. The summer will pass by. And even though Snape never forgets, he will have to interact with Harry. In fact, given Harry's state of mind at the end of OoP, Snape was doing better at it than Harry was. Great job on the Chapter Discussion, Alla! Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 7 16:35:07 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:35:07 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115098 > Finwitch: > > Fred could well be keeping George company. It's not like he has much > *else* to do, nor would he wish to spend time without his twin. And > Fred might be getting ingredients for their Products while George > attends the class... and I'm not certain if Sprout required an > accepted OWL for that class. (and George didn't pass his theoretical > Herbology either). > > It's even possible that the two were having *private* lessons from > Sprout! (Remember that ALL of the staff was anti-umbridge, so > Fred&George may well have persuaded the teachers to give them lessons > for anti-umbridge pranks...) > Potioncat: You are probably right. It is very likely that a student wouldn't have to pass OWLs to take Herbology in 6th and 7th years. After all, McGonagall makes a point that "she" requires and E and that "Snape" requires an O, not that the class requirement is for those marks. It fits with the Hufflepuff philosophy of teaching them all. And we were told in SS/PS that the twins got good marks. So class grades might play a part in this too. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 16:35:44 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:35:44 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115099 Nora wrote : " Learning to deal with the death of the person he loved more than anyone (note, who Harry loved, regardless of how we feel about the character) is more important or beneficial than, perhaps, learning what it's like to build a relationship of trust and love, even when the person in question *is* unquestionably damaged?" Del replies : The problem I have with that relationship is that it wasn't going anywhere, and more importantly, it was beginning to require more from Harry than it gave him. In GoF, Sirius is useful, Harry can depend on him for advice and support. But in OoP, Harry realises that the issues in Sirius's life have not gone away and that they color the relationship they have in ways that are contrary to Harry's interests. He realises that Sirius can't completely separate Harry from James (like Snape, interestingly). He realises that Sirius unconsciously expects Harry to make his (Sirius's) life easier. He realises that Sirius might not always have Harry's best interests in mind when giving him advice. And worst of all, he realises that Sirius might well use their reciprocal love as an excuse to indulge in his rash instincts under the pretense of helping Harry, at the risk of getting himself killed, and without admitting that this is Harry's worst fear. In other words, he is dismissing Harry's express wish (that Sirius stays safe), in favour of his own self-serving fantasy (playing the heroic best pal again), and under the cover of "But I'm doing it for you Harry !" This all results in Harry taking responsibility for his Godfather, which is exactly the opposite of what should be. Harry ends up being the one sacrificing himself and his needs in order to protect Sirius and prevent him from doing stupid things. Yes Harry needed Sirius. But Harry was having to mature at a fast pace, while Sirius was stuck in his immaturity (this is so plainly and painfully apparent in the After Pensieve Explanation, where Harry is obviously more aware of how disgusting James and Sirius's behaviour was than Sirius himself). It was still OK in GoF, where Harry had not had his first real brush with death, but in OoP, it became very obvious that Sirius was not going to be able to bring Harry much help much longer, that he was in fact becoming an increasing drag and burden on Harry's mind. That doesn't mean he had to die of course. But IMO he did have to be removed from Harry's life for a while, so Harry could act freely again, without wondering how whimsical Sirius was going to take his initiatives. Maybe that's precisely what DD was trying to do ? Del From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 16:39:27 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:39:27 -0000 Subject: Stubby Bored Man?/Hermione can be wrong! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115100 > Ginger, bouncing Hermione-like responds: > > Oh, Oh, I know! Pick me! > OoP p. 193, US edition. "...and an article on ancient runes, which > at least explained why Luna had been reading the Quibbler upside > down. According to the magazine, if you turn the runes on their > heads they revealed a spell to make your enemy's ears turn into > kumquats." > > Not that the ability to read upside-down isn't useful. I find it > helps in Scrabble. So does knowing how to spell kumquat. Must file > that. Finwitch: Hermione thinks that explains it, but... Quibbler isn't written in ancient runes. However, the Ancient Runes within the article (or in the margin of the Quibbler) may well have been the wordings of such a spell, which Hermione didn't bother to find out. BTW, did you know that certain numbers in a calculator can form words if you turn the calculator upside down, as they look like letters that way? You could try 07734 to test it... And about turning ones ears into Kumquats: Neville did something to his ears once - moved onto a cactus, as I recall, during Transfiguration class? Maybe a kumquat is a being that looks like an ear, can move instantly and loves cactuses? (also, such spell *does* exist. Neville's done it by accident on himself) Neville was with Luna as Harry&co. arrived. Did he tell Luna about that accident, if Luna mentioned about the article and Luna wanted to learn the spell so she could help Neville to master that (to be used on some enemy of theirs, Draco maybe)... (BTW, it'd be funny if Voldemort lost his ears like that, on Neville's spell!) Finwitch From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 16:46:01 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:46:01 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115101 Cory wrote : "I guess for me, what it comes down to is this. If we *have* to assume anything about Dean and Seamus, I would assume that they are basically average." Del replies : My take is different. I say "let's not assume *anything*". Let's not assume that they are better than Harry (in whatever) OR that Harry is better than them, UNLESS we are expressly told otherwise (Harry *is* best at DADA, for example). Cory wrote : " When it comes down to it, Hermione and Ron became prefects because they are main characters, and having them as prefects added an element to the story." Del replies : Not necessarily. JKR could have decided that her story was full enough without adding in the Prefect subplot, in which case she would have given the Prefect badges to some other students, with a nice little explanation of why they were better suited for it, and that would have been all. Or she could have purposefully given the badges to other students who could have then used their authority to reduce the Trio's freedom of action. But she created the Inquisitorial Squad instead. In short, Ron and Hermione became Prefects because JKR wanted it and/or the future of the story requires it, not just because they are the main characters. Cory wrote : " Aside from the argument about Harry being better suited than Ron, we are never going to have enough information to know whether anyone would have been better than Ron or Hermione for the job." Del replies : EXACTLY ! Thats *precisely* what I was arguing. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 7 17:20:52 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:20:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115102 >> Dharma replies: snip > > Also from what I could gather, the first war did not start in earnest until the Marauders were on the verge of exiting school. There might not have been a great need to have school age people working for Voldemort's cause on the inside, but now the children in school include some of the victims of the first war (kids who lost family members on both sides). Will the kids in 6th and 7th year, really be detached from what is going on outside? I'm just curious about other people's predictions. Potioncat: I'm as bad at maths as JKR, but let me ask this: DD says in SS/PS something along the line of having very little to celebrate for 11 years. So wouldn't that put it at the Marauders' first or second year? I would think that by the time many of that generation were in 6th or 7th, if not earlier, they had an idea of what was going on. Certainly some of the students, on either side, would be chafing at the bit to get out of school and take part. Was and will be. Look at how badly Fred and George wanted to be part of the Order. Already at least 3 students have had family injured in the new war. (OK, they happen to be on the wrong side, but still...) It's been in the papers in such a way that even Susan Bones gets noticed for events that happened in the last war. So I would think most of them will have an idea of what is going on...or at least, know about the reported events. Potioncat From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 7 17:30:00 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:30:00 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doctor_fangeek" wrote: Lisa wrote: > I know I'm not the only one who was disappointed by this (hi, > Jen!). But I find myself unable to *not* comment on why. I *know* > Sirius is flawed. I accept that. I think most/all of the > characters in these books are flawed, and that is a good thing. I > accept that JKR thinks he's flawed as well. But several of her > comments really bugged me, in that she actually puts forth > interpretations that I found frustratingly simplistic when I saw > *readers* spouting them. In one case, she also really misrepresents > what she actually wrote in forming this interpretation. Hickengruendler: Well, I must admit that for the most part I agree with JKR's statement. I agree with you that she oversimplifies him a bit, but the question was not to give a detailed and deep analysis of Sirius, but simply if she liked him or not. And therefore she simply mentioned a few of his character traits she likes and a few she dislikes. Lisa: > For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors as > it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just > don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if it > wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as a > character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind to > him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's place > in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is and what > he represents of Sirius' past, not because he is an "inferior." > Dumbledore even points out that Sirius didn't have this attitude > toward house elves in general. Yet JKR then goes on to use "Sirius > loathes Kreacher" as evidence that he doesn't live up to his own > pronouncement. Right. Hickengruendler: While I agree with you that Sirius' has personal reasons to treat Kreacher that badly, I don't think it really makes a difference. After all, Barty Crouch senior also had very personal reasons to dismiss Winky, she was guilty of letting his son conjure the Dark Mark, because she wasn't able to stop him. Because of Winky Crouch seniors darkest secret was nearly discovered, and therefore the sacking of Winky was completely for personal reasons and not because he dislikes house-elves. Yes, Winky (although highly annoying, IMO) is a pitiable creature, while Kreacher is simply horrid. But Kreacher also was in an awful situation, being a slave to someone he despises. And Sirius never had a friendly word for him. Well, I don't think Sirius being friendly to Kreacher would have changed anything, he still would have betrayed him sooner or later. I'm also sure Sirius treated Kreacher that badly because of what Kreacher represents, Sirius awful childhood, and not because Kreacher is a house-elf or because Sirius has the power to treat Kreacher that way. (And obviously JKR agrees with us, since that's what she wrote in the books, and at no point does she state on the website that Sirius hated Kreacher because Kreacher's a house-elf). But personal motives and Kreacher's nastiness aside, Kreacher still was inferior to Sirius and Sirius still could have treated him a lot better, just because I can understand someone's motives doesn't mean I have to like or even accept their actions. Lisa: > Then there's the whole "no one is wholly good or evil." Well, to > start off with that's *not even what Sirius says in the book.* He > says that the world is not divided into "good people and Death > Eaters." And how is that inconsistent with almost all of what we > see/hear about his view of Snape??? In GoF he points out that he > can't imagine Dumbledore letting Snape teach if he'd been with > Voldemort, while at the same time making it clear that he doesn't > like Snape at all. Hmm. So Snape is not "good" but also not a > Death Eater? And the inconsistency is where? Color me confused. Hickengruendler: While that's true, Sirius also didn't seem to accept the possibility, that Snape has changed. He said it in Snape's face in the chapter "Occlumency", that he knew exactly that Snape never had reformed. And about the statement in GoF, hmm, some people think that Sirius' behaviour in OotP was out of character and that he was inconsistently written. I disagree. I think the only scene in which the writing of his character is somewhat inconsistent is the scene with him in GoF in the chapter "Padfoot returns". Even in the Shrieking Shrack after Harry learned the truth, all of Sirius' shortcomings (and strengths, of course) are still very obvious, if we look behind Harry's rose-glassed point of view (for example when he learns about the werewolf-prank). It was this chapter in GoF, and only this chapter, where he seems to good to be true. Even here I'm willing to give JK Rowling the doubt, that it was because Sirius was relatively happy in this chapter, with him being free and Harry knowing his innocence, and that therefore he was able to show his very best side. But if something was off in Sirius' writing, I would say it was this scene, or at least some parts of it, like Sirius rather thoughtful opinion about Snape teaching at Hogwarts. This is the only time in the books where he doesn't react as if Snape is the devil in person. Lisa: > Then again, I find her reduction of Sirius' good points/virtue to > his loyalty and affection for James frustratingly simplistic as > well. Why bother to tell us so much about his family and childhood, > about how he left home because of his beliefs and his opinion of his > family's beliefs, if none of that means anything with regard to > Sirius' character???? Hickengruendler: Of course it means a lot for Sirius' character, otherwise she wouldn't have spent all those pages in OotP to tell us about his past and motivations. I'm sure if you would have asked her that question directly, she would have answered: "But of course that shows that he has his own opinion and is able to overcome family prejudices and that he doesn't condemn people because they are muggle-born. Isn't that obvious?". I'm really sure it was that obvious for her that she didn't even put it on the website. I don't think anyone (not even the biggest Sirius' hater) would be able to ignore this positive character trait of him. On the other hand, I do think that because the story is told from Harry's point of view, Sirius' comes off as better than if it were told from a neutral point of view, because of Sirius' love for him and James. From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 17:44:12 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:44:12 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115104 Del wrote: > My take is different. I say "let's not assume *anything*". Let's not > assume that they are better than Harry (in whatever) OR that Harry is > better than them, UNLESS we are expressly told otherwise (Harry *is* > best at DADA, for example). Now Cory: I basically agree with this, at least to a point. I guess for me though, the fact that we haven't been told about certain things leads me to assume that they haven't happened if they seem like things that we should have been told about. For example, we know that Harry has good leadership skills, because he led DA. From a plot standpoint, the formation of DA was one of the most important events in OotP, and arguably, the series. A few posts ago you argued that it's possible that Dean or Seamus might have done something similar, and we shouldn't assume that they haven't just because we haven't been told about it. I guess my point is that if Dean or Seamus had done something of the magnitude of forming and leading DA, we should have been told about it, so for the present time, I am content to assume that they haven't. I realize that I am open to being proven wrong in future books, but for now I'm willing to make that assumption. > Del replies : > Not necessarily. JKR could have decided that her story was full enough > without adding in the Prefect subplot, in which case she would have > given the Prefect badges to some other students, with a nice little > explanation of why they were better suited for it, and that would have > been all. Cory again: Sure she could have, but she didn't. Having Ron and Hermione as prefects enabled her to demonstrate certain things about their characters -- Hermione got to show that she has a backbone (standing up to the twins when they were feeding their joke candies to the first years). Ron...well I don't know, exactly; he didn't exactly do a bang-up job as a prefect. It did give him his much-needed chance in the spotlight, though. --Cory From editor at texas.net Thu Oct 7 18:00:26 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:00:26 -0000 Subject: About coldness and debate, was Re: Sirius' death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115105 Carol: I'm sorry if that view strikes you as cold. Your saying so strikes *me* as rude. Nora: I do think it is cold to make, as a hypothetic, what comes off as a "better off dead" value judgement, on a character. Carol: Carol, who thought the List Elves had dealt with the incivility issue and is sorry to discover that she was wrong Nora: Excuse me. I tried to phrase what I found, honestly, mildly disturbing about your message in as polite of terms as I could. I would prefer, in the future, that if I have personally upset someone on here, for someone to let me know about that in person, rather than dragging that aspect of it onto the main list. ----------- (Vaguely overweight vapor drifts into the room) *blinks* My, my. Not to single out Carol and Nora, but this exchange is a very good example of a sometimes fine point. Carol and Nora, I mean no criticism of you, but this really is a great example. Please forgive my using it to clarify something. What Nora had originally said, prompting all this, was "Wow. I think that's one of the *coldest* things I've seen anyone post on here lately." While I can see that Carol might take that ill, let me point out what Nora did NOT actually say: "Wow, Carol, I think you're one of the coldest people I've ever met, to say something like that." Nora did target the message, not the speaker, when you get down to parsing; but I can understand Carol's reaction as well. And Nora brought up the option for discussing personal reactions to a post--which may well *not* be what the poster intended--off the list; this is a Good Thing to do. This seems, to be, to have been a Miscommunication. They happen. But so does genuine rudeness, and it can be hard to distinguish. To further elaborate, I will repost one of my earlier missives that addresses the phenomenon of debate, disagreement, and hurt feelings. Originally from February 2003, and most recently dragged out this past July, for your reading pleasure. Or "delete" key, if you've read it before. Debates *are* highly thought out intellectual arguments. However, people getting hurt or offended is not inevitable. People get hurt or offended when one of two things happens: (a) the person making the argument takes a criticism of their *argument* as a criticism of *them* as a person; (b) the responder really does criticize the person and not their argument. Both of these involve a failure to recognize or respect the distance between a person and the argument the person is making. As an example: Poster A: I think Snape is a vampire Poster B: I think that theory is totally ludicrous because there's not really any canon support and besides, *some* of the characters have to be human, we're running out, Hagrid's half-giant and Lupin's a werewolf... This is perfectly acceptable. This is debate. Poster A should not feel attacked, even though their point has been challenged. But... Poster A: I think Snape is a vampire Poster B: I think anyone who thinks that is a total blithering idiot and should not appear in public unaccompanied. This is argument, but is not debate (at least not well done), and it is in this second case where feelings get hurt. Justly so. And on this list, generally, this Poster B would be Howlered or water ballooned. (It is not broadcast to the list when this occurs, by the way, so the rest of the list is often not aware of it, but the efforts of the elves to keep the tone polite are continuous.) Also--please don't confuse a topic being discussed with an attempt to convert you. Most of us would be delighted if our charming but stubbornly unswayable discussion partners would suddenly see the light and admit we were right. [Like there's no *way* Snape is anything but human.] But they don't, and they won't, and I'm not trying to make them. I'm just arguing my side real loud, because it's what I think. The world JKR has created does not exist, just as Tolkien's, Lewis', deLint's, etc., do not. But her world is incredibly well-constructed, populated with vivid characters we recognize, interacting in situations we can identify with, and denying this list the use of reason to dissect and discuss that world is unfair and unreasonable. An incredible infrastructure of guidelines and administrators has evolved on this list, because the people who formed it loved to discuss JKR's creations. They did not love flame wars, insults, or divisiveness. The debates you find here are detailed, intricate, engrossing, etc. -- but not rude. If personal attacks or hurt feelings happen, they are attended to. Maybe this will help; some of the threads have gotten a little tense lately. ~Amandageist From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 18:09:02 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:09:02 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115106 Cory wrote : " I guess for me though, the fact that we haven't been told about certain things leads me to assume that they haven't happened if they seem like things that we should have been told about. " Del replies : I never said you had to think like me :-) Your point of view is just as valid as mine, I'm just telling you where I come from. However, I'd like to remind you that we're discussing a *WIP* written by *JKR*. She's proven several times that she *will* withhold important information if she deems it necessary. We weren't told about Harry's Godfather until the third book, even though his story was *so* important to the overall story. Granted, though, the probability that JKR is withholding any important information about Dean and Seamus is very small. But still, let's not forget alternative Prophecy-boy Neville, or all the background JKR once had on Dean. Cory wrote : " For example, we know that Harry has good leadership skills, because he led DA. From a plot standpoint, the formation of DA was one of the most important events in OotP, and arguably, the series. A few posts ago you argued that it's possible that Dean or Seamus might have done something similar, and we shouldn't assume that they haven't just because we haven't been told about it. I guess my point is that if Dean or Seamus had done something of the magnitude of forming and leading DA, we should have been told about it, so for the present time, I am content to assume that they haven't." Del replies : Misunderstanding here. I never meant to say that Dean or Seamus ever did anything of the *magnitude* of forming and leading the DA (and btw it was Hermione who formed the DA, not Harry). If they had, we would know, of course (well, I guess). I only said that they might have formed and/or led their own clubs, which would demonstrate their leadership qualities just as well as leading the DA did for Harry. Just because Dean would lead the Gobstones club, or Seamus the "A letter for an Azkaban prisoner" club, which would admittedly be clubs much less important than the DA, wouldn't mean they didn't demonstrate their leadership qualities just as well. Cory wrote : " Having Ron and Hermione as prefects enabled her to demonstrate certain things about their characters -- Hermione got to show that she has a backbone (standing up to the twins when they were feeding their joke candies to the first years). Ron...well I don't know, exactly; he didn't exactly do a bang-up job as a prefect." Del replies : Actually, if you look closely, you'll realise that making Ron and Hermione Prefects does not seem to have brought anything to the story. You say we learned Hermione has a backbone, but let's be honest, we'd known that for a *long* time (all the way back to PS/SS in fact). As for Ron, as you point out, becoming a Prefect doesn't seem to have had any effect on him. It seems all of it was almost *useless*. Interesting, at least to me. Del From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 18:14:55 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041007181455.36254.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115107 > Lady Macbeth replies: > > He is still running primarily off of his learned understanding of > "right" and "wrong" - that's why he tends to see people two- > dimensionally as well. McGonagall's all good, Snape's all bad, > Sirius is all awesome, Hermione's all bookish, etc - no matter what > any of them do to suggest otherwise. When > Sirius lashes out at Kreacher, it's obviously Kreacher's fault. > When Snape does something seemingly nice or responsible, it's > because Dumbledore told > him to, when McGonagall's snippy with someone, it's that someone's > fault. > > I expect that over the course of the next couple of books, Harry's > 2-D world is going to be shaken very violently, and he's going to > be forced to do this "catch-up" in a very short amount of time. > That's why it's important that instead of defending Harry's > behavior it simply be UNDERSTOOD - because I think fans are going > to be in for a radical change in him before all is said > and done. The "angry teenager" of OotP is just the tip of the > iceberg. Excellent post, Lady Macbeth. And very good points. One of the things that Harry has to learn in the next couple of books is "empathy" - what it feels like to walk in someone else's shoes and experience their feelings. Even people he doesn't like. Perhaps this is a result of the one way the Dursleys did spoil Harry - they never made any secret of their feelings about him and therefore he's never really learned about hypocrisy or hiding your true feelings to get what you want. People who are nice to him must be nice people - it's still a little chilling how quick Harry is to hand over the Marauders' Map to Fake!Moody in GOF after F!M implies nasty things about Snape. Relative Stranger + Anti-Snape feelings = One Heck of a Great Guy. You would think that Harry would be asking himself questions about people as he gets older - but there's no indication that he understands Ron's attitude about the family poverty (he thinks it's a matter of sharing his bank account with them when I think it's clear that what Ron is practically crying for is some indication that he's something more than just the last Weasley boy who never gets anything that's actually his without having gone through several other hands first.) And Ron's his bestest mate. I hope that Harry does start being more curious about the people around him. It might save his own life soon. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Thu Oct 7 18:23:07 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:23:07 -0000 Subject: SYOS!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Yb wrote: > > I am also leaning towards not an evil!Snape, but a SYOS!Snape > > (Save Your Own Skin). He is a Slytherin, and ol' Phineas told us > > that that's a trademark Slytherin trait. I wouldn't be surprised > > that if push came to shove, Snape would haul buns and leave the > > good guys in the lurch. So maybe DD's > > trust isn't misplaced, but he's betting a lot of the ranch on a > > Slytherin's sense of altruism/take-one-for-the-team. Carol responded: > If that were the case, wouldn't Snape have left Hogwarts after > Harry returned from the graveyard with Cedric's body, fleeing like > the cowardly Karkaroff? ("Flee, then! Flee. I will remain at > Hogwarts.") Karkaroff fled (so did Ludo Bagman, for different > reasons), but Snape kept his word and remained at Dumbledore's > side, going into unknown danger at Dumbledore's request at the end > of GoF--after courageously revealing to Fudge that he was a former > DE. Surely if Snape intended to desert Dumbledore to save his own > skin, he would have done so by now. And his life is really in > jeopardy now, or will be if Voldemort finds out that he sent the > Order to the MoM. Yb again: Thanks for responding to my post Carol! Well, let me point out that we don't know /exactly/ what Snape has been up to for the past year. Granted it is probably dangerous, but who really knows? (JKR, Grrrr.) Perhaps Snape is remaining at Hogwarts as a favor to DD, or something of that nature. Or maybe, Snape's SYOS colors won't kick in until he's in the heat of battle, like he has to run into a battle scene to save Harry or something. I am almost certain that Snape's "moment of truth" (when we see if Snape is a "true" Slytherin, or if Phineas was wrong about them in general) will concern Harry, and perhaps his safety. I lean towards Snape feeling he owes DD this much, and he feels he's not in mortal peril at the moment. With Occlumency, a good alibi, some nice double-crossing techniques, and a good position to hear things in the order and Hogwarts, LV may be reconsidering that he- will-be-killed statement (if Snape is the one who has left him forever). But if I'm right, and Phineas is right, when we see Snape's life on the line, when he has to choose between saving himself or getting hurt/killed for those around him, we'll see him make the /easy/ choice, not the /right/ one. Or maybe, just maybe, I'm completely wrong. I can handle that. C'mon book 6, I need confirmation of my views! ~Yb, who has realized that typing and eating yogurt t the same time is futile, and as such will stop typing for a while. From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 18:42:42 2004 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:42:42 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115109 Del replies : > I never said you had to think like me :-) Your point of view is just > as valid as mine, I'm just telling you where I come from. Gee, thanks. :-) *snip* Del replies : > Misunderstanding here. I never meant to say that Dean or Seamus ever > did anything of the *magnitude* of forming and leading the DA (and btw > it was Hermione who formed the DA, not Harry). If they had, we would > know, of course (well, I guess). I only said that they might have > formed and/or led their own clubs, which would demonstrate their > leadership qualities just as well as leading the DA did for Harry. > Just because Dean would lead the Gobstones club, or Seamus the "A > letter for an Azkaban prisoner" club, which would admittedly be clubs > much less important than the DA, wouldn't mean they didn't demonstrate > their leadership qualities just as well. Now Cory: Ok, that's fair. I'm not sure I'll ever look at the stories and consider the infinite number of possibilities of things that the characters might be doing when we're not looking, but at least I know where you're coming from now. Del replies : > Actually, if you look closely, you'll realise that making Ron and > Hermione Prefects does not seem to have brought anything to the story. > You say we learned Hermione has a backbone, but let's be honest, we'd > known that for a *long* time (all the way back to PS/SS in fact). As > for Ron, as you point out, becoming a Prefect doesn't seem to have had > any effect on him. It seems all of it was almost *useless*. Cory again: I think for me, what having them as prefects really did was to illustrate the contrast in personalities between Ron and Hermione. Hermione was willing to risk alienating others in order to impose what she deemed to be a sense of justice, and Ron was less willing to do so. We've seen similar contrasts in other phases of the story as well - e.g., Hermione's willingness to tell Harry what she thinks even when she knows it will anger him, vs. Ron's preference for keeping things to himself for the sake of keeping the peace. Having them both as prefects and approaching the job so differently was useful as an illustrative device in that regard. Unnecessary, perhaps, but it did reinforce the point. --Cory From patientx3 at aol.com Thu Oct 7 18:52:13 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:52:13 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore (was: SPOILERS. Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115110 Carol wrote: >>Like RedLena, I firmly believe that Petunia is a mere common Muggle who happens to have had a witch for a sister. But *if* she had been a Muggleborn witch yet still had all the personality traits she has now, she wouldn't have fit into any house, including Hufflepuff ("those loyal Hufflepuffs are true," etc.). Remember Harry's fear in SS/PS that he'd sit for a long time under the Sorting Hat and then be sent home on the next train because he didn't belong at Hogwarts? That's what would have happened to the magic-fearing, nosey, mean-natured Petunia, IMO. But since she's a Muggle, it's all hypothetical anyway.<< HunterGreen: What about Ravenclaw? There seems to be a broad allowance for students in that house, they aren't all Hermione's. Since Ravenclaw has people like Cho and Luna, couldn't *nosey* Petunia fit there? I can't think of a reason to think of her as a dim character (she put together what the howler meant pretty fast and she's rather good at keeping something a secret from her husband) and just because her pursuit of knowledge has to do with knowledge of others, doesn't stop it from being knowledge. She's not really the quintisential [sic] Ravenclaw, but in absence of any better house (like the non-ambitious Crabbe and Goyle being sent to Slytherin), I think she'd be sent there. It's Dudley who wouldn't fit into any house, unless muggleborns could be allowed into Slytherin (which is moot anyway, because he's *not* a muggleborn). I wonder what the hat would do if someone didn't fit at all into any house. Assign one at random? From bethg2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:10:20 2004 From: bethg2 at yahoo.com (bethg2 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:10:20 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115111 Del wrote: Snippage of the burden Sirius lays on Harry > That doesn't mean he had to die of course. But IMO he did have to be > removed from Harry's life for a while, so Harry could act freely > again, without wondering how whimsical Sirius was going to take his > initiatives. Maybe that's precisely what DD was trying to do ? > > Del Beth: In addition to removing Sirius Rowling has also made it possible for a more helpful, responsible male to take a role in Harry's life. Remus and Arthur seem the likely candidates and both would better prepare Harry for what he going to face than Sirius would have. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:10:20 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (Was Dept of Mysteries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041007191020.41360.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115112 > Mac asked: > But why is there a whole book devoted to Sirius? (PoA) What > was the purpose of this book? Was it just to achieve Pettigrew > being outed as scabbers, have him escape and, moreover, in > wizard's debt to HP? The book wasn't devoted to Sirius. And yes, I do think that the whole purpose of the book was to bring the backstory to the fore and let us see who was the real traitor and to imply that certain actions of the past were going to have significant ramifications in the present. Having achieved his purpose of being a darn good red herring for most of POA, Sirius relapsed into near insignificance in GoF and OOTP. His subsequent importance lay in his holding out to Harry the option of a life away from the Dursleys and a better future, but that was pretty minimal in terms of plot development (as opposed to character development) but I believe Sirius died because plot-wise JKR had no further use for him. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Oct 7 19:21:48 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:21:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115113 potioncat wrote: Dharma replies: snip Also from what I could gather, the first war did not start in earnest until the Marauders were on the verge of exiting school. There might not have been a great need to have school age people working for Voldemort's cause on the inside, but now the children in school include some of the victims of the first war (kids who lost family members on both sides). Will the kids in 6th and 7th year, really be detached from what is going on outside? I'm just curious about other people's predictions. Potioncat: I'm as bad at maths as JKR, but let me ask this: DD says in SS/PS something along the line of having very little to celebrate for 11 years. So wouldn't that put it at the Marauders' first or second year? I would think that by the time many of that generation were in 6th or 7th, if not earlier, they had an idea of what was going on. Certainly some of the students, on either side, would be chafing at the bit to get out of school and take part. Was and will be. Look at how badly Fred and George wanted to be part of the Order. Already at least 3 students have had family injured in the new war. (OK, they happen to be on the wrong side, but still...) It's been in the papers in such a way that even Susan Bones gets noticed for events that happened in the last war. So I would think most of them will have an idea of what is going on...or at least, know about the reported events. Dharma replies: As far as I can figure out...the 11 years "marked with disappearances and increasing violence," include the years of Voldemort's rise to power. According to the HP Lexicon Voldemort was at the peak of his power in 1979. It's not clear to me, when an organized resistance began to move against Voldemort. Sirius says, "..there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colors, who thought that he had the right idea about things..." This implies that there was some period of shady goings on prior to the entire community being embattled From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 7 19:40:01 2004 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:40:01 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Harry is not a bad student, he's got good leadership qualities, he can > keep his head cool under stress, so he was a good candidate for the > Prefect badge. > > But I don't see that there's any way to jump from that conclusion to : > > Harry was the best candidate for the Prefect badge. > > Not without assuming a whole lot of things. Actually there is enough evidence that he was considered to be the best candidate: 1. Everyone is astonished that he was not chosen. 2. The four other Gryffindor boys (Dean, Seamus, Neville and Ron) show clear lack of leadership skills and (with the possible exception of Neville) are pretty immature. We already know that Harry is a born leader (plenty of evidence for that even if based only on the first four books). The chosen prefect (Ron) did a pretty mediocre job during his first year as a prefect. I don't see how being a good student or not helps on this job, but there is no evidence here that Harry is a worse student than anyone else. 3. At the end of OOP Dumbledore admits to Harry that the only reason he did not make him prefect was that he felt he already was dealing with enough burdens. This clearly upsets Dumbledore much as that was the only point in the whole serie where Dumbledore shows strong emotions (not anger). Mind you, I think Dumbledore (and JKR) made the right choice in not giving Harry the prefect job, though I personally think Neville would have done a better job than Ron. Salit From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:48:36 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:48:36 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > > feklar wrote: > " Personally, my first reaction was, "Why would Harry have expected > be a prefect? And how the hell did Ron become one?!" ...edited... > bboyminn replied : > "First remember that there is a very small pool of candidates for > Gryffindor Prefect; Harry, Ron, Neville, Seamus, & Dean. Neville, > Seamus, and Dean certainly haven't done anything outstanding in > their school careers. ..., but Harry and Ron have shown that they > can take initiative, and keep their heads (in more ways than one) > under pressure. " > Del answers : > I agree with Feklar that there was no reason Harry should have > expected to be a Prefect. ... So why would he have wanted to become > Prefect? bboyminn: I don't think Harry did /want/ to be Prefect before the fact, and in that same vein, I didn't want the last piece of pie until I saw my brother eyeballing it. Harry never really gave any thought to being Prefect, it wasn't something he desired, but when Ron became Prefect it forced Harry to evaluate his position. In doing so, he was somewhat disappointed, but, in his mind, he weighed both sides of the issue. He considered the likelihood of himself being made Prefect and considered the reasons against his being Prefect, and in the end, decide that as a true friend, he should support Ron. A bit of envy and disappointment are a fair and reasonable reaction to the situation, but I think Harry handled it very well, and handled it the way any good friend would. > Del Continues: > > I disagree strongly that Harry was the only choice. For all we know, > Dean, Seamus or maybe even Neville could have been just as good > candidates, according to Steve's standards. > bboyminn: Never said Harry was the only choice. I'm sure all the students were considered including Neville who on the surface seems the least likely candidate. None the less, I'm sure Neville was given a fair evaluation. In fact, a very good case could be made for Neville, but in the end, I'm sure we all agree that this was not Neville's time to shine. As far as Dean and Seamus, I'm sorry but I have to say that if they were outstanding in any way, they would have ...well, you know... stood out. If Seamus or Dean were academically excellent that outstanding quality would have rated at least a small casual mention; Harry would have noticed. If Harry noticed then we would notice. If they were outstanding in their participation in any extracurricular activities, then again, they would have stood out and been worthy of at least a minor casual mention. We can only work with the information we have. True, Seamus and Dean could be 'Lord and Master' of one thing or another, but again that would stand out, and that which stands out gets noticed. I'm sure Dean and Seamus are doing well academically, they don't seem at all stupid. It's even fair to speculate that they are better academically and socially than Harry and Ron. But what have they ever done that has stood out. Given what we know, other than being /somewhat/ less inclined to get into trouble, have they ever taken any initiative and applied it toward an important and productive end? Where were they when Harry and Ron were on their many adventures? Safe and warm in their beds that's where. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish Dean and Seamus, but leaders are not those who are good and capable. They are those who take initiative and are decisive. In a tough situation, the majority of people sit and wait to be told what to do. Good leaders are the ones who step up and create a decisive course of action. Harry, more so, but Ron too, has demonstrated this. Give all we DO know, once every candidate had been evaluated, and a fair case made for each of them, the only remaining likely candidates were Harry and Ron. They have proven themselves repeatedly, and that ability to act while others wait is what narrowed the field. Finally, down to those two, we know that Dumbledore decided that Harry was already carrying too much weight to have one more thing added. That leaves Ron. Once again, no one has said anything that even remotely convinces me that Ron was anything less than a typical normal Prefect. We can't judge him by either an idealized Prefect, or Hermione or Percy because those are unrealistic standards. Judged against a typcial Prefect, Ron was just as good as any. > Steve asked : > "If the Death Eaters start kicking down the front door, ask > yourself, who better to guide and protect the first years, Harry and > Ron, or Dean and Seamus? Personally, I'd prefer Harry and Ron." > Del answers : > Actually, no ! If the Dementors came to Hogwarts, Harry would have > much better things to do than guiding the midgets to safety, like > fighting the Dementors, for example. > > Del bboyminn: But my question is not really about Death Eaters (or Dementors), that was just an illustration; it's about who do you trust. Let me put it in more general terms. When trouble comes, who do you want standing between you and trouble; Dean and Seamus, or Harry and Ron? Me, clearly, I prefer to put my faith in the proven skills of Harry and Ron. And, personally, I think Dumbledore agrees with me, which is why the only two realistic candidates were Harry and Ron. Then given that Dumbledore had his reasons for eliminating Harry, who is probably everyone's first choice, that left Ron as Prefect. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn and will always defend Ron) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:52:36 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041007195236.37568.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115116 >> 10. What do you make out of Snape's reaction after >> Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his >> office again? > > Meri: I know I am one of the many who want to know Snape's > motivations, but from what I think I understand about him, his > reaction was almost out of character. The rage we saw there even > seemed to surpass what he displayed in the Shreiking Shack. It > wasn't embarrassment what he displayed, or fear that Harry would > spread it around, it was plain old rage. Now, yes, Harry was nosy, > and shouldn't have poked about where he wasn't wanted, but as I > pointed out in an earlier post, Snape was probably told by DD that > Harry knows what a pensieve is and would also probably have been > told that he might be tempted to look in it. If Snape had any > brains > whatsoever he would have either chivvied Harry out of the office > before him, or secured the pensieve in one of his magically > sealable > cabinets and then Harry could never have seen anything. Which leads > me to the conclusion that Snape may have wanted Harry to see that > memory, either to show Harry what a berk his dad could be, or to > give Harry a glimpse at the difficulites he himself faced at > school... Nope, Snape was in a towering rage because he'd started to trust Harry - he was realizing that he'd been hasty in assuming that Harry had a pampered upbringing and he had been feeling some empathy (NOT liking) for Harry. For the first time he didn't assume the worst about Harry and Harry went right ahead and poked his head literally where it didn't belong. And Snape blew a head pipe because his trust had been violated. Which is why he gives Harry the silent treatment in future classes - honestly, doesn't that sound like what Ron did Hermione when he thought Crookshanks had eaten Scabbers and he thought Hermione was in the wrong? He certainly didn't want Harry to see those memories because he thought Harry would find them funny and would take the same view as James and Sirius did. After all, at Christmas time Sirius called him Snivellus in front of Harry and I'm sure Snape expected that Sirius would have told Harry all about how they'd harassed Snape at school. The last thing he'd want is for Harry to actually SEE them. Harry's sense of timing definitely needs work. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:54:54 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:54:54 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115117 Salit wrote : " Actually there is enough evidence that Harry was considered to be the best candidate: 1. Everyone is astonished that he was not chosen." Del replies : Everyone ? Who's that ? Ron, Hermione and the Twins : people who are already used to supporting Harry. Who else ? Salit wrote : " 2. The four other Gryffindor boys (Dean, Seamus, Neville and Ron) show clear lack of leadership skills and (with the possible exception of Neville) are pretty immature." Del replies : Ah ?? Can you point me to canon proofs of that ? And Harry strikes me as pretty immature too. Salit wrote : " 3. At the end of OOP Dumbledore admits to Harry that the only reason he did not make him prefect was that he felt he already was dealing with enough burdens. This clearly upsets Dumbledore much as that was the only point in the whole serie where Dumbledore shows strong emotions (not anger)." Del replies : I don't know how to handle that one, because this statement by DD makes me cringe each and every time. Not really because of what it says, but because of *when* it is said. IMO it just doesn't belong in the discussion following Sirius's death, and each time I read it I get the same impression : that JKR felt like she had to give us some kind of explanation as to why she gave the badge to Ron but couldn't find a better way to do it. It simply doesn't ring true to me. But technically, you do have a point. Del From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:55:51 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:55:51 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (Was Dept of Mysteries) In-Reply-To: <20041007191020.41360.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Having achieved his purpose of being a darn good red herring for > most of POA, Sirius relapsed into near insignificance in GoF and > OOTP. His subsequent importance lay in his holding out to Harry the > option of a life away from the Dursleys and a better future, but > that was pretty minimal in terms of plot development (as opposed to > character development) but I believe Sirius died because plot-wise > JKR had no further use for him. This is an eminent possibility, and one that shouldn't be discounted. However, she did say (and bless Google's little heart): Cookie246122: Why did you kill Sirius? It made me very sad :( JK Rowling replies -> I'm really, really sorry. I didn't want to do it, but there was a reason. If you think you can forgive me, keep reading, you'll find out. [I feel really guilty now]. ...which leaves open the possibility that his death and the specific manner in which it occurred have some further plot significance--she needed him to die *that* way to make some use of him. And there's more to it than simply 'Harry learning a lesson about death and loss and all that jazz'. This makes a little better sense in terms of literary economy. I have no idea, myself. And it's getting awfully boring, sitting with Faith in the Safe House, drinking margaritas...we need this book. -Nora hopes it comes out comfortably either before or after exams From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Thu Oct 7 20:03:52 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:03:52 -0000 Subject: Students in the war In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115119 Dharma wrote: > Also from what I could gather, the first war did not start in > earnest until the Marauders were on the verge of exiting school. > There might not have been a great need to have school age people > working for Voldemort's cause on the inside, but now the children > in school include some of the victims of the first war (kids who > lost family members on both sides). Will the kids in 6th and 7th > year, really be detached from what is going on outside? I'm just > curious about other people's predictions. Potioncat replied: > I'm as bad at maths as JKR, but let me ask this: > DD says in SS/PS something along the line of having very little to > celebrate for 11 years. So wouldn't that put it at the Marauders' > first or second year? > > I would think that by the time many of that generation were in 6th > or 7th, if not earlier, they had an idea of what was going on. > Certainly some of the students, on either side, would be chafing > at the bit to get out of school and take part. Was and will be. > Look at how badly Fred and George wanted to be part of the Order. > Already at least 3 students have had family injured in the war. > (OK, they happen to be on the wrong side, but still...) It's been > in the papers in such a way that even Susan Bones gets noticed for > events that happened in the last war. So I would think most of > them will have an idea of what is going on...or at least, know > about the reported events. Dharma replies: > As far as I can figure out...the 11 years "marked with > disappearances and increasing violence," include the years of > Voldemort's rise to power. According to the HP Lexicon Voldemort > was at the peak of his power in 1979. It's not clear to me, when > an organized resistance began to move against Voldemort. Yb: Hasn't been made clear yet either. It probably was around the time the Marauders got out of Hogwarts, I suspect. Just a thought. Dharma: > Sirius says, "..there were quite a few people, before Voldemort > showed his true colors, who thought that he had the right idea > about things..." This implies that there was some period of shady > goings on prior to the entire community being embattled. Yb: I had a nice, long, eloquent post to rely to this... and then I hit a side button on the mouse that goes BACK one page. OK, here goes: In response to the students-joining-in stuff, yes, I am /certain/ that they will be well informed. Harry/Ron/Hermione will have the most information from the good guys, and Draco will for the baddies, because of who their parents are. I doubt Molly would let the kids (Ron and younger) into the Order because they aren't legal yet, which could cause problems, and they are too young, IMO. LV probably has a rule saying you can't be a DE until you are legal, either. (By legal, I mean 17, as in legally allowed ot practice magic whenever you want). Not having this rule could result in some problems. Not to mention maturity levels /have/ to be considered. The members have to be able to make mature, adult decisions. So I doubt the students will be DEs/Order members. But that doesn't mean they can't help. I can see Draco and his crowd waging their own little "war" within the scool, mostly directed at the Trio, and undermining DD in the process. Rita Skeeter may have something to do with this, I don't think we've seen the last of "her." (If you wonder why I put her in quotes, read some of the descriptions of her in GoF :).) When an attack on Hogwarts comes (and we all know it's coming), these students will do battle, even though they aren't full members. Till then, it will mostly be slinging insults and hexes in the corridors and keeping up with the news on the front. And yes, LV was starting to make waves around the time MWPP were starting Hogwarts, but people started being scared a few years afterward, when his real plans started showing though. He continued to grow in power because of people like Fudge, who refuse to admit that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it. DD was probably rounding up people to help in the war effort as soon as he realized what was going on, as was the ministry, but they weren't really organized for a long time. Students weren't necessary for either side of VW1, but they probably talked about it, shared news, and even thought about joining their side after Hogwarts. ~Yb From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 7 20:05:12 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:05:12 -0000 Subject: SYOS!Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115120 Yb wrote: snip Or maybe, Snape's SYOS colors won't kick > in until he's in the heat of battle, like he has to run into a > battle scene to save Harry or something. I am almost certain that > Snape's "moment of truth" (when we see if Snape is a "true" > Slytherin, or if Phineas was wrong about them in general) will > concern Harry, and perhaps his safety. >snip But if I'm right, and Phineas is right, when we see > Snape's life on the line, when he has to choose between saving > himself or getting hurt/killed for those around him, we'll see him > make the /easy/ choice, not the /right/ one. > Potioncat: Sorry I'm replying without canon to quote. IIRC, Phineas Nigellus says, "Slytherins are brave. But given a choice they will save their neck." Now, what does that mean? Slytherins don't rush into danger but take a cautious approach. I think a Slytherin would risk and give his life for another if called for. But would be just as happy to survive the experience. We were told that Snape took great personal risk for "our side." I know JKR values courage. But it seems to me Gryffindors would be more likely to take reckless chances and give their lives perhaps unnecessarily. Potioncat (who is not anti-Gryffindor by any means.) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 20:28:55 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:28:55 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115121 Steve bboyminn wrote : "As far as Dean and Seamus, I'm sorry but I have to say that if they were outstanding in any way, they would have ...well, you know... stood out. If Seamus or Dean were academically excellent that outstanding quality would have rated at least a small casual mention; Harry would have noticed. If Harry noticed then we would notice. If they were outstanding in their participation in any extracurricular activities, then again, they would have stood out and been worthy of at least a minor casual mention. We can only work with the information we have. True, Seamus and Dean could be 'Lord and Master' of one thing or another, but again that would stand out, and that which stands out gets noticed." Del replies : Don't forget that you're talking about someone who doesn't even know the name of someone he's had a common class with for several years (Theo Nott). In general terms, we could say that unless someone shines in something that interests Harry, he simply won't notice them. If Dean or Seamus were the very compassionate and very active leader of the wizard equivalent of an Amnesty International club, for example, chances are that Harry wouldn't know. Especially because apart from Quidditch, *nothing* seems to be made to stand out. I was actually surprised to learn that there were other clubs, precisely because there had never been *any* mention of such things. bboyminn wrote : "Given what we know, other than being /somewhat/ less inclined to get into trouble, have they (Dean and Seamus) ever taken any initiative and applied it toward an important and productive end? Where were they when Harry and Ron were on their many adventures? Safe and warm in their beds that's where. " Del replies : And why ? Because they never had the *opportunity* to do anything. As far as I can remember, we never saw them *refusing* to go on adventures, but they were never given a chance to do so. Harry is the hero, and as someone puts it in the books, things always seem to happen to him. They don't happen to Dean or Seamus. Dean and Seamus did not *choose* to wait and sit back while Harry and Ron were acting : they were never given a choice to start with. They never had a chance to develop the privileged relationship Harry has with DD, Hagrid, Lupin or even Snape. They were never given an Invisibility Cloak or the Marauders' Map. And so on. They are not the Boy Who Lived, things don't happen to them, and so logically they can't *act*. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't, if they were given a chance to. That doesn't mean they are not good leaders in their own small way, good enough to be Prefects. And by the way : Prefects are *not* war leaders, but rule enforcers. I can hardly see Harry telling others to follow the rules, when he himself never did ! That would be plain and simple hypocrisy. In short : Harry is indeed the perfect choice if one is looking for a battle leader. But he's not a good choice for a Prefect. And no, IMO, the two are not the same. Del From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 20:32:43 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041007203243.64060.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115122 > Alla: > As I said prior I share the speculation that Snape participated in > the torture of Neville's parents and I hope that Neville will > remember it one day and will tell Snape everything he thinks about > him. :o) > > I do think that Snape has an enormous guilt because of that, but > hey, I can be wrong, of course. Neville's parents were tortured after Voldemort fell, when people were starting to feel safer. The DE's ostensibly tortured them to find out where Voldemort was although I personally lean towards Red Hen's theory that it was a kamikaze attack designed to make Crouch Sr. look bad and thus make sure he wouldn't become Minister. Crouch Sr. would have hunted down any and all DE's without mercy. Why would Snape have participated in the Longbottoms' torture after Voldemort fell? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 20:55:37 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041007205537.70108.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115123 > Lisa: > For example, the whole thing about how one treats one's inferiors > as it relates to Sirius' attitude toward Kreacher. Frankly, I just > don't see it. Yes, Sirius loathes Kreacher (as JKR confirms, if > it wasn't already obvious). But JKR's own depiction of Kreacher as > a character (who is horrid, btw, even to the one person who is kind > to him) and her description of Sirius' background (and Kreacher's > place in it) suggests that Sirius loathes Kreacher for who he is > and what he represents of Sirius' past, not because he > is an "inferior." Dumbledore even points out that Sirius didn't > have this attitude toward house elves in general. Yet JKR then > goes on to use "Sirius loathes Kreacher" as evidence that he > doesn't live up to his own pronouncement. Right. Sirius knows perfectly well that Kreacher is certifiably deranged after living in the house with only a portrait for company for over a decade, that as a House Elf Kreacher is attached to the house and can't leave and must serve the family members resident there, and that Kreacher is a product of brainwashing by the Black family in their own purist, DE beliefs. In other words, Kreacher was made what he is in OOTP by wizards and witches and that it is too late now to undo the damage. When Dumbledore warned Sirius to treat Kreacher with respect, he was reminding him of these facts. And yet Sirius treats Kreacher as if the elf were capable of changing after all these years and of being something other than he is: old, deranged, pathetic and mentally warped. If anything, Sirius should understand what its like to be a captive in a horrible place and felt some empathy, even if he didn't like Kreacher at all. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 7 21:20:14 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:20:14 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: Learning to deal with the death of the person > he loved more than anyone (note, who Harry loved, regardless of how we feel about the character) is more important or beneficial than, perhaps, learning what it's like to build a relationship of trust and love, even when the person in question *is* unquestionably damaged? > It's better to just say 'Oops, well, he was quite a mess, wasn't it? Better for everyone not to have to deal with him!' than to go through the more difficult *yet* ultimately more constructive project of trying to rebuild a damaged soul, of trying to deal with things and not make them go away? > Good point, but Snape is still around for the "rebuild a damaged soul" bit, and he's far more damaged than Sirius. The plot reason for Sirius's death is elegant, though I fear few here are ready to accept it yet. There is no one else ESE!Lupin could have killed, even Harry himself, to make it apparent that there's nothing and nobody that matters once a wizard goes to the dark side. Maybe it's because I never idolized Sirius, but I found JKR's explanation on the website did help me understand the contradictions in this character -- he's someone who often (note she didn't say "always") has trouble living up to his ideals --especially when there's an antagonist present. There's no enemy to confront in "Padfoot Returns", so Sirius is calm and supportive...but let Molly or Kreacher or Snape be present and Sirius becomes rash and argumentative. The fact that Sirius didn't hate Kreacher because he was a House Elf doesn't mean that Sirius wasn't able to abuse his power over Kreacher because he was a House Elf. I think that's what JKR was talking about. House Elves have very powerful magic; Sirius wouldn't have dared to treat Kreacher the way he did if Kreacher had been free to retaliate. It never crossed Sirius's mind for example to let Kreacher go to the Malfoys before he'd had time to learn the Order's secrets. True, that would have been proof positive that Sirius was in London, but Sirius himself supplied that anyway not much later. I think Dumbledore would have approved; it would have meant sending the Malfoys a servant who was in Sirius's debt. Or Sirius could have offered to abandon part of the house to Kreacher --it was certainly big enough--, and let him take whatever he wanted to his part of the house--that might have even got rid of the painting of good old Mum. But Sirius didn't think of those things. Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 7 21:36:03 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:36:03 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Del: > Don't forget that you're talking about someone who doesn't even know > the name of someone he's had a common class with for several years > (Theo Nott). In general terms, we could say that unless someone shines > in something that interests Harry, he simply won't notice them. Geoff: That is an assumption which could be wrong. I've been trying to locate a message I wrote on this very point some while ago when I pointed out that when I was in my grammar school, I didn't know everyone in a group necessarily. We got to know a small circle of friends, one or two older boys might be known because of their position in the school heirarchy or a society connection. There has to be some sort of common ground - mutual friends, similar interests, competition in a subject; being in the same classroom isn't an essential element of that. From syroun at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 19:52:04 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:52:04 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohneill_2001" wrote: > (Snip) > Del wrote: > > > I disagree strongly that Harry was the only choice. For all we > > know, Dean, Seamus or maybe even Neville could have been just as > > good candidates, according to Steve's standards....3. Dean or > > > Seamus could be president of a number of clubs in which > > they demonstrate high leadership qualities... (Snip) > Now Cory: > > The point is, if you want to start assuming things about the > characters that aren't in the story, we can make any of the > characters into anything we want them to be. > For those of us that have been to private schools, we have seen from experience that a prefect is intended to serve specific purposes, one of which is that of a moral compass....they become the student version of an adminstrator for the student body. Sometimes they are tyrants, other times they have social skills that better facilitate their duties, but in the end, they are entrusted with keeping things in check for the school staff. I believe that definition fits Hermione's fundamental character function perfectly well. Past that, in terms of actual examples from JKR, wasn't Lupin made a prefect with the implicit expectation that he would keep his friends "in line"? Is that any different for Ron and DD's assumed hope and/or expectation for influence on Harry, his best friend, who has a penchant for going-it on his own? Syroun From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Oct 7 22:09:26 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:09:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) Message-ID: <20041007.181200.1864.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115127 SS Susan said: > But, see, that's my point. Hogwarts *isn't* "normal circumstances." > I *think* when you said that (please correct if wrong), you were > referring to what we're used to in the here & now. No, I meant normal circumstances for Hogwarts. Students who aren't heros or part of prophecies, aren't on any teacher's shitlist b/c of an extensive backstory, students who don't have alliances to paramilitary groups (good or evil), and when the school isn't under the thumb of an evil dictator from a corrupt government. In other words, the kids who aren't the Trio and the hundreds of years of Hogwarts history when the Trio weren't attending. THEN, I think, heads of houses are den mothers, and they're good at it. >but we've never seen that through 5 books. No, we've never seen our three main characters make use of their head of house. But there's hundreds of kids at Hogwarts, and we have no idea what they're doing when Harry isn't around. While I don't see Snape as a useful resource, and McG is fair but prickly, Prof. Sprout strikes me as very maternal, and Prof. Flitwick seems very kind and approachable. > Snape or Draco Speaking of, while Snape isn't Draco's bestest buddy and mentor, Draco is his favorite pupil, and Snape seems to have a vested interest in the kid. Just sayin, if Draco wasn't Slytherine, he wouldn't be a blip on Snape's radar. Someone did point out that Snape isn't as nasty to his Slytherine students, which is *sort of* like being a good house head. In a twisted, Slytherine way. > I think it *is* indicative that no guidance counselor is seen. In > fact, I think it is indicative of there being no guidance counselor! Yes. There is no post like that at Hogwarts. So what? Since when are guidance counselors that helpful, anyway? Mine were consistently overworked, inaccessable, and useless. House heads, older students, and the fact that the kids live at the school (and therefore are are expected to develop emotional support at school simply because they're always there) is the system Hogwarts has developed. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but neither is anything the muggle world has thought up. > The absense of a counselor and the total > lack of any mention of psychologists, counseling, mental health > services Those are all muggle ways of dealing with the mind and emotions. Wizards probably have their own ways. IIRC, isn't there a mention of dreamless sleep potions? And the penseive is certainly better than talk therapy. So we have evidence that the WW has magical means to calm the mind, sooth the spirit, and sort out one's concerns. Maybe they're better. Maybe they're not. But they're there. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 22:30:09 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:30:09 -0000 Subject: Riddle Bits Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115128 Two little bits about Riddle stick in my mind and I'm wondering if there are any theories, new or from previous discussions, about them. The first is in Cos Chapter 13, when Harry contemplates the name Tom Riddle: "And while Harry was sure he'd never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, it seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half- forgotten. But this was absurd. He'd never had friends before Hogwarts, Dudley made sure of it." Is this memory really Harry's? Or is it a glimmer of what LV left in his brain that is vaguely remembering the name Tom Riddle? Or did Harry hear the name when he was an baby? or a small child at the Dursleys? --- second bit: In the first chapter of GoF, the murders of the Riddles of Little Hangleton are described. Frank Bryce told the police "the only person he had seen near the house on the day of the Riddles' deaths had been a teenage boy, a stranger, dark-haired and pale. Nobody else in the village had seen any such boy..." Of course, we automatically assume the teenage boy is Tom Riddle, there to murder his muggle father and grandparents. I still lean towards believing that. But in examining everything that Riddle did on his way to becoming LV, well, we have so little information. So on re-examination, has anyone else seen a theory, or considered, that the teenage boy that Frank sees is not Tom (Lv) Riddle but rather Time Turner Harry, going back to look for Riddle. Maybe to learn something about Riddle on a date (due to the obituaries) where Harry knew where to find him with few people around to see him. I know Time Turning is unpopular, but I am still curious about this bit. mhbobbin From sophierom at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 22:38:06 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:38:06 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115129 Sophierom: So, this is part II in my series on Snape as seen in canon (subtitled: how to waste an enormous amount of time!). Part I, if you're interested, can be found at Message 114856 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114856 Why am I doing this? Well, besides trying to procrastinate on things I really don't want to do right now, I'm also looking at canon to understand how it is that some people can adore Snape, while others think he's worse than Voldemort and should be strung up by his toenails. I tend to fall on the Snape-o-phile side, as you'll see by some of my comments. However, I have attempted, as much as possible, to keep the descriptions of canon as objective as possible. Still, as complete objectivity is impossible, I've included references, all to the American Edition of CoS. It's actually quite a lot of fun to reread these scenes for a specific purpose. Okay, onto business: Chapter 5, 77-82: Snape's first appearance in CoS. After their infamous run-in with the Whomping Willow, Harry and Ron peer through the window at the Sorting Ceremony. Harry notices that Snape is missing from the head table. Snape is described as "Harry's least favorite teacher. Harry also happened to be Snape's least favorite student. Cruel, sarcastic, and disliked by everybody except the students from his own house (Slytherin), Snape taught Potions." Ron hopes that Snape is ill, Harry hopes that Snape has left because he didn't get the DADA position, and then Ron hopes that Snape's been sacked. "I mean, everyone hates him," Ron explains. Of course, Snape is standing right behind the two of them. In a "very cold voice" Snape demands to know why they didn't arrive on the train. Snape is further described as follows: "There, his black robes rippling in a cold breeze, stood Severus Snape. He was a thin man with sallow skin, a hooked nose, and greasy, shoulder-length black hair, and at this moment, he was smiling in a way that told Harry he and Ron were in very deep trouble." Snape leads them "away from the warmth and light" of the Great Hall and into the "cold passageway" that leads to the dungeons. Harry shivers when he enters Snape's office, and the room is full of "revolting things that Harry didn't really want to know the name of at the moment." The fireplace "was dark and empty." Snape accuses Harry and Ron with thinking themselves too good to ride the train. He believes they "wanted to arrive with a bang [italics]." As Harry tries to explain the barrier at King's Cross Station, Snape "coldly" cuts him off. When Snape asks what they did with the car, Harry suspects Snape has been reading their minds. "This wasn't the first time Snape had given Harry" that impression. But Harry realizes that Snape learned about the car through a article in the Evening Prophet. Snape "hissed" that the boys were seen. He reads the article to them, then scolds them for damaging the "very valuable Whomping Willow." When Ron tries to defend them, Snape again cuts them off. He says that if he had his way, they'd both be expelled, but the decision is not up to him. He leaves to get McGonagall. When he returns with McGonagall, the head of Gryffindor lays into the boys, also speaking "coldly." Dumbledore also comes into the room, and says that if they boys try such a thing again, he will have no choice but to expel them. "Snape looked as if Christmas had been canceled." He tries to convince Dumbledore that the boys should be expelled, but Dumbledore says that decision is up to McGongall. Dumbledore calls Snape by his first name and responds "calmly" to Snape's argument. Then he says, "Come, Severus, there's a delicious-looking custard tart I want to sample." Snape "shot a look of pure venom at Harry and ron as he allowed himself to be swept out of his office." Neri made a great point in her post when she said that perhaps Snape was painted so badly in the first book because he was the suspected villain. However, Snape gets no better treatment in CoS. He's still "greasy" and "hook-nosed," and "cold" seems to be a favorite description for him. He seems to want Harry expelled from school, and appears visibly disappointed when that doesn't happen. Whether or not Snape and Dumbledore are playing "good cop-bad cop," I can't say for certain. But, based on what we know of Snape and his hatred for James Potter, I happen to think that Snape sincerely would like Harry gone. Still, I doubt he sees this as realistic, knowing as he does that Dumbledore wants to keep him safe from LV. Chapter 7, 111: Though not actually in the scene, Snape appears through a note he signs for the Slytherin team, giving them precedence for the Quidditch field "owing to the need to train their new seeker." Chapter 9, 141, 143-45: Snape appears with the rest of the teachers at the scene of Mrs. Norris's petrification (don't think that's a word, but hopefully you know what I mean!). After the teachers and the trio go into Lockhart's office, Filch accuses Harry of harming Mrs. Norris because he knew that Filch was a squib. "From the shadows," Snape speaks. Initially, it seems as if he's sticking up for Harry. "Potter and his friends may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time." But he says this with a "slight sneer curling" at his mouth, "as though he doubted it." He then goes on to interrogate Harry, asking him why he, Ron, and Hermione weren't at the feast. Harry explains that they attended Nick's Death Day party, and Snape asks why they didn't go to the feast afterwards. Harry doesn't want to say that he's been hearing voices, so he lamely says that they were tired. Catching him in a trap, Snape asks, "Without any supper?" and a "triumphant smile" flickers "across his gaunt face." When Ron lies about being hungry at the same time that his stomach growls, "Snape's nasty smile widened." Snape tells Dumbledore that because Harry isn't being "entirely truthful," he should be removed from the Quidditch team "until he is ready to be honest." McGonagall protests, and Dumbledore gives Harry "a searching look," one that "made Harry feel as though he were being X-rayed." Then Dumbledore tells Snape, "Innocent until proven guilty, Severus." Then we're told, "Snape looked furious." When Lockhart butts into the conversation, offering to "whip up a Mandrake Restorative Draught," Snape tells the DADA instructor "icily" that he is the potions master. The trio is dismissed, and after talking about the voice, the Chamber, and Filch's squib status, Harry says that they'd "better get to bed before Snape comes along and tries to frame" them again. In this scene, it seems to me that Snape is quite aware that Harry is not behind Mrs. Norris's state, but he's willing to use the situation to punish Harry and help his Slytherin team nonetheless. Again, I'm not sure if he really expects to get away with such blatant unfairness in the presence of Dumbledore and McGonagall. It seems almost like it's something he knows he has to try, even if it won't work. And in some ways, it seems like a little show the three of them put on ? rather like the scene in Snape's office when Ron and Harry have just landed the car into the Whomping Willow. Snape is the "bad cop" and both Dumbledore and McGongall play some version of the "good cop." Maybe I'm reading too much into this, and this is simply another sign of Snape's hatred for Harry. But I do think he's too smart to expect to get away with punishing Harry unfairly right under Dumbledore's nose. One last thought on the scene ? I wonder if he isn't also trying to show some sympathy or alliance with Filch. They were working together in PS/SS. Chapter 9, 146: Recounting the week after Mrs. Norris's petrification, JKR tells us in passing that "Harry had been held back in Potions, where Snape had made him stay behind to scrape tubeworms off the desks." Chapter 9, 159-160: The Trio are discussing the possibility of using Polyjuice Potion to find out if Malfoy is the Heir of Slytherin. When Hermione suggests the potion, both boys ask, "What's that?" Hermione tells them that "Snape mentioned it in class a few weeks ago," and Ron mutters, "D'you think we've got nothing better to do in Potions than listen to Snape?" Hermione also reports that "Snape said it [Polyjuice] was in a book called Moste Potente Potions and it's bound to be in the Restricted Section of the library." Surely I'm reading too much into this, but rereading this scene, I never realized how odd it was that Snape would not only mention the potion (that doesn't seem odd in an of itself), but that he'd also mention the book it could be found in. I'm almost 100% positive this is just a plot device, but still it makes me wonder Chapter 11, 186-188: The Trio plan their theft of bicorn horn and boomslang skin from Snape's stores. "Harry privately felt he'd rather face Slytherin's legendary monster than let Snape catch him robbing his office." When Hermione tells the boys that "all you need to do is cause enough mayhem to keep Snape busy for five minutes or so," Harry thinks that "Deliberately causing mayhem in Snape's Potions class was about as safe as poking a sleeping dragon in the eye." A nice description of a "usual" potions class: "Potions lessons took place in one of the large dungeons. Thursday afternoon's lesson proceeded in the usual way. Twenty cauldrons stood steaming between the wooden desks, on which stood brass scales and jars of ingredients. Snape prowled through the fumes, making waspish remarks about the Gryffindors' work while the Slytherins sniggered appreciatively. Draco Malfoy, who was Snape's favorite student, kept flicking puffer-fish eyes at Ron and Harry, who knew that if they retaliated they would get detention faster than you could say `Unfair.'" Harry is so nervous about creating the diversion that he "hardly listened as Snape paused to sneer at his watery potion. When Snape turned and walked off to bully Neville, Hermione caught Harry's eye and nodded." After Harry causes Goyle's potion to explode and shower the whole class with Swelling Solution, "Snape was trying to restore calm and find out what had happen." This is when Hermione slips into Snape's office. "Silence! SILENCE!" Snape roared. "Anyone who has been splashed, come here for a Deflating Draft ? when I find out who did this ?" After administering the antidote to everyone who needed it, Snape goes to Goyle's cauldron and finds the remains of Harry's firework. "There was a sudden hush." "If I ever find out who threw this," Snape whispered, "I shall make sure [italics] that person is expelled." Snape is looking right at Harry as he says this, and Harry leaves the classroom worried. Ron tries to reassure him by asking, if Snape can't prove it's you, "What can he do?" "Knowing Snape, something foul," Harry responds. Noteworthy here is JKR's use of the word "bullying" in relation to Snape's treatment of Neville in potions class. Chapter 11, 189-195: Dueling Incident. Lockhart introduces Snape as his "assistant" and assures the crowd of students that "you'll still have your Potions master when I'm through with him, never fear!" In response, "Snape's upper lip was curling." Harry wonders "why Lockhart was still smiling; if Snape had been looking at him[italics] like that he'd have been running as fast as he could in the opposite direction." As Lockhart and Snape prepare to duel, Lockhart bows to Snape "with much twirling of his hands," where as "Snape jerked his head irritably." When Lockhart assures the students that "Neither of us will be aiming to kill," Harry mutters, "I wouldn't bet on that," seeing "Snape barring his teeth." Snape's resulting "Expelliarmus!" spell blasts Lockhart off his feet. When Lockhart recovers and says that Snape's disarming spell was obvious and easy to stop, Snape looks "murderous." Snape and Lockhart then pair off students to practice. Snape comes over to Ron and Harry and sneers, "Time to split up the dream team." He then pairs Harry with Malfoy. As the Dueling Club breaks into chaos (Harry and Malfoy hitting each other with jinxes, Neville and Justin lying on the floor, poor Hermione in a headlock), Lockhart tries to create order. Snape isn't mentioned as trying to help calm the crowd at all. And when Lockhart suggests that Neville and Justin duel in front of the entire club, Snape responds as follows: " `A bad idea, Professor Lockhart,' said Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. `Longbottom causes devastation with the simplest spells. We'll be sending what's left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital wing in a matchbox.' Neville's round, pink face went pinker.'" Then, "with a twisted smile," Snape suggests Malfoy and Harry. As Lockhart tries to show Harry how to respond to Malfoy (messing up badly in the process), "Snape smirked" and then "whispered something in [Malfoy's] ear." When the two boys duel, Malfoy casts a spell that creates a snake. It moves toward Harry, "ready to strike." Snape "lazily" tells Harry not to move; he's "clearly enjoying the sight of Harry standing motionless, eye to eye with the angry snake. Then Snape says "I'll get rid of it." Of course, Lockhart butts in and casts a spell that makes the snake fly into the air. In a rage, the snake looks to strike the nearest person, which happens to be muggleborn Justin. After Harry tells the snake to back off, and after Justin angrily asks Harry what he's "playing at," Snape comes forward and vanishes the snake. "Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an unexpected way: It was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry didn't like it." A couple of things here: first, Snape does publicly humiliate Neville; second, Snape tells Malfoy to cast the serpent spell (some have suggested that he picks this spell on purpose because he wants to find out if Potter speaks Parsletongue): and third, Snape gives Harry a "shrewd and calculating look" after Harry speaks Parsletongue. I actually think that Snape doesn't pick the spell in order to find out about Harry's parsletongue abilities; after all, Snape offers to get rid of the snake, and it's only because Lockhart interferes that we get to see Harry's ability. However, once Harry does use Parsletongue, Snape is quite interested. This scene also shows Snape's continuing mean behavior (bullying? Abuse?) toward Neville. Chapter 13, 228: A passing mention: "Snape had given them so much homework, Harry thought he was likely to be in the sixth year before he finished it." Chapter 13, 236-237: Lockhart, in pink robes, decorates the Great Hall with lurid pink flowers and hearts. All the teachers are described as looking "stony faced," but Snape is also described as looking "as though someone had just fed him a large beaker full of Skele-Gro." And after Lockhart suggests the students ask Snape for some love potion, "Snape was looking as though the first person to ask him for a Love Potion would be force-fed poison." I have to say, when there's a bumbling idiot like Lockhart on staff, Snape really does come off a great deal better. I want to cheer whenever Snape responds badly to one of Lockhart's stupid moves. Of course, when there's a good DADA professor like Lupin, Snape looks much worse, but that's for another post. Chapter 13, 239: When Malfoy tries to nab Riddle's diary (after Harry's bag has burst in the corridor," Harry "pulled out his wand and shouted `Expelliarmus!' and just as Snape had disarmed Lockhart, so Malfoy found the diary shooting out of his hand into the air." I included this quote because Harry actually learned something from Snape! However, I find it odd that Expelliarmus would work for a diary thought it was only for wands. Guess not. Chapter 14, 259: Very brief mention as Ron and Harry use the invisibility cloak to sneak out and see Hagrid. "Their Invisibility Cloak didn't stop them from making any noise, and there was a particularly tense moment when Ron stubbed his toe only yards from the spot where Snape stood standing guard. Thankfully, Snape sneezed at almost exactly the moment Ron swore." Chapter 15, 267: Potions class after Hagrid's been arrested and Dumbledore has been forced to take a leave. As Malfoy makes derogatory comments about Dumbledore and McGonagall, "Snape swept past Harry, making no comment about Hermione's empty seat and cauldron." Malfoy asks Snape why he doesn't apply for the position of headmaster. Snape "couldn't suppress a thin-lipped smile" and says that "Professor Dumbledore has only been suspended I daresay he'll be back with us soon enough." Malfoy responds with a cheeky, "Yeah, right," and then says that his father would vote for Snape as headmaster. Malfoy continues to kiss up to Snape, calling him "the best teacher here." In response, Snape "smirked as he swept off around the dungeon." He makes no comment when Malfoy says that it was a pity that the mudblood Hermione wasn't killed. Ron scrambles to get Malfoy, but Harry and Dean grab him and hold him back. Just as Ron says he's about to "kill [Malfoy] with [his] bare hands" for that comment, Snape tells the class to "hurry up" because he has to escort them to Herbology (now that they're not allowed to walk alone in the halls). There has been a great deal of speculation that Snape's job as a spy relies not on being a part of LV's inner circle but instead through maintaining a close connection with Lucius Malfoy. You could read this scene, along with Snape's favoritism toward Draco, as a piece of evidence for this idea. You could also read the scene as a sign of Snape's cruelty (perhaps he simply doesn't care about Hermione and/or he shares the sentiment about "mudbloods.") Being a Snape-o-phile, I'm tempted to read the scene a little more optimistically. Just as Ron is about to attack Malfoy, Snape butts in and tells the class to get a move-on. If Snape was paying attention, he passed up a golden opportunity to punish Ron; he could have waited two more seconds, broken up the fight, and then given Ron detention (while letting Malfoy get off). Instead, his timely call to order keeps Ron from making a stupid move, in essence, saving him from punishment. I'd like to think Snape intervenes because he also despises Malfoy's sentiments and he really doesn't want to reward Malfoy for them by allowing Ron to get into trouble. I'm also tempted to read Snape's failure to make a remark about Hermione not as indifferent cruelty but instead as a very subtle sign that he's not happy with the situation. We all know Snape is one to pick on the Gryffindors. It wouldn't have been out of character for him to say something like, "Oh, what a pity the know-it-all isn't here to answer any questions today." Given his typical mean behavior, I'd take silence as a compliment! I'm also optimistic about his affirmation of Dumbledore's imminent return; he seems to be offering his own version of support to the headmaster there. Of course, I'm quite possibly reading way too much into this scene (okay, almost definitely reading too much into it!). Chapter 16, 293-295: McGonagall calls a staff meeting to announce that Ginny's been taken to the Chamber. Harry and Ron are hiding in the wardrobe, eavesdropping. When McGonagall says that a student has been taken into the chamber, "Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, `How can you be sure?'" After McGonagall has told the staff that it was Ginny, Lockhart comes banging into the meeting, late, but "he didn't seem to notice that the other teachers were looking at him with something remarkably like hatred." Snape steps forward and tells Lockhart to go search for Ginny since he'd been complaining that he'd not gotten a chance to get the monster before Hagrid's arrest. Lockhart runs off to his office, and McGonagall, relieved, says, "that's got him[italics] from under our feet." All of the rest of the teachers head back to their houses to prepare the students for an early departure from Hogwarts. Again, being a Snape-o-phile, I read this scene with a small glimmer of hope. However mean he can get, he seems concerned about the possibility of a student's death, and he shows solidarity with the staff. Chapter 16, 298: Harry uses the "Expelliarmus" spell to disarm Lockhart as he tries to use a memory charm on them. Harry "furiously" tells Lockhart, "Shouldn't have let Professor Snape teach us that one." Wow, he uses the title Professor! Again, it's amazing how much a good guy Snape can look in comparison with Lockhart! Well, that's it for CoS. In many ways, Snape is still the cold, greasy, nasty professor we saw in PS/SS. His bullying (JKR's word) of Neville has continued, perhaps even escalated. But as I've mentioned several times, he does seem rather more appealing than Lockhart! And, he shows, in my opinion, loyalty to the school, Dumbledore, and the overall safety of the students (concern for Ginny ? not as Ginny Weasley, but as student taken down into Chamber; his quick actions to reverse Swelling Solution when Harry causes Goyle's cauldron to explode; his marching the students to Herbology when the students are no longer allowed to walk alone between classes. It's true that these last two actions are part of his job, so it's not as if he's doing anything extraordinary but he does seem to take his job as a teacher seriously, at least.). PoA, when/if I get to it, will be much more difficult for me to do. With Lupin's caring as a foil, along with Snape's hatred of Lupin and Black, my favorite greasy git is bound to look pretty bad in the next book! Still, will he look evil? We'll see. But he certainly didn't appear evil in CoS. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 7 22:38:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:38:19 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) In-Reply-To: <20041007.181200.1864.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115130 SSSusan: [Aura clarified what she meant by "normal circumstances" at Hogwarts.] Thank you! I still don't think I agree that the HoH were "den mothers" in normal times & with regular [non-Trio] kids, but we can't know that one way or the other.... SSSusan: > > I think it *is* indicative that no guidance counselor is seen. > > In fact, I think it is indicative of there being no guidance > > counselor! Aura: > Yes. There is no post like that at Hogwarts. So what? Since when > are guidance counselors that helpful, anyway? Mine were > consistently overworked, inaccessable, and useless. House heads, > older students, and the fact that the kids live at the school (and > therefore are are expected to develop emotional support at school > simply because they're always there) is the system Hogwarts has > developed. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but neither is > anything the muggle world has thought up. SSSusan: LOL! My master's degree is in school counseling and yet I never pursued a position in it because the counselors I saw didn't make the impact on kids that the teachers did for the reasons you state. I stuck with teaching. I'm **not** arguing that there should be counselors at Hogwarts; I'm merely pointing out that there don't appear to be any. SSSusan: > > The absense of a counselor and the total lack of any mention of > > psychologists, counseling, mental health services.... Aura: > Those are all muggle ways of dealing with the mind and emotions. > Wizards probably have their own ways. IIRC, isn't there a mention > of dreamless sleep potions? And the penseive is certainly better > than talk therapy. So we have evidence that the WW has magical > means to calm the mind, sooth the spirit, and sort out one's > concerns. Maybe they're better. Maybe they're not. But they're > there. SSSusan: Aura, dear, I'm not arguing with you! The point you're making *is* my point, too! Hogwarts is Hogwarts. It's NOT like the Muggle here & now. We're really on the same wavelength with that. The only difference I think we may have is in whether we blieve JKR answered that bullying question in such a way that she was implying that **Harry** should have asked for help. I think not necessarily; you think probably [if I got that right!]. I think not necessarily because I don't know that asking for help fits w/ Harry's character nor w/ what the WW has to offer in the way of help. (But that's speculation, of course.) You make a good point that there are some WW offerings which might calm the mind & soothe the spirit. Again, Harry didn't take advantage of much of those. Did Neville? Did the students who were freaking over their OWLs? I don't know. Do those things offer real solutions or temporary relief? I don't know. It just doesn't seem that the mechanism for asking for help is as clearly presented in the WW as it is in RL. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 22:51:29 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:51:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius / Stubby Bored Man? References: Message-ID: <011001c4acc0$2f7806b0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115131 ----- Original Message ----- From: "justcarol67" To: Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:25 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark? Sirius / Stubby Bored Man? > > > mhbobbin wrote: > > > Boardman. Bored Man. I don't mean the whole story as reported in > The Quibbler is legitimate. But what would have prevented Sirius from > sneaking out of Grim Old Place to sing with The Hobgoblins. He was, > after all, a Bored Man. And this particularly far-fetched article is > mentioned twice. First, when Kingsley gives the paper to Arthur > thinking Sirius would find it interesting. Second, when Harry picks up > Luna's magazine. > > Carol responds: > Wasn't it an article about a flying motorcycle that Arthur thought > would interest Sirius? And I think the part about Harry picking up > Luna's magazine was just to introduce us to the Quibbler (Fudge baking > goblins into pies and all that). And of course we get Hermione's > reaction to the Quibbler before she knows that Luna's father owns it, > setting up the contrast between the two girls which will surely be > further developed in future books. > > > charme wrote: > > > > Bored man is right :) This appears to be Sirius' modus operandi, > time and time again. Remember, the Snape Pensieve scene in OoP where > James picks on Snape? One of the reasons that happened was Sirius was > "bored." I thought the interaction between Snape and Sirius at > GP toward the latter part of Christmas break was quite telling, and I > don't take DD statements to Harry after Sirius' demise at the DoM to > heart WRT Sirius not being provoked by Snape's insinuations. Sirius, > whitefaced and angry, wanted to put down with Snape once and for all. > > > > IMO, Sirius most likely did sing with The Hobgoblins, and in OoP at > > Christmas in GP again, there's canon that Sirius was walking the > halls singing "God Rest Ye Merry Hippogriffs." No one else (other than > Peeves) has been referred to has specifically "singing," have they? > > Carol responds: > I'm not quite sure that I see the connection between Sirius's > treatment of Snape (except in the Pensieve scene) and his boredom. Can > you clarify the argument a little? I do agree that Sirius is almost > out of his head with boredom (combined with frustration and the > company of his mother's portrait and a psycho house-elf). > > As for singing with the Hobgoblins as Stubby Boardman, the only > evidence for the truth of that story is the bad pun. I personally > don't think Sirius was getting any recreation beyond screaming at > Kreacher and drinking himself into oblivion. Unless, possibly, he was > reading Snape's reports! ;-) > > As for singing, have you forgotten the rousing choruses of "Weasley Is > Our King" (written by the multi-talented Draco Malfoy)in OoP? IIRC, we > also had valentines sung by dwarfs in CoS, the Hogwarts school song > (sung to any tune you please) in SS/PS, and singing suits of armor > (who forgot half the words) at Christmas (I forget which book). > > Carol > > > > > > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 23:11:46 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:11:46 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115132 Geoff Bannister wrote : "We got to know a small circle of friends, one or two older boys might be known because of their position in the school heirarchy or a society connection. There has to be some sort of common ground - mutual friends, similar interests, competition in a subject; being in the same classroom isn't an essential element of that." Del replies : Uh, Geoff, you do realise that you are actually adding to my side of the argument, don't you ;-) ? Because according to what you say, Harry would not have noticed if Dean or Seamus had shined in something he, Harry, was not interested in. In fact, Harry's interaction with those boys is a quite clear illustration of what you say : they are all in the same class, they sleep in the same dorm, but we don't see that Harry knows either of them very well beyond that (and vice versa). That's even why I'm so annoyed for his getting angry at Seamus because the boy believes his mom : Harry seems to expect Seamus to believe him instead, even though they are no more than classmates, far from friends. But that's another matter entirely. Del From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 23:20:25 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:25 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Steve bboyminn wrote : > "As far as Dean and Seamus, I'm sorry but I have to say that if they > were outstanding in any way, they would have ...well, you know... > stood out. ... Seamus and Dean could be 'Lord and Master' of one > thing or another, but again that would stand out, and that which > stands out gets noticed." > Del replies : > Don't forget that you're talking about someone who doesn't even know > the name of someone he's had a common class with for several years > (Theo Nott). bboyminn: Well, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think it is crystal clear that Harry and Ron are the only likely candidates after all the available students have been evaluated. Dumbledore gave his reasons for not choosing Harry, and that leaves Ron. I will agree with your point that Harry is very socially isolated. He doesn't mix very much. He has two /best/ friends and that forms a world that is safe and confortable for him. However, it's reasonable to assume that if any of them were asked, all the boys in Harry's dorm would consider themselves friends with the others. But while Harry is generally friends with Dean and Seamus, he is /best/ and safest friends with Ron. To your point about Theo Nott. There is a big difference between one obscure student who has never gotten /in your face/ who is in a house that you are on generally bad terms with, and the boys who have lived in the same room with you for 5 years. I think it is safe to say Harry and Ron are friends with Seamus, Dean, and Neville, and have had many conversation, and more importantly overheard many conversations between the various members of that dorm room. Given that close proximity, they have to have far more knowledge than has been explicitly said in the book. So, while I am contradicting myself ever so slighlty, I still take the position, that if Deam and Seamus had done or were involved in anything outstanding, it would have stood out and we would know about it. Even if our knowledge was very indirect and 'in-passing'. > > bboyminn wrote : > "Given what we know, other than being /somewhat/ less inclined to > get into trouble, have they (Dean and Seamus) ever taken any > initiative and applied it toward an important and productive end? > Del replies : > And why ? Because they never had the *opportunity* to do anything. > As far as I can remember, we never saw them *refusing* to go on > adventures, but they were never given a chance to do so. ...edited.. > bboyminn: A fair point, Harry gained some of his information due to circumstances that only he could be in. For example, going to Gringotts with Hagrid and picking up a mysterious package from a high security vault. But Harry does have a choice about what he does with what he knows. He can take a common "hey, I'm just a kid; let the adults worry about it" attitude. Most kids would pass the Gringotts trip off as a curious but mostly distracting event, and move on to more important things like music, clothes, friends, and school. Rarely are kids ever interested in the things grown ups are doing. In Chamber of Secrets, most kids are on equal footing. Other than Harry dire warning from Dobby, Harry doesn't know any more about what is going on than anyone else. But he is not willing to stand-by, and wait and worry with everyone else. He is curious, concerned, and seeking knowledge. Other students are not persuing a solution, they, including Seamus and Dean, are sitting back waiting and hoping for the teachers and Dumbledore to figure it out. I'm not discounting your statements completely, it's entirely possible that Dean and Seamus do have good leadership skills. In fact, most people when thrust into a leadership situation are able to function adequately. I'm not much of a leader myself, don't like being in front of the crowd, or in the forefront of the action, but I am intelligent and capable enough to respond and function well when that situation is demanded of me. Dean and Seamus could easily be the same. Again, I'm not trying to diminish Seamus and Dean in any way. An illustration.... In an army there are many leaders. A lieutenant is a leader and has the direct responsibility for making decision and has the immediate and ultimate responsibility for the men under him, but he's not a general. In this analogy, if Seamus and Dean are lieutenants, then Harry is a general and Ron is a colonel; relatively speaking. So, while re-enforcing my own point and accepting yours, just because you aren't /the/ leader doesn't mean you can't be /a/ leader. Del continues: > And by the way : Prefects are *not* war leaders, but rule enforcers. > Ican hardly see Harry telling others to follow the rules, when he > himself never did ! That would be plain and simple hypocrisy. > > In short : Harry is indeed the perfect choice if one is looking for > a battle leader. But he's not a good choice for a Prefect. And no, > IMO, the two are not the same. > > Del bboyminn: All very true, but if you make your judgement based on what is common and ordinary, then virtually anyone could handle the duties of a Prefect. Prefect have routine duties, which most people could handle, but more importantly, they have substantial responsibilities. When things are not so ordinary, then we have the true test of the quality of a Prefect. Yes, Prefectship itself is not a war, although I suspect some frustrated Prefects might argue the point, but a heavily weighing factor in the selction process is logically base more in how a person will react to the extraordinary than to the ordinary. In PoA, Prefects and Head Persons were called upon to perform duties far more demanding and important then reminding students not to run in the hallways. The true test of a Prefest is not can he step up and deal with minor routine occurances, but can he be /depended on/ to step up and be effective in out of the ordinary situations. Dean and Seamus could /maybe/ do that, but Harry and Ron have already demonstrated that they can. So, while I do see your position, I am firm in mine. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Thu Oct 7 23:26:19 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:26:19 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & The DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115134 > Cory again: > > Sure she could have, but she didn't. Having Ron and Hermione as > prefects enabled her to demonstrate certain things about their > characters -- Hermione got to show that she has a backbone (standing > up to the twins when they were feeding their joke candies to the > first years). Ron...well I don't know, exactly; he didn't exactly do > a bang-up job as a prefect. It did give him his much-needed chance > in the spotlight, though. Laurasia: I think the characters have a misconception about what a prefect actually does. We see prefects putting up decorations for Christmas, having to usher midgets around and occasionally Hermione told someone to be quiet, which she does anyway. These are all boring things which don't require leadership skills or even very good communication skills. Ron clearly doesn't care about maintaining order or upholding the rules or decorating the school (to promote school spirit) or even mentoring younger students because he complains about it all and is dismissive towards the midgets. Why then was he so stoked to become a prefect? Obviously not for the same reasons Hermione did. Hermione actually thought she could make a difference. Ron was flattered that somebody picked him over everyone else. Being appointed a prefect appears to really mean (for Ron especially) to wear a badge and feel important. Prefectship is really about being in a heirarchy. By the end of OotP Harry realises that the actual mundane duties that a prefect must perform are boring and tedious. And Harry doesn't need a badge on his robes to make a difference in the world. I think that prefectship is an amazing and mysterious force when you're in 4th year because being elected means you become different to everyone else, but by the end of 5th year everyone realises that the power and mystery has faded away and prefects are really just doing tedious jobs that the staff and house-elves find too irritating to perform. If JKR had made Harry a prefect then he would spent 5th 6th and 7th years running around putting up Christmas decorations. That's not leadership! Being a prefect doesn't offer you a chance to have real power! It's so the staff can take a tea break! If you want to help younger kids and be a real leader, you don't need a badge. IMO, JKR wants Harry to show *real* leadership skills, not fake leadership skills which is what prefectship is all about. After all, Harry starts the DA- he mentors younger (and older!) students, makes them feel comforatble at Hogwarts, helps them with their magical training and is a friend they can always count on. That is what, IMO, Hermione thought a prefect should do. Instead, she found herself giving guided tours to midgets and telling people to be quiet in the common room. ~<(Laurasia)>~ Who was elected prefect at her highschool and was stoked, not because she wanted to help the youngsters but because of the power and glory. However, by the end of final year there was a large amount of posters badly stuck to walls, and no real power and glory. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 00:01:26 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:01:26 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115135 I started off this evening intending to write a post about possession, but it appears to have metamorphosed into something slightly different. Begging forgiveness if it's a rehash of others' ideas... First, some background: There's a theory that Voldy didn't try to AK Harry, that it was some other kind of spell. One that doesn't have a visible effect, so can't be seen in priori incantatem, and one that can be blocked, unlike AK; and this is why Harry only remembers one green flash ? the one that killed Lily ? because there was only one. There is another theory (building upon the above), suggesting that the spell that rebounded was an attempt by Voldy to gain Harry's powers for himself. He heard the first part of the prophecy, so he knows that the one with the power to vanquish him was born to those who thrice deified him at the end of July. But he thinks that rather than just killing the kid(s), he'll give him(them) the once-over first, to find out if there are any powers that could have *really* made the brat(s) a serious threat: powers that he could nick. This is the spell that backfires. Thus far `tis plausible, m'lud. If that is so, it would make far more sense that he heard the next bit of the prophecy too. `But he will have powers the Dark Lord knows not'. Now *that* would give him a *very* credible motivation for trying to suck the kid's(kids') mind(s) rather than just bump him(them) off. Here's where I start to wonder. Dumbledore says that Harry survived because Lily died to save him. Now, if PuppetMaster!Dumbledore had the charm all worked out (with or without Lily) beforehand, then I wouldn't doubt that he'd be right. He would know, after all. But in PS he says `We may never know', doesn't he? (At least, I think so...) Why would he say that if *he'd* set the whole thing up? Surely he would be more certain, and pleased with himself ? he's not one for false modesty, is Albus. Then again, if Dumbledore *didn't* set it all up before hand, how *could* he know what saved Harry at GH? How could he even know that Lily sacrificed her life so that Harry would live? As far as we know, he didn't witness the attack at GH. To assume that he knows absolutely what he's talking about and is pretending not to be sure about it in front of Harry for some other nefarious reason, we'd have to assume that there's an eyewitness who told him how Lily died. The only evidence we have for Lily dying to save Harry, is Harry's memories of her pleading with Voldy, the ones that start to come back when he gets too close to a Dementor, and we have no evidence that Lily's dying did actually save him. (For that matter, I don't think we have any actual evidence that Harry's really safe at Privet Drive, either.) Perhaps, Dumbledore along with the rest of the WW, assumed that it was an AK, and the only way he could imagine Harry possibly survived was through this ancient magic that Voldy despises. A fair assumption, I suppose (not that I'm an expert on ancient magic). If it really was an AK. Despite the fact that surely other mothers have been in this situation before, and yet none of them appeared to be able to discorporate a dark lord while saving their sprog. Have I missed something, or can anyone else smell a scarlet Clupea? But if it *wasn't* an AK, if the spell that backfired was Voldy trying to suck Harry's brain out through his nose (so to speak), then Voldy *could* have been vanquished because of `the power that the Dark Lord knows not'. The power that he does not understand, that power of which Harry is so full, of which Voldy has none, the power that Voldy can't bear, that he hates and despises so much it caused him to abort the possession in the MoM. If Voldy tried to pinch *that* power specifically... Now, I can see that backfiring in a major way. So what happens when a spell backfires, anyway? I can think of two examples from canon (there may be more), and they're both from CoS. Firstly, there's the `Eat slugs, Malfoy!', and secondly there's the `Obliviate' from Lockhart. Both due to Ron's malfunctioning wand. In both of these cases, backfiring is exactly what happens. The spell affects the caster, rather than the one for whom it was intended. In this scenario, the power that Harry has and Voldy doesn't, does *not* get redistributed in Voldy's favour as the evil git intended, it works the other way around. The powers that *Voldy* has and *Harry* doesn't get given to Harry. Thus Harry speaks Parseltongue (and possibly a number of other magical languages that we have not yet been introduced to). "But wait!" I hear you cry. "Voldy can still speak Parseltongue too! We heard him at the beginning of GoF! If he was *pinching* Harry's powers, he would have cut and pasted them from Harry, not *copied* and pasted them! If that's the kind of spell that rebounded, then he and Nagini should be left with a couple of photo albums of fond memories, but no conversation..." And that, I'm afraid, is where I give up and say, "It's getting late. Sorry, I'm knackered. Can someone else finish this off for me, please...?" Dungrollin, (Who managed to get her right hand stuck down the back of the radiator for five whole minutes this morning, and is sorry if this post is incomprehensible, but she's been in the pub all evening.) From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 00:06:54 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:06:54 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115136 > Salit wrote : > 1. Everyone is astonished that he was not chosen." > > Del replies : > Everyone ? Who's that ? Ron, Hermione and the Twins : people who are > already used to supporting Harry. Who else ? Annemehr: Well, technically, Kinglsey Shacklebolt. I bring him up mostly just because I couldn't have been the only one to think of him immediately, only to realise that, of course, he can have no idea who would be the best prefect, let alone who all the Gryffindor 5th year boys are. > Salit wrote : > " 3. At the end of OOP Dumbledore admits to Harry that the only reason > he did not make him prefect was that he felt he already was dealing > with enough burdens. This clearly upsets Dumbledore much as that was > the only point in the whole serie where Dumbledore shows strong > emotions (not anger)." > > Del replies : > I don't know how to handle that one, because this statement by DD > makes me cringe each and every time. Not really because of what it > says, but because of *when* it is said. IMO it just doesn't belong in > the discussion following Sirius's death, and each time I read it I get > the same impression : that JKR felt like she had to give us some kind > of explanation as to why she gave the badge to Ron but couldn't find a > better way to do it. It simply doesn't ring true to me. But > technically, you do have a point. > > Del Annemehr: I wonder if maybe that passage was supposed to be awkward. Dumbledore doesn't seem to have much of a clear idea at all about what to say to Harry then, other than he needs to tell him the prophecy. DD seems to start with the idea of taking the blame off Harry and onto himself (with a short diversion to Sirius). DD seems to end up unloading all his own guilt, rather than comforting Harry, and that prefect thing was the last little piece. It certainly makes quite a contrast to the end of GoF, where Harry truly felt DD helped him by having Harry pour out the whole story of the graveyard. By the way, another reason to make Ron prefect might have been to ensure that the Gryffindor prefect was not anyone who might believe the Daily Prophet about Harry. Annemehr From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 00:20:32 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:20:32 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: <20041007205537.70108.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Sirius knows perfectly well that Kreacher is certifiably deranged > after living in the house with only a portrait for company for over a > decade, that as a House Elf Kreacher is attached to the house and > can't leave and must serve the family members resident there, and > that Kreacher is a product of brainwashing by the Black family in > their own purist, DE beliefs. In other words, Kreacher was made what > he is in OOTP by wizards and witches and that it is too late now to > undo the damage. When Dumbledore warned Sirius to treat Kreacher > with respect, he was reminding him of these facts. > > And yet Sirius treats Kreacher as if the elf were capable of changing > after all these years and of being something other than he is: old, > deranged, pathetic and mentally warped. If anything, Sirius should > understand what its like to be a captive in a horrible place and felt > some empathy, even if he didn't like Kreacher at all. > > Magda Yes, I agree with Magda. What it boils down to is that Sirius and Kreacher loathed each other, due in part to circumstances beyond their control. Both are damaged, but Sirius much less so. Sirius was still responsible for his actions (barring we find out he was being fed some potion on the sly). Sirius didn't hate Kreacher because he was a House Elf. He treated Kreacher like a House Elf because he hated him. That's where he violated his own principles. Annemehr From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 00:53:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:53:57 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115138 Alla wrote: > > How about that question? Does Harry, in your opinion has more > compassion than any other character in the "Potterverse?" Carol responds: If I understand you correctly you're suggesting that Harry is the most compassionate character in the books. Is that correct? Without arguing with you, because I do understand and accept Del's distinction between heroism based on the desire to save lives and heroism based on the desire to relieve pain, I'd like to suggest that there are certainly other compassionate characters in the books. One is Molly, almost the only person ever to hug Harry, who just wants to make him feel better after he witnesses the death of Cedric and undergoes the ordeal in the graveyard. Another, rather surprisingly, is McGonagall, who on at least two occasions (IIRC) has tears of compassion in her eyes (e.g., when she allows Harry and Ron to visit the petrified Hermione--ironically, she was only their *excuse* for being out of class.) And Dumbledore, I think, has compassion for Cedric's parents, tactfully referring them to Professor Sprout, "who knew him best." These are all adults who have lived long and suffered losses that are in some ways greater than Harry's loss of the parents he never knew. Certainly, even after witnessing Cedric's murder, he didn't understand Cho's need to cry for Cedric and talk incessantly about him. I think she needed to hear how he died; needed to see Harry grieving for him, too, but Harry couldn't understand or identify with that and did not even explain why he wouldn't or couldn't talk about it. I think the death of Sirius may teach him to feel the grief of others more deeply and help him to express that sympathy. It may also help to increase his compassion for Neville to the point where he's able to tactfully express it. Or so I hope. Carol From sophierom at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 00:57:25 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:57:25 -0000 Subject: Bullying (was: SPOILERS.Re: JKR site update) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115139 > > Aura: > > I think this was an older question, but I noticed that Jo answered > > a q, "What is your advice for kids who are being bullied." Her > > answer is an emphatic, "TELL SOMEONE." So in regards to the "abuse" > > debate that's been going on, it is apparently Jo's opinion that > > Harry was wrong not to tell anyone about Umbridge's detentions, and > > that Neville probably should talk to someone about the anxiety > > Snape has been causing him. (BTW, I agree with the people who said > > that Harry isnt' being particularly abused by Snape, but Neville > > is.) > SSSusan: > I found it interesting that JKR answered that question *not* in > the "About the Books" category, but in the "Other Stuff" category. > JKR's answering this question *is* interesting in light of recent > discussions around here, but I do think it's noteworthy that she's > pulled it to the "Other Stuff" section. I think she's writing to > today's children, living in RL, not *necessarily* equating it to what > our crew is dealing w/ in her fictional WW. Sophierom: Just thought I'd mention that in my perusal of CoS today, I found this quote, which seems relevant to this discussion: CoS, Chapter 11, 186-187 (Am. Ed.) - This scene takes place as Harry looks to create a diversion in potions class so that Hermione can steal from Snape's stores. JKR begins the scene by writing that, "Thursday afternoon's lesson proceeded in the usual way." Later in the scene, just before the diversion is to begin, "Snape paused to sneer at [Harry's] watery potion. When Snape turned and walked off to bully Neville, Hermione caught Harry's eye and nodded." Here JKR uses the word "bully" in conjunction with Neville (for Harry, Snape only "sneers"). And this is supposed to be a "usual" class. Not only does Snape sneer and bully, but he also "prowls" and and makes "waspish remarks" to the Gryffindors while the Slytherins "snigger." (other quotes found in same scene) I think SSSusan makes a good point in that RL bullying can be quite different from the sorts of problems we see in HP. But, I find JKR's use of the verb bully here to be telling. It's only once, true, and she might have simply been looking for a strong very and not thinking about it much. Still, I thought I'd offer it to the discussion because it makes me think she'd agree with Aura and others who see Snape's behavior as bullying and even abusive when it comes to Neville. To the rest of the class, he may be a mean git, sneering and making waspish comments, but to Neville, he's a bully, plain and simple. Sophierom, who apologizes if the message text doesn't end up looking right - I've been having a hard time with that lately, even though I check that little box before hitting send! Sorry. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 02:12:41 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:12:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <20041007195236.37568.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > >> 10. What do you make out of Snape's reaction after > >> Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his > >> office again? > > > > Meri: I know I am one of the many who want to know Snape's > > motivations, but from what I think I understand about him, his > > reaction was almost out of character. snipping my original post Which leads > > me to the conclusion that Snape may have wanted Harry to see that > > memory, either to show Harry what a berk his dad could be, or to > > give Harry a glimpse at the difficulites he himself faced at > > school... > > Magda adds: > Nope, Snape was in a towering rage because he'd started to trust > Harry - he was realizing that he'd been hasty in assuming that Harry > had a pampered upbringing and he had been feeling some empathy (NOT > liking) for Harry. For the first time he didn't assume the worst > about Harry and Harry went right ahead and poked his head literally > where it didn't belong. Really? You think he actually started to trust Harry? Because I can't really see that. IMHO, trust comes part and parcel with respect, and I don't see Snape at all respecting Harry, any more than Harry is respecting or trusting Snape. Just reread all those cracks and sarcastic and caustic remarks Snape made at Harry's expense. And you really think he was trusting the Potter boy, whom he's hated for the last five years? If you can show me canon to back that up, maybe I'll buy it. By all means, make a liar out of me. But the fact is we have no idea why he pulled a nutty. > And Snape blew a head pipe because his trust had been violated. > Which is why he gives Harry the silent treatment in future classes - > honestly, doesn't that sound like what Ron did Hermione when he > thought Crookshanks had eaten Scabbers and he thought Hermione was in > the wrong? Ron gave Hermione the silent treatmeant because he was pissed as hell at her. Yeah, he thought she was wrong, but it was more than that. He was boiling mad at her, too. Snape probably gave Harry the silent treatment for the same reason: an irrational anger. > He certainly didn't want Harry to see those memories because he > thought Harry would find them funny and would take the same view as > James and Sirius did. After all, at Christmas time Sirius called him > Snivellus in front of Harry and I'm sure Snape expected that Sirius > would have told Harry all about how they'd harassed Snape at school. > The last thing he'd want is for Harry to actually SEE them. But why then did he leave the Pensieve out in the open? Snape knows what a busybody Harry is, and surely (though I have no canon to back this up) DD would have mentioned that Harry knows how a Pensieve works and might be tempted to peek. For a guy who locks up his office with myriad spells and spends time prowling the halls, Snape seems peculilarly paraniod about his own personal security. So why on earth did he leave Harry alone in his office with a full Pensieve? It doesn't make sense from what we know of Snape, unless, again, there is some reason that either, a: Harry had to see that memory, or b: Snape could no longer teach him Occlumency, for what ever reason. But Snape actually trusting Harry? Not in a million years. Meri From alex51324 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 02:15:07 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:15:07 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115141 Snip of a very thorough catalogue of Snape appearances: > Ron hopes that Snape is ill, Harry hopes that Snape has left because > he didn't get the DADA position, and then Ron hopes that > Snape's been > sacked. "I mean, everyone hates him," Ron explains. Of > course, Snape > is standing right behind the two of them. In a "very cold > voice" > Snape demands to know why they didn't arrive on the train. I've never noticed this before, but does this snippet remind anyone else of the scene in SS/PS where Ron remarks that Hermione is "a nightmare" and "no one can stand her," and is similarly overheard? You'd think he'd have learned. :) Seriously, though--Snape probably *knows* no one can stand him (like Hermione, he must've noticed), but hearing it may have some effect on his rather out-of-proportion behavior in the following scene. Not being an 11-year-old girl, he tries to get Ron expelled instead of sobbing in the bathroom. Alex From dzeytoun at cox.net Fri Oct 8 02:17:05 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:17:05 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > > Carol notes: > For the record, vengeance is not justice. Merriam-Webster defines > "justice" (in part) as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair > b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : > conformity to this principle or ideal," which forces us to define > "just" (again partially) "2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with > what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS." > > "Vengeance," OTOH, is "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an > injury or offense : RETRIBUTION." > Very good, Carol. I will agree with you that vengeance and justice are not the same thing. Having said that, it does not, in my own opinion, particularly remove my desire to see Snape put in his place firmly and in an entertaining fashion. As Alla has pointed out, vengeance may not be very nice in real life but there's nothing wrong with it in a book (particularly if its well-deserved and juicy). After all, when discussing Snape's behavior, some people constantly point out that Hogwarts is not RL and Snape is not bound by RL expectations. I think it is somewhat inconsistent and very unfair to expect Harry to be bound by RL rules when Snape is not. Actually, if you want my guess as to how this will turn out, I think the whole thing will be moot because Snape will be dead. After all, what would he do after the war? His whole adult life has been dedicated to getting revenge on James and Voldemort. With the one gone and Harry either dead or in ascendency, Snape will be a man leftover from another time. Particularly if he does not change he will be a rather pathetic figure. Now, on the subject of vengeance vs justice, how do you see that in the following situations: 1) The trio vs Draco. The trio are not "properly appointed officials," yet they punish Draco regularly and in an entertaining manner 2) Harry vs Voldemort. Harry has to kill Voldemort. Is that Justice? If it is, how is he the one to carry it out? Harry is not a "properly appointed official." Or do we consider the prophecy, as the voice of God, so to speak, to override existing social and legal arrangements? If so there is probably a brisk trade in fake prophecies. Finally, on the subject of vengeance and justice, I agree that philosophically, theologically, and legally they are two different matters. Having said that, in real life they are rarely, if ever, separate. I once heard, for instance, a superior court judge say that "one legitimate function of the criminal court is to provide a socially approved and controlled form of vengeance." Now, he wasn't speaking from legal theory so much as his personal experience of how the "justice" system actually works and its social and psychological functions in real society. Also I would agree, as I believe you have pointed out and Alla has pointed out, that justice is at root a moral concept. As such, ultimately it parts ways with questions of authority, legitimate or not. As another judge, this one in South Africa, said in the novel A DRY WHITE SEASON "Justice is rooted in heaven. Laws and rules are at best only cousins of justice, and often they are not even on speaking terms. Therefore it is often necessary to appeal to justice above the law." But all of that is separate from the issue of Snape, and I will stand by my belief that if he does not change, some form of humiliating experience in the form of justice and/or vengeance would be entertaining, satisfying, and perfectly appropriate within the bounds of a novel as well as a way of wrapping up that particular conflict. Dzeytoun From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 8 03:31:23 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:31:23 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: <20041007205537.70108.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115143 Magda: > And yet Sirius treats Kreacher as if the elf were capable of changing > after all these years and of being something other than he is: old, > deranged, pathetic and mentally warped. If anything, Sirius should > understand what its like to be a captive in a horrible place and felt > some empathy, even if he didn't like Kreacher at all. Jen: Yes, just as Snape should have put aside his hatred of James and been a better Occlumency teacher, and Harry should have put aside his anger & curiosity and followed through with Dumbledore's orders. If any one of these characters had done as Dumbledore *planned* for them to do, we would have a very different story. As it is, all three failed. And Dumbledore should have realized he was asking more than any of them could give. Dumbledore asked these three to complete almost insurmountable tasks, given their individual pasts and shortcomings. Did any of us believe for a minute that Snape would successfully teach Harry a skill, especially one requiring both parties to set aside strong emotions? Did it ring true that Harry would just follow orders compliantly without any information as to why? Or that Sirius could ignore, or even summon up empathy, for a creature who constantly taunts & belittles him and worships the family he hates? Of course they all *should* have followed orders and put aside personal feelings, but none of them did. And I'm not saying Dumbledore is to blame for everything that went wrong in OOTP. But I do think he remembered the corollary to "know thy enemy" is "know thy friend". As an aside, it's been interesting to read everyone's POV on this thread. I re-read JKR's comments on Sirius tonight and felt a little better about them, could understand her thoughts. It's still hard not to mutter under my breath, "well if Sirius *is* this way it's only because *you* did it to him" but I realize the futility of having imaginary conversations with JKR over a fictional character ;). Jen, laying to rest her JKR/Sirius angst and movin' on. From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 8 03:19:27 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:19:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--Abusive? References: Message-ID: <009001c4ace7$fad4f620$fa59aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115144 Siriusly Snapey Susan Said > I don't want to get into a "But he's justified..." argument about > either Snape OR Harry here, because that's not the point I'm trying > to make. (Both have been at fault, imo, especially if we bring > Occlumency into things.) But Snape is a bright guy, no? Snape is an > insider, no? Snape is also someone who can clearly picture what > Voldy's capable of, no? Then he should comprehend the importance of > Harry learning. Yes, he gets angry understandably when Harry doesn't > try hard enough, but his sarcasm and humiliating remarks and unfair > punishments DON'T do anything to alleviate Harry's attitude; they > only exacerbate it and keep the cycle going. Again, it may be that he *has* to take this tack, and part of his frustration (coming out as sarcasm and sniping) is that he must. Voldemort knows his position and would be suspicious if he found no memories of teaching Harry or Harry's friends in Snape's mind--but he would also be suspicious if he found Snape being a very effective teacher, arming Voldemort's enemy against him. There is a great need for Harry to survive and be equipped against Voldemort; but there is also a great need for a spy in the enemy's camp, which I think Snape is. Until some final confrontation, Harry is just one of the ways "our side" is resisting Voldemort, and Snape is a key and dangerous part of that. His role as a teacher pales beside it. And so, how he teaches may well have needed to be a part of how he does his Order work, rather than the other way around. Snape may have no choice, and *have* to be coding the memories he is, of the way he teaches Harry. This may be another failure of Dumbledore's to explain. If my theories are even partly correct, Snape surely can't clarify, and no one else is likely to know that particular reason for his behavior. ~Amanda From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Oct 8 03:58:52 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:58:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115145 Meri wrote: > But why then did he leave the Pensieve out in the open? Snape > knows what a busybody Harry is, and surely (though I have no canon > to back this up) DD would have mentioned that Harry knows how a > Pensieve works and might be tempted to peek. For a guy who locks > up his office with myriad spells and spends time prowling the > halls, Snape seems peculilarly paraniod about his own personal > security. So why on earth did he leave Harry alone in his office > with a full Pensieve? It doesn't make sense from what we know of > Snape, unless, again, there is some reason that either, a: Harry > had to see that memory, or b: Snape could no longer teach him > Occlumency, for what ever reason. But Snape actually trusting > Harry? Not in a million years. Yb now: YES! And why-oh-why-oh-why did Snape /let/ Harry /see him/ putting memories /in/ the thing to begin with? Surely Snape would have gotten that over with before Harry got there, if he had any sense at all? But no, he has to tkae his memories out while Harry is there /in the room/, then leave the Pensieve not locked in an unbreakable trunk, not stuffed out of sight, out of mind, but on a shelf, out of the way. Is this the Snape we've come to know and loathe? Don't think so! If it was DD's Pensieve (I doubt there are many around, and Harry thought it was DD's), heck, even if DD /knew/ Snape was using a Pensieve, given Harry's nature, surely DD would warn Snape that Harry knew how to work it. Snape /had/ to have known that Harry would be curious. This scene is actually reeking of setup here! Meri's right, there are really only a few options: a) Harry had to see that memory for some reason b) Snape needed an excuse to not teach Harry anymore. c) Something I can't think of. I vote for (b),even though (a) is more plausible. Harry can't worship his father and Sirius forever; he needs to see them as flawed human beings, (and so do the readers), and Harry needs to see that Snape hasn't always been the bully; sometimes he was the victim. Unfortunately, I can't see exactly how this will fit into the plot, unless it's to give Harry some more respect for Snape in the coming books. I prefer (b) because then we wonder "Why?" Why did Snape need an excuse to stop giving Occlumeny lessons? For ESE!Snape fans, maybe he was "softening Harry up" for LV's master plan, and Harry was starting to get too good at Occlumency (or someone feared it was possible). For GoodGuy!Snape fans, maybe Snape needed his evenings free for something else. For me, Snape was just sick of doing it, and needed a good way to get Harry out of there for good. Any way you turn it, it adds to the plot, better than seeing a less-than-saintly James. ~Yb, who is going to eat some ice cream cake and maybe do some work tonight. Or she might goof off again, like normal. From dklopp at ptd.net Thu Oct 7 18:04:39 2004 From: dklopp at ptd.net (Diane Klopp) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:04:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115146 Diane here: This has probably been brought up before, but does anyone think SS and LM are related? They both were in Slytherin House; both pure bloods. In OOoP, page 113 (American version), the family tapestry scene: "The pure-blood families are all interrelated," said Sirius. "If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods your choice is very limited, there are hardly any of us left. Molly and I are cousins by marriage and Arthur's something like my second cousin once removed. But there's no point looking for them on here--if ever a family was a bunch of blood traitors it's the Weasleys." Your thoughts? Diane From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Thu Oct 7 20:58:41 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:58:41 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115147 > Del replies : > Actually, if you look closely, you'll realise that making Ron and > Hermione Prefects does not seem to have brought anything to the > story. You say we learned Hermione has a backbone, but let's be > honest, we'd known that for a *long* time (all the way back to > PS/SS in fact). As for Ron, as you point out, becoming a Prefect > doesn't seem to have had any effect on him. It seems all of it was > almost *useless*. Toto: I'll beg to differ there. I think that if Ron hadn't been made prefect, he may have been harder on Harry and so on: Ron's prefect badge first, and then being on the quidditch team, have helped him accept himself and learn not to "steal" Harry's way of doing things. It helped him mature (not that I like what he is maturing into that much). Another point: To have made them prefect have shown that they have different methods, and do *not* work well as a team. From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 8 04:16:13 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:16:13 -0500 Subject: Anniversary Repost!--Snape, of course (& LONG) Message-ID: <009e01c4aced$8d875620$fa59aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115148 (Amandageist wafts in, distressed. She attempts to wring her hands, can't because she's a vapor, gives it up as a bad job.) I can't believe I *missed* the date! Every year on the anniversary of when I joined the group, I repost my first post, in solidarity with new members who hesitate to float their ideas or address the group. Also because, in light of what goes through my inbox now, I can't believe there was ever a need to ask the question I asked then. Before I show you what a newbie I was, some list history as seen through my anniversary posts. On my first anniversary, 9-16-01, #26162, I said: I joined a list of about 180 members (I think I worked out that I was 182), whose members contained (on a quick scan) such luminaries as Penny, Simon, Jim Ferer, Carole, Jen Piersol, Joy, Ebony, Trina, our beloved Brit car, Catlady, Steve the Lexicon god, Aberforth's Goat, Mlleelizabeth, Peg Kerr, Kelley, Sheryll, the McGee, Pippin, storm, and Cassie. The spinoff group Snapefans would come along on January 1, and Chatter on February 2. Snapefans doesn't even remember where it came from anymore; it was the first, and the naming convention "HFPGU" had not evolved, and so their history was lost as their list owners changed. Chatter came along because a spirited discussion of British food was clogging up the list. We were so *big,* after all! Several *hundred* members! My second anniversary post, #44198, was late (9-18-02). TBAY had been born. And I attempted humor: *Amanda clears her throat pretentiously. There is a flurry of motion as various listmembers recognize the sound--heads bob up, looks of alarm cross faces, and there is a general wave of surreptitious sidling toward the nearest exit. Amy Z and Neil cause a bit of a distraction when both try to get out one door and they become wedged; Cindy pries them out with her paddle and all escape. Penny pretends she hears Elizabeth crying and beats a more dignified retreat. The older TBAYers quietly ease out the door and into the water on inner tubes. Caius puts on his new Inviso-Phones, starts his filks playing, and sits up alertly. The room fills with loud cracks as the list elves remember various tasks needing urgent attention and disappear. The newer listmembers look around, uneasy, and head for the doors themselves, but by this point Amanda has casually waved her wand and they have swung shut. A few remaining Geists hover by the doors and brandish balloons at the crowd, which backs up nervously and turns back to Amanda. She smiles benevolently at her alarmed captive audience and begins speaking.* I actually am two days late, but it gives the interval a nice ring: Two years and two days ago, I posted my first message to this list. Following my tradition, I now re-post it in its entirety. For those of you who consider me a Towering List Presence (sort of like that violet pudding) and an Authority On Stuff, enjoy this window back to my pre-L.O.O.N. days. For those of you who think I'm an idiot and post drivel, enjoy this confirmation. For those of you who have no idea who I am, anyway, and wonder why the hell I'm cluttering up the list, too bad--the doors are locked and you're stuck. ..... So that you may honor them, these are some of the members there to meet me, whose names also now ring through these hallowed halls (or would, if I'd open the doors).....Penny; Simon; Jim Ferer; Jen P; Joywitch; Ebony; Flying Ford Anglia, Catlady; Lexicon Steve; Aberforth's Goat; KelleyElf; Sheryll; and golden faile leap out at me from a quick scan of the list. Two years and more these guys have been listening to me! So you can all just stop complaining. And put your hands down! You can't *all* need to go to the bathroom that bad. *Amanda retires with dignity and feigned deafness, ignoring the cheers and sounds of running feet as she allows the doors to open.* I can't believe that was two years ago I wrote that. I *remember* writing that. My third, #80977, was on time: 9-16-03: It's that time again! (steps back to allow the marching band through, brushes confetti out of hair) Yes....it's time for Amanda's Anniversary Re-Post!!! Control yourselves. In the dim, dark, far-off days, when my children still napped and I was spending money and not earning it, I bought a book on sale, that I had avoided because it was popular. But 30% off, hey. You know the rest. Which brings us to this, my fourth anniversary post. (drumroll) Well, clearly I couldn't think of anything to say, which is why I lifted from the first three. This is no real surprise; I have so little time anymore, for in the four intervening years I have gone from a stay-at-home mom, to a part-time job, to a full-fledged full-time career. But I still try to make time for my first HP love--talking about Snape. As evidenced below, in my Very First Post, #1583, September 17, 2000. [It was not until #1642, on the 18th, that I got around to theorizing that Snape may have loved Lily. Before there was a Bay or a LOLLIPOPS, I was out there in my inner tube...] From: Amanda Lewanski Date: Sat Sep 16, 2000 9:52 pm Subject: Hello, and a question Greeting to the list. I'm new, and I've been group-hopping trying to find the level of discussion I'd like, and you seem to be it. I hope I can contribute items of interest, too. A question---in all the groups I've observed, nobody's talking about Snape. Can I get your thoughts on him? He seems to be such a complex character---any theories (I've got a few) on *why* he stays with the good guys? Why Dumbledore trusts him? Just wondering if you were pondering what I was pondering, Amanda ----------------------------------------- Those who cannot hear the music, think the dancers daft. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 04:23:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:23:19 -0000 Subject: Judgments about Snape-lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115149 Casey wrote: > In the overall view of the books though, Snape is the underdog. Harry is the hero, and by association so are Ron, Hermione and Neville. Snape is the one hated and mistrusted. That qualifies as an underdog to me. Carol responds: I agree with you, and would venture to guess that your view is something like what Matt had in mind when he used the term. (Matt, please correct me if I'm wrong.) To expand a little, I think that some readers (I'm one) tend to develop an an attachment to certain characters that they think other readers will dislike or undervalue or misinterpret, seeing the character as somehow in need of defense or protection--but only if they are not not really evil or not wholly evil. (I've yet to see anyone regard Voldemort or Umbridge with this sort of affection.) Boromir in LOTR or Shylock in "Merchant of Venice" are examples of such hero-villain "underdogs." Or the character could just be a good guy who's underappreciated, like Starbuck in "Moby Dick," who gets (IMHO) nowhere near the attention from critics that he deserves. Some HP fans latch onto Sirius or Molly or even Ron for similar reasons, if I'm not mistaken--*not* that these characters are evil, but they have faults and consequently they have both detractors and defenders who feel a need, even a compulsion, to protect them from their detractors, just as Snapefans rally to Snape's defense.) Even historical figures who have been the victims of smear campaigns can fill this "underdog" role (as members of the Richard III Society can testify). Maybe "underdog" is not the right word for what I'm trying to convey--a sense that a favorite character is "picked on." ("Poor Ron! Always second to Harry, always in somebody's shadow. Why does everybody criticize him?") Anyone have a better word for this concept or phenomenon or whatever it is? Carol, wondering if Kreacher has any defenders or only detractors From siskiou at vcem.com Fri Oct 8 04:27:52 2004 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:27:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <132636385.20041007212752@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115150 Hi, Thursday, October 7, 2004, 1:58:41 PM, totorivers wrote: > I'll beg to differ there. I think that if Ron hadn't been made > prefect, he may have been harder on Harry and so on: Ron's prefect > badge first, and then being on the quidditch team, have helped him > accept himself and learn not to "steal" Harry's way of doing things. > It helped him mature (not that I like what he is maturing into that > much). I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about this. How do you think Ron would have been "harder on Harry" and how does Ron "steal Harry's way of doing things"in general? And what is he maturing into, that you don't like? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 04:35:34 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:35:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: Yb wrote: > If it was DD's Pensieve (I doubt there are many around, > and Harry thought it was DD's), heck, even if DD /knew/ > Snape was using a Pensieve, given Harry's nature, surely > DD would warn Snape that Harry knew how to work it. Snape > /had/ to have known that Harry would be curious. This > scene is actually reeking of setup here! > > Meri's right, there are really only a few options: > a) Harry had to see that memory for some reason > b) Snape needed an excuse to not teach Harry anymore. > c) Something I can't think of. > For 'c', how about... Lord Voldemort is privy to the contents of Harry's brain. If it was a setup, maybe it wasn't to show Harry the memory, but just to feed it to Voldemort through him, mudblood comment and all, to help get Snape back in as a spy? I mean, if you look at things from a tactical POV, Harry is now officially a HUGE security risk! They have to assume everything Harry's figured out, Voldemort *might* know. --Frugalarugala, catering to all your conspiracy theory needs From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 04:44:51 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:44:51 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy related? (was: Snape and Lucius ages) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115152 Diane wrote: Diane here: This has probably been brought up before, but does anyone think SS and LM are related? They both were in Slytherin House; both pure bloods. In OOoP, page 113 (American version), the family tapestry scene: "The pure-blood families are all interrelated," said Sirius. "If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods your choice is very limited, there are hardly any of us left. Molly and I are cousins by marriage and Arthur's something like my second cousin once removed. But there's no point looking for them on here--if ever a family was a bunch of blood traitors it's the Weasleys." Your thoughts? Dharma replies: It could be possible, but I think that might have missed something. It is not clear to me that Snape is a pureblood Wizard. From what I can gather, we can eliminate the possibility of him being a Muggleborn Wizard. Unless I've missed something, the possibility of Snape being a half-blood Wizard still exists. Beyond the bloodline issue since at least one of Snape's parents was pureblood, it suggests the possibility that he is related to the Malfoys. It's not a certainty in my mind. However, if they were related, it would not shock me. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Oct 8 05:43:00 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 01:43:00 EDT Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) Message-ID: <1d9.2d18126e.2e9782e4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115153 Sophierom recounted this Snape moment: > After McGonagall has told the staff that it was Ginny, Lockhart comes > banging into the meeting, late, but "he didn't seem to notice > that the > other teachers were looking at him with something remarkably like > hatred." Snape steps forward and tells Lockhart to go search for > Ginny since he'd been complaining that he'd not gotten a > chance to get > the monster before Hagrid's arrest. Lockhart runs off to his > office, > and McGonagall, relieved, says, "that's got him[italics] from > under > our feet." All of the rest of the teachers head back to their > houses > to prepare the students for an early departure from Hogwarts. > I just have to note Snape's actual words to Lockhart. Snape says, "Just the man. The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chamber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." At which Lockhart blanches. And after Lockhart tries to protest, the rest of the professors gang up on him, playing back his various boasts about knowing the location of the Chamber and how to fight the monster. Eventually Lockhart is sent off by McGonagall to dispatch the monster. The whole scene is a great moment of the professors working together to take down Lockhart, cleverly instigated by Snape. That's definitely one of my favorite Snape moments! And thanks, Sophie, for cataloguing Snape's behavior for us :-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 05:56:29 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:56:29 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115154 Dharma wrote: > "Snivellus" was also very clear to me upon first reading. The name implied very strongly to me someone who was borderline cowardly and likely to blither and whine in an annoying way. > Potioncat responded: > I know better, but I'm going to anyway. > > I'm going to add one more item to this fascinating discussion of the > nuances of "snivelling." Never would have noticed it, but it jumped > out at me on the plane to SC. > > SS/PS chpt 3 > Vernon has been driving all over creation, they've stayed in a hotel > one night Dudley has just asked if his father has gone mad. (Dudley > is 11 years old): > > It started to rain. Great drops beat on the roof of the car. Dudley > sniveled. > > "It's Monday," he told his mother. "The great Humberto's on > tonight. I want to stay somewhere with a television." > > Carol adds: Great illustration of some very *un*Snapelike behavior on Dudley's part! I doubt very much that Severus at eleven was a spoiled whiner like Dudley. (Imagine the reaction of the harsh, hook-nosed wizard father glimpsed in the Occlumency lesson to such behavior.) The nickname does not fit what we've seen of Severus as boy or man, even in his worst outbursts of temper, and quite possibly it means nothing at all. It could be just a nasty, mean name that resembles "Severus," which James and Sirius pinned on him to show their contempt for "a little oddball up to his eyes in the Dark Arts," who was neither rich and athletic like James nor rich and handsome like Sirius. Skinny, pale, studious types are seldom popular, especially if they can outhex those who annoy them (when they're not caught offguard and outnumbered). It would not help, either, if the Gryffindor/Slytherin rivalry that we see in Harry's time also existed twenty years earlier that Severus Snape was the quintessential Slytherin--ambitious, cunning, and indoctrinated in the pureblood ethic. Could that be, maybe, what James meant by hating him "because he exists"? Hating him not for what he had done ("snivelling" on some forgotten occasion) but for what he *was*, by birth and by training? And would not such a dislike of someone he perceives as the antithesis of himself qualify as prejudice? (Notice, btw, that James's dislike of Severus seems very casual and offhand, something he has not thought out or even questioned until Lily asks him what Snape has ever done to him, a question for which he has no valid answer. Sirius's hatred of Severus, however, is virulent and personal. In fact, James hexes Severus for Sirius's entertainment, for no better reason than that his best friend is bored. It's as if Severus is not a person to him but an object to be manipulated.) But I'm getting offtrack here. To return to the point, there's no indication that the nickname has any basis for existence other than its sound. We don't see Severus "snivelling" in the Pensieve scene even though his gang has evidently graduated and left him on his own, the accidental consequence of making friends older than himself. He's always known lots of hexes and probably could have defended himself quite adequately against any teenage aggressor had he not been caught off guard, with two against one. I suggested earlier that perhaps "Snivellus" is no more meaningful than Draco's "Potty and the Weasel" or Peeves's "Potty Wee Potter," but it's nastier and it stuck--not because it's appropriate but because the Marauders liked it and repeated it and because it alliterates so nicely with Snape. Sirius is so addicted to using it that he still does so at age 35, long after he should have outgrown such childish behavior. We have no evidence that anyone other than James and Sirius ever used that name (except Lily when she's angry with him for calling her a "mudblood." She calls James a "toerag" in that same scene). Lupin, in contrast, calls Snape "Severus" both before and after he's reunited with Sirius in PoA, almost as if he's atoning for his old friends' rudeness--and his own weakness in not opposing them. (Interestingly, none of the four Marauders uses the nickname when the map insults Professor Snape in PoA. And whether Wormtail ever used it, aping his idol James, is immaterial. It could more aptly have been used for *him.*) One side note. The perception that the young Snape was "clearly unpopular" is Harry's (via the limited omniscient narrator). Note that only *a few* students are cheering (possibly fellow Gryffindors or James worshippers?). Others look apprehensive, as if, like Remus, they're uncomfortable with what's happening but afraid or unwilling to speak out against the popular James and the handsome, arrogant Sirius. And I very much doubt that the scene would have happened at all if the older members of Snape's gang, Bellatrix and the Lestrange boys and the rest, had been present to more than even the odds. (I wonder, BTW, who the Slytherin prefect was and why he didn't take away points from Sirius and James. Could it have been Severus himself, fighting back rather than docking points? Will we ever learn the answers?) Carol, not at all sure that this is a coherent post but hoping it makes *some* sense! From erinellii at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 06:30:33 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:30:33 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115155 > Finwitch wrote: So now we have 10-year-old Bill, 8-year-old Charlie, 5-year-old Percy, 3-year-old twins, 1-year-old Ron and baby Ginny. There's the baby, the schooling of the three eldest and the mischievous twins to take away most of Molly's attention. Is this the year when the infamous Fred turning Ron's teddybear into a spider happened? Erin: It is not. Ron tells Harry and Hermione he was three when Fred changed his teddy bear into a spider. Making the twins five... still a remarkably young age for such a feat. I wonder about that incident sometimes. Ron makes it sound as though Fred did it deliberately in revenge, with malice aforethought. I suppose it could have been wandless magic of the sort we've seen small children display, but it seems awfully advanced for wandless magic. Bill would have been in second year at the time. Perhaps it was during a holiday and Fred somehow got ahold of Bill's wand? Erin From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Fri Oct 8 06:46:00 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:46:00 -0000 Subject: About Ron ( was OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: <132636385.20041007212752@vcem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115156 > totorivers wrote: > > > I'll beg to differ there. I think that if Ron hadn't been made > > prefect, he may have been harder on Harry and so on: Ron's prefect > > badge first, and then being on the quidditch team, have helped him > > accept himself and learn not to "steal" Harry's way of doing things. > > It helped him mature (not that I like what he is maturing into that > > much). > > Susanne wrote: > I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about this. > > How do you think Ron would have been "harder on Harry" and > how does Ron "steal Harry's way of doing things"in general? > > And what is he maturing into, that you don't like? > I think I understand what Totorivers means with the phrase "harder on Harry". Imagine the scenario where Harry and Hermione were prefects. Normally Ron would feel jealousy as any other person in his position but with one great difference. Ron has proved in GOF that jealousy "OVERWHELMS" him and when happens that he acts in a rather "UNFRIENDLY" way towards the person he is jealous of. Can you imagine what would happen in OOTP with the combination of a jealous-driven Ron and a short-tempered Harry. Probably World War III. This part of Ron's personality although understandable from a certain point of view is also very dangerous. The obsessive although "UNDERCURRENT" pursuit of wealth and fame combine with the envy is a flaw which "MAY" be used by a master of the dark arts like LV in order to turn that person in the dark side. Don't get me wrong, I don't condemn Ron. Ron has good qualities and he is a "GOOD" friend of HP. But that does not mean we will turn a blind eye to his flaws. Best Regards from sun-bathed Greece, Paul From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 06:52:45 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:52:45 -0000 Subject: Chapt. 28 Discussion: Snape, Harry, & Trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115157 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > wrote: > Magda adds: > > Nope, Snape was in a towering rage because he'd started to trust > > Harry - ... and he had been feeling some empathy (NOT liking) for > > Harry. For the first time he didn't assume the worst about Harry > > and Harry ... poked his head literally where it didn't belong. > Meri comments: > > Really? You think he actually started to trust Harry? Because I > can't really see that. ... you really think he was trusting the > Potter boy, whom he's hated for the last five years? If you can show > me canon to back that up, maybe I'll buy it. > > ...edited... > > Meri bboyminn: This is a sticky issue because what has happened between Snape and Harry is very subtle and subconscious at this point. While Magda did say 'trust', which I suspect she meant in the most general way, she (assumed as a she) tried to clarify by saying 'empathy'. I think Harry and Snape now have a deeper understanding of each other, and while Snape may not have literally gained trust for Harry, he did let his guard down. I think Snape and Harry now do share a degree of empathy for each other. They both know exactly what it's like to be humiliated in front of a crowd of people. They both know what it's like to be tormented for the entertainment of others. They share a common bond created by their common experience. Again, this is all very subconscious at this point. As far as canon to back up this point when Harry is talking to Sirius and Remus about what he saw in the Pensieve, Harry says with a noticable degree of discomfort that he never thought he would feel sorry for Snape. I believe Snape had similar feelings. Again, very subconscious feelings. I think once Harry and Snape get over the /hurt/ they suffered in OotP, they will emerge with a subtle unspoken begrudging mostly subconscious respect for each other. While there will never be any great love between them, I believe they will reach the point where they will be able to functionally work together without it constantly turning into a battle royal. So Magda may have been a little off in using the word 'trust', but I think she still illustrated an aspect of the change in the Harry/Snape dynamic, and that shift in dynamic was reflected in Snape's response to the Pensieve incident. Snape, to some degree, has allowed himself to feel sorry for Harry, and that caused him to lower his guard. Just as he was allowing himself to be a little more open to Harry, Harry betrayed Snape in an extreme way. That 'trust' betrayal amplified what would have been substantial anger on Snape's part under any circumstances into the extreme fury we saw. So, again, in a very limited way, I think Snape will get over that violation of his privacy, and Harry will get over blaming Snape for Sirius's death. They will both see, to a limited degree, that neither is who the other thought they were. Snape is very very much /not/ nice, but he is very good, and Harry is not James. While Harry may have bent a rule or two, he has never been as arogant, mean-spirited, or cruel as James was. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 8 06:55:08 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:55:08 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115158 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Del: > Uh, Geoff, you do realise that you are actually adding to my side of > the argument, don't you ;-) ? > > Because according to what you say, Harry would not have noticed if > Dean or Seamus had shined in something he, Harry, was not interested > in. In fact, Harry's interaction with those boys is a quite clear > illustration of what you say : they are all in the same class, they > sleep in the same dorm, but we don't see that Harry knows either of > them very well beyond that (and vice versa). Geoff: Now why did I anticipate a reply from you along this line? :-) Perhaps I didn't expand my argument far enough. I would have known someone who perhaps got mention in, say, school assembly for being good at football or having achieved a prize at the annual Speech Day. I might recognise someone who travelled into school on the same bus each day but I often didn't not know their name. I would realise that they were from the same school but even in a school of 500, knowing more than a few dozen would be would be stretching things. I don't think that Harry is being particularly insensitive here. I think it's a case of gathering and processing information as it is needed. Speaking with my teacher's hat on, when I first started, I took the entire First Year fairly regularly and most of the Second Year so, after a couple of years in post, I knew everybody in a school of 600 but, as time went on and the roll grew to 800 and I no longer took everybody, I didn't know many people except by sight and, when in later days, I was seeing a class for IT perhaps once a week, I couldn't claim to be familiar with every face in each class. Does that mean I am not interested in them? No. In my church, which is a reasonably large one by UK standards, We have had a fair number of people come into membership in the last year or two. I cannot claim to always know the name of each one although I have heard it mentioned. It's back to coping with the flow of information and dealing with it in the time available and the priority it demands. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 06:55:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:55:19 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115159 > > happy relief. Maybe it will simply lead to Snape dropping one of > his > > guards and revealing a little more of his true self to us. dzeytoun wrote: > I would agree with this if Snape's projection were a *conscious* process -- i.e. if he were thinking,"this boy is too much like me for his own good, I have to fix that." However, projection is an *unconscious* process. Therefore I'm not sure that defying projection and expectation, even in a positive way, would ncessarily provoke such a positive response as "tears of joy" or "wry relief." I am more inclined to think it would create confusion - which would fall under your definition of something we haven't seen before. That is, I can readily see defiance from Neville at least momentarily leaving Snape afloat and not knowing what to do. That can then lead in at least two directions. It could undermine Snape's assumptions and easy confidence that he knows what he's doing, opening the way to change. Or, in that having your assumptions challenged is an acutely painful process, it could simply lead to a massive negative reaction creating a downward spiral in Snape's behavior. > > Either way, it would be interesting and extremely amusing to see. Carol responds: To begin with, I'm wholly unable to imagine Neville defying any teacher and I can't think of any form of defiance of a teacher by a pupil which would be considered appropriate within the WW. It would be much better for Neville, IMO, simply to demonstrate competence in Snape's class (in the unlikely event that he finds himself in NEWT Potions). Follow directions, don't cringe or tremble, don't melt your cauldron, and you won't get picked on. But assuming that Neville were to talk back to Snape or refuse to follow directions or some other uncharacteristic behavior that could serve no purpose except to annoy Snape and confirm his bad opinion of Neville, I can easily picture Snape's reaction. No tears, no wry grin, no confusion--just a cold, blank stare and a silky "Ten points from Gryffindor, Longbottom. And if you speak again, it will be detention." Carol From kethryn at wulfkub.com Fri Oct 8 04:22:55 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 00:22:55 -0400 Subject: Snape--A Spy? (was Re Snape - Abusive) References: <009001c4ace7$fad4f620$fa59aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: <003a01c4acee$7ebb1400$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115160 Amanda said - There is a great need for Harry to survive and be equipped against Voldemort; but there is also a great need for a spy in the enemy's camp, which I think Snape is. Kethryn - I finished rereading GoF Wednesday, I think (it's been a hell of a week, what with midterms and all), and I am in the middle of a reread of OotP (just so you know where the question is coming from). Ok, so if Snape really was spying on the DE which I believe he was doing so, then why on earth did he tell Fudge about being a DE himself at the end of GoF? Not that I suspected that Fudge would tell Voldemort or anything like that, seeing as he was so busy in trying to cover it all up, but Fudge? Bumbling, incompetent, irrational Fudge? Especially since Snape knew about Bertha at that point, that, to me, makes the information he (Snape) divulged all the more unlikely to be told to anyone in the Ministry. So I am very confused as to why Snape a) actually bothered to try to make Fudge see the truth (colossal waste of time) and b) why he would think anyone in the Ministry was trustworthy. If it were me and I was spying on Voldemort, I would want to be able to count, on one hand (preferably on one finger) exactly how many people knew what I was doing. Talk about need to know information... Kethryn From laura_clapham2002 at yahoo.com.au Fri Oct 8 06:02:51 2004 From: laura_clapham2002 at yahoo.com.au (laura_clapham2002) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:02:51 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115161 > > Del replies : > > Actually, if you look closely, you'll realise that making Ron and > > Hermione Prefects does not seem to have brought anything to the > > story. You say we learned Hermione has a backbone, but let's be > > honest, we'd known that for a *long* time (all the way back to > > PS/SS in fact). As for Ron, as you point out, becoming a Prefect > > doesn't seem to have had any effect on him. It seems all of it was > > almost *useless*. Princess Laura now: My feelings regarding the whole prefect storyline is that one 'use' of it was to increase Harry's feeling's of isolation and being different and misunderstood, which I feel is a theme of the whole of OOP. Whereas they have been a Trio before, now there are plenty of times for Ron and Hermione to be some sort of a Duo (not in a shipping sense :)). If you look at the relationships between the three of them, while Harry has had fights with both Ron and Hermione at different times he has never been alone, whereas in OOP he is in some senses. He feels excluded and misunderstood by both R and H at several stages and I feel the prefect plot line adds to this. By the end of OOP Harry's sense of being different and alone are at an all time high, learning about his kill or be killed role, however these feelings have been developing for Harry throughout the year. Another thought - R and H as prefects also sets the stage for Harry to spend more time with other characters, for example on the train at the beginning of the year, and gives these characters more 'air-time' so to speak. Just my two knuts, Princess Laura From kjones at telus.net Fri Oct 8 05:25:42 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:25:42 -0700 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416624D6.5030609@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115162 > Yb now: > > Meri's right, there are really only a few options: > a) Harry had to see that memory for some reason > b) Snape needed an excuse to not teach Harry anymore. > c) Something I can't think of. > > > I prefer (b) because then we wonder "Why?" Why did Snape > need an excuse to stop giving Occlumeny lessons? For > ESE!Snape fans, maybe he was "softening Harry up" for > LV's master plan, and Harry was starting to get too > good at Occlumency (or someone feared it was possible). > For GoodGuy!Snape fans, maybe Snape needed his evenings > free for something else. Kathy: I think that Dumbledore has some kind of plan requiring Harry to be further exposed to the mind of Voldemort, which would explain his "look of triumph". I also think that Snape disapproves, cannot just refuse Dumbledore, and has used a very successful reason to prevent the continuation of the occlumency lessons. It worked and Dumbledore bought it. I think the lessons were making Harry worse. KJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 07:45:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:45:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115163 > Alla wrote: > > > 10. What do you make out of Snape's reaction after Pensieve fiasco? Will he ever want to see Harry in his office again? > > Hannah wrote: I don't think he *wanted* to see Harry in his office in the first place :-) Of all the times Snape loses control, IMO this is when he loses it most. In fact, I would argue it's the only time he > really loses his rag (the PoA scene with Fudge doesn't ring true to > me). > > I think he was actually beginning to trust Harry just a little bit > more, and that was why he left him in the office, with the > pensieve. That Harry betrayed that trust made it feel much, much > worse for Snape. > > Snape reacts hysterically. He's white and shaking, he physically > attacks Harry (which isn't in character), and his cry of 'get out, > get out!' sounds as distressed as it is angry. He throws that jar > of cockroaches, not to hit Harry, but because he is in such a state > that he has to take his frustration out on something, and he throws > the jar as opposed to seriously injuring Harry. > > The impression I've always had of Snape's reaction is that he's not > just angry, he's upset. I think that he completely broke down once > Harry was out of that office. We don't know why he has such an > extreme reaction to that memory, as we don't know what happened > afterwards. If James really did remove his pants, for a man like > Snape the humilation would probably be as traumatic as anything he > witnessed as a DE. Carol responds: I agree that the violation of his tentative and fragile trust of Harry made his reaction much worse than it would have been the previous year (when he believed that Harry had stolen potion ingredients out of his office). He expected to come back to a closed and empty office and instead found Harry violating his privacy and witnessing his humiliation. Of course he's furious, and as other posters have pointed out, he throws Harry *from* him, as if he's afraid he'll do more than sheke him if he's too near. But does he actually *throw* the cockroaches? IIIRD, the jar bursts over Harry's head as he's leaving. I wonder if it was an instance of involuntary wandless magic like Harry blowing up Aunt Marge. (And Snape will have to deal with the escaped cockroaches after he's gone--surely if he'd thrown something he'd have chosen a different object?) If so, Snape's fury is genuine, not a performance for Harry's benefit as some posters have suggested. And of course he has no idea that Harry felt compassion after witnessing that scene. Instead he's back to his view that Harry is James reincarnated--a sad and ironic misunderstanding all around. And yet Snape tried yet again to rescue Harry, searching for him in the forest and contacting the Order to tell them he'd gone to the MoM. Maybe the breach isn't irreparable even now. Carol From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 07:50:41 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:50:41 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus (Was: Harry not a Prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115164 > Del wrote: In fact, Harry's interaction with those boys is a quite clear > illustration of what you say : they are all in the same class, they > sleep in the same dorm, but we don't see that Harry knows either of > them very well beyond that (and vice versa). That's even why I'm so > annoyed for his getting angry at Seamus because the boy believes his > mom : Harry seems to expect Seamus to believe him instead, even though > they are no more than classmates, far from friends. But that's another > matter entirely. Finwitch now: Actually, I'm not at all annoyed with Harry. They *do* share a dorm. They *do* share classes. This means that 1) Seamus must have seen enough to know that Harry is NOT insane, or at least enough for reasonable doubt, and never mind what his mother who has never so much as met Harry says based on hearsay of others who don't know Harry either. 2) friends or not, a housemate should at least take 'innocent until proven guilty' -approach. Particularly as we know how Harry himself does take all the trouble for proper evidence in case of Draco Malfoy, who is NOT a housemate and definately not a friend, even when he firmly believes Draco's the Heir of Slytherin... Can't Harry expect *that* much from his housemate? To at least ASK Harry before jumping into conclusions/believing nasty rumours? 3)There's also the matter of Sirius. Even while harry thought it WAS Sirius' fault, he asked first and assumed there had been a trial before he went to jail. There wasn't one. Harry *knows* the truth, that Sirius didn't do it! So when Seamus' mother (and Seamus by not standing up to her) condemn Harry without trial, without a chance to speak for himself - deep down, it's the *same* thing that happened to Sirius. Condemned for something you're not guilty of. Besides, Harry was freed of all charges in the trial he DID have. IMO, Harry has every right to get angry at Seamus. (more for Seamus' mother, but I don't count Seamus as a completely innocent bystander in this either.) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 07:59:13 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:59:13 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: > > Erin: > It is not. Ron tells Harry and Hermione he was three when Fred > changed his teddy bear into a spider. Making the twins five... still > a remarkably young age for such a feat. > > I wonder about that incident sometimes. Ron makes it sound as though > Fred did it deliberately in revenge, with malice aforethought. I > suppose it could have been wandless magic of the sort we've seen > small children display, but it seems awfully advanced for wandless > magic. Bill would have been in second year at the time. Perhaps it > was during a holiday and Fred somehow got ahold of Bill's wand? > Finwitch: Maybe. That might be the reason why Bill gave his old wand to one of the twins, as he *knew* that at least Fred can make use of it. Anyway, wand or not, Fred obviously has talent for transfiguration... Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 08:23:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 08:23:06 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" wrote: > > "dungrollin" wrote: > > I've found this thread very interesting, but can't help but wonder > how many other degrogatory nicknames can be made from 'Severus'... > > I can't think of any. > > On the basis of that, it seems to me a mite odd to infer a huge > amount from Snivellus. I somehow don't think JKR came up with the > nickname and then cast around for a name for Snape that would fit > it... > > Anyone more creative than me? > > Dungrollin > > Dharma replies: > > Kids are creative in their cruelty and lack of respect for one > another in many instances. I could certainly imagine nicknames like: > > Severe Headache > Severe Pain > Sneakerus > Slimypuss > Slimerus > Servilerus > Whimperus > Gitterus > Cowardus > Odorus > Skulkerus > Slitherus > Blunderus > Confunderous > Oblivious > Nausea-us > > I'm not sure that any other nickname could convey so many interesting negative character traits at once. Snivel conveys a particular kind of obsequiousness to me that most other words don't. I've always speculated that the nickname Snivellus was someone how tied to his relationship with Lucius. I'm guessing that Severus had an attachment to Lucius at school that was similar to the attachment Peter had to James. Carol, amused in spite of herself, responds; Except for one key point. Peter was the same age as the other Maruaders. Lucius Malfoy is five or six years older than Snape--a big boy condescending to allow a little one to join his gang as a sort of hanger on. He must have been impressed with Severus's precocious knowledge of hexes. (I still say that the chief significance of the nickname Snivellus is that it's both alliterative and vicious, and Sirius (who's inordinately fond of it) seems to me more likely than James to have coined it. Slitherus would have worked almost as well because it suggests Slytherin and snake--but Slitherus Snape is a bit of a tongue twister, and it doesn't have the connotations of a runny nose and whimpering that would appeal to the eleven-year-old Sirius. As for obsequiousness, I think that fits with "lapdog" rather than "Snivellus"--in other words, with the deliberately distorted perception of an adult looking back at another adult's childhood. (Of course, Sirius--or James--could have been older than eleven when he invented of the name, but it strikes me as being of long-standing. James uses it carelessly and Sirius viciously, but Severus is by that time Snivellus to them just as they are Prongs and Padfoot to each other. More so, because they use "Snivellus" publicly. It's not clear whether they did the same with MWPP, which could not have existed till three of the four became animagi, anyway. It's 1:15 a.m. and I'm probably typing nonsense, so I think I'll go to bed. Carol From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 09:19:21 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:19:21 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & The DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115167 > Laurasia: > > Ron clearly doesn't care about maintaining order or upholding the > rules or decorating the school (to promote school spirit) or even > mentoring younger students because he complains about it all and is > dismissive towards the midgets. Why then was he so stoked to become > a prefect? Finwitch: Ron did maintain order at least once, mainly between Seamus&Harry. We don't know what else he does for prefect duties, since Harry's not there. As to why Ron loves being Prefect-- well, because his Mom shows him very positive attention for it. Also, it's usually amog prefects the Head Boy is chosen from, and considering Ron's desire (as shown by the Mirror of Erised in PS) has him as both Head Boy and Quidditch Captain, holding the House Cup(or was it Quidditch Cup), adored by his Mother, with the absence of his siblings. (who have all but Ginny left Hogwarts by now), he certainly does wish for it. And it's not like he never complained about something he really liked. It's a show Ron puts on subconciously. Partly to make Harry feel better about not being chosen, partly because Fred&George wouldn't like it if he showed off with pride for the position. Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 8 10:21:22 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:21:22 -0400 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice Message-ID: <002701c4ad20$8fc1ad90$0ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115168 Del said: > Don't forget that you're talking about someone who doesn't even know > the name of someone he's had a common class with for several years > (Theo Nott). In general terms, we could say that unless someone shines > in something that interests Harry, he simply won't notice them. Geoff replied: "That is an assumption which could be wrong. I've been trying to locate a message I wrote on this very point some while ago when I pointed out that when I was in my grammar school, I didn't know everyone in a group necessarily." DuffyPoo: OotP "If anything more was needed to complete Harry's happiness, it was the reaction he got from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. He saw them with their heads together later that afternoon in the library; they were with a weedy-looking boy Hermione whispered was called Theodore Nott." Obviously Harry didn't know his name or Hermione wouldn't have had to tell him. Harry's lack of knowledge about other kids in his house/classes has always sort of bothered me. At the most, using the number in HP's year, there are 70 kids in Gryffindor house, and a maximum of 20 kids in any class when two classes are together. Yet HP doesn't know their names? This boggles my mind. Harry's been in Potions class with the Slytherin ten for five years and Care of Magical Creatures for three, and he doesn't even know this kid's first name? I knew the names of every kid in my home form (which was made up of all 5 grades) in high school, and there were more than 20 for sure. I may not have known them all personally, but I knew their names at least. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 10:31:18 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:31:18 -0000 Subject: Remember my last:: SPOILER Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115169 I was frantically trying to catch up with back posts (I'm drowning! I'm drowning!) when I came across this statement, which I cannot let pass. Finwitch: If Petunia never applied to a Muggle school, expecting a Hogwarts letter, it may explain why she ended up as a house-wife instead of having a work of her own. Soory, but this is a damned patronising attitude to t ake towards women who elect to be stay-at-home Mums. Do you really think the job of bringing up children is suitable only for the uneducated? My husband and I decided that I should give up my job while the children were small. It was a job I loved (teaching) and it meant considerable sacrifices, but I never regretted it. Nor did I ever allow anyone to call me "just a housewife". I am a great believer in the old adage: Educate a boy and you educate a man: Educate a girl and you educate a family. Admitted Petunia doesn't make a marvellous job of bringing up Dudley but Molly is also, as far as we know, "just a housewife" and I think she's made a brilliant job of bringing up her kids. Sylvia (not getting at you specially, Finwitch, but I've had to put up with a lot of crap from other people on this subject) From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 10:36:44 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:36:44 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alina Chimanovitch wrote: > > "I tell you, we're going to win that Quidditch cup for sure this year," > > said Fred. "We haven't won since Charlie left, but this year's team is > > going to be brilliant. You must be good, Harry, Wood was almost skipping > > when he told us." Alina: > I'm reaching here, but the chronology would still fit if we say that > Fred meant they haven't won a quidditch match since Charlie left, > rather than the Quidditch Cup. That way, the last time a Gryffindor > team won could still be seven years ago. Finwitch: Indeed. Charlie was in his last year the year before Harry & Ron came along. That was also Fred&George's second year, and the FIRST YEAR they were in the team! And one point: indeed they haven't won a Quidditch match 'since Charlie left', particularly if there wasn't a game to be won! (A joke, but this IS Fred Weasley saying that, and when ever did a Weasley twin pass an opportunity for a joke?) In part, Fred was also raising Harry into the winning team spirit. Charlie *may* have left the team to study for his NEWTS before last match, or even school to study dragons (maybe he had to leave early to get that position of his chosen career? Why wouldn't he give priority to his new job?). Sure, Molly wouldn't like that sort of thing - but I doubt she liked Bill moving into Egypt after school, either. (I think Bill gave his old wand to the other twin just starting school partly to sooth her - and Charlie followed his example when Ron began at Hogwarts.). Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 8 10:50:24 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:50:24 -0400 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore Message-ID: <002b01c4ad24$9e3ef310$0ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115171 There has been lots of speculation the last few days about the 'previous' letters Petunia received from DD prior to 'the last' which was left with Harry. Speculation that one of these letters was about what really happened to Lily and James the night they were killed. This letter would have had to arrive (by owl?) in the 30 hour period between the attack and the time Petunia found HP on the doorstep "not knowing he would be woken in a few hours' time by Mrs Dursley's scream as she opened the front door." Also, if DD sent this letter to tell Petunia what 'really' happened to Lily and James, despite what she might read in the papers, why did she say "and then, if you please, she went and got herself *blown up* and we got landed with you!"? There is no indication in any of the books that an AK 'blows up' anyone. Cedric, who we *know* was AK'd, was perfectly recognizable "lying spread-eagle on the ground beside him. He was dead." Others, who we believe to have been AK'd - the three Riddles - all looked perfectly normal as well, just dead. While DD may have sent a letter to Petunia previous to the one he left with HP, he either didn't make himself clear, she didn't understand what he said, or it wasn't about James and Lily's deaths at all. In the first chapter of PS there is quite a conversation between Vernon and Petunia that would, I think, squash the speculation on a letter of this kind: "Er -- Petunia, dear -- you haven't heard from your sister lately, have you?" "No," she said sharply, "Why?" "Funny stuff on the news," Mr. Dursley mumbled. "Owls ... shooting stars .. and ther were a lot of funny-looking people in town today ..." "So?" snapped Mrs. Dursley. "Well, I just thought .. maybe .. it was something to do with .. you know .. *her lot*." Mrs. Dursley sipped her tea through pursed lips. Mr. Dursley wondered whether he dared tell her he'd heard the name 'Potter'. He decided he didn't dare. Instead he said, as casually as he could, "Their son -- he'd be about Dudley's age now, wouldn't he?" "I suppose so, " said Mrs. Dursley stiffly. "What's his name again? Howard, isn't it?" "Harry. Nasty common name, if you ask me." "Oh, yes," said Mr. Dursley, his heart sinking horribly. "Yes, I quite agree." ..... "Mrs. Dursley fell asleep quickly but Mr. Dursley lay awake, turning it all over in his mind." Petunia, although she would have known all about this IF she had received the letter from DD, certainly doesn't appear to know anything about it, and drops off quickly to sleep. On an aside, but part of this, I guess, in OotP DD says: "My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters -- and many of them are almost as terrible as he -- were still at large, angry, desperate and violent." Yet he left baby-Harry, out in the open, on a doorstep, prior to any protective charm taking effect, on a night when it was supposed to rain, for five or six hours? DuffyPoo - who has a head cold so if any of this sounds garbled, that is why. And if anyone would like this head cold, please just send along your e-mail addy and I'll pack it right off to you. All you have to do is ask! ;) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tinainfay at msn.com Fri Oct 8 11:20:15 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:20:15 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus (Was: Harry not a Prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115172 > > > Del wrote: > In fact, Harry's interaction with those boys is a quite clear > > illustration of what you say : they are all in the same class, they > > sleep in the same dorm, but we don't see that Harry knows either of > > them very well beyond that (and vice versa). > Finwitch now: > > Actually, I'm not at all annoyed with Harry. They *do* share a dorm. > They *do* share classes. This means that > > 1) Seamus must have seen enough to know that Harry is NOT insane, or > at least enough for reasonable doubt, and never mind what his mother > who has never so much as met Harry says based on hearsay of others who > don't know Harry either. > Tina adds: Not that it detracts from your point but (as I'm sure you'll remember) Mrs. Finnegan did meet Harry (briefly to be sure) at the QWC. BTW, I totally agree that Seamus owed Harry *at least* the chance to defend himself before Seamus made up his mind From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 8 11:23:14 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:23:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and Malfoy related? (was: Snape and Lucius ages) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115173 > Dharma replies: > > It could be possible, but I think that might have missed something. > It is not clear to me that Snape is a pureblood Wizard. From what I can gather, we can eliminate the possibility of him being a > Muggleborn Wizard. Unless I've missed something, the possibility of Snape being a half-blood Wizard still exists. > Beyond the bloodline issue since at least one of Snape's parents was pureblood, it suggests the possibility that he is related to the Malfoys. It's not a certainty in my mind. However, if they were related, it would not shock me. Potioncat: >From the last set of questions JKR answered, I understood Snape to be Half Blood as well. So that either one of his parents was Muggle born or one of his parents was a Muggle (less likely, I think.) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 8 11:35:38 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:35:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115174 Carol wrote: snip And of course he has no idea that Harry felt compassion after witnessing that scene. Instead he's back to his view that Harry is James reincarnated--a sad and ironic misunderstanding all around. And yet Snape tried yet again to rescue Harry, searching for him in the forest and contacting the Order to tell them he'd gone to the MoM. Maybe the breach isn't irreparable even now. > Potioncat: I agree. And consider this, at the end of OoP, Draco is threatening Harry. Harry has his wand out before Draco can even reach for his, Snape calls out, "Potter. What are you doing?" Look at this from Snape's viewpoint. He sees Harry pointing a wand at Draco who does not have his wand. Doesn't this look a little like the worst memory scene? Harry's answer isn't, "Defending myself, sir." It's "Thinking of a hex to use, sir" (from memory, BTW) But Snape doesn't go ballistic. He calmly suggests taking points. Then he doesn't even complain/disagree when McGonagall suggests adding points to Gryffindor and Ravenclaw. Although, I don't think Snape is ready to adopt Harry... From editor at texas.net Fri Oct 8 11:38:00 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:38:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape--A Spy? (was Re Snape - Abusive) References: <009001c4ace7$fad4f620$fa59aacf@texas.net> <003a01c4acee$7ebb1400$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c4ad2b$45302a80$a258aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115175 I (Amanda) said - > > There is a great need for Harry to survive and be equipped against > Voldemort; but there is also a great need for a spy in the enemy's camp, > which I think Snape is. Kethryn - > > I finished rereading GoF Wednesday, I think (it's been a hell of a week, what with midterms and all), and I am in the middle of a reread of OotP (just so you know where the question is coming from). Ok, so if Snape really was spying on the DE which I believe he was doing so, then why on earth did he tell Fudge about being a DE himself at the end of GoF? Me (Amanda) responding: A good question. That scene was one where, unexpectedly, Dumbledore and his staff were having to *convince* someone who should have been a staunch ally and leapt into action like them. I believe their plans would have been much stronger and Plan A probably had included Ministry support (although, wisely, they apparently had a Plan B and were not depending on Fudge, as Dumbledore's words later in the scene show--I cannot stop to look it up, but he called Fudge's attitude "unfortunate, but not unforeseen" or something). Considering what Ministry support could mean to the struggle against Voldemort, I believe it might have been the lesser of two evils for Snape to reveal his past to Fudge. He was making a last-ditch attempt to convince him, with ultimate arguments, and only spoke after Fudge had rejected lesser proofs. It may well have been unwise for Snape to do this. But he likely weighed the benefits of convincing Fudge against the dangers to himself, and opted to try. And remember, this was before Snape went off to do his task--if he *had* convinced Fudge, maybe he wouldn't have had to do play quite such a dangerous role? For those of you who deny Snape any motives of honor, there's the selfish one for you. [For there are always at least two conflicting and equally valid motives that can be argued for any word or action of Snape, throughout the books.] Anyway, that's my thought off the top of my head. ~Amandageist From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 11:41:06 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:41:06 -0000 Subject: Remember my last:: SPOILER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: Sylvia: > Finwitch: If Petunia never applied to a Muggle school, expecting a > Hogwarts letter, it may explain why she ended up as a house-wife > instead of having a work of her own. > > Soory, but this is a damned patronising attitude to t ake towards > women who elect to be stay-at-home Mums. Do you really think the job > of bringing up children is suitable only for the uneducated? No - simply that Petunia was drifted into it rather than choose to stay at home, mainly because *she* is uneducated. She could *pretend* to be a devoted house-wife - such as keeping her house so spot-less! She hates magic - and this could be due to her failure of getting an education and a job. She blames magic for it. She might *pretend* that she chose to stay. (Honest, pretend she doesn't *have* a sister? That she knows nothing about magic?) Then again, she may have made the choise to stay - just because that was *required* for the pact. And Dumbledore leaving the letter with Harry - and Harry at the doorstep... Did he perhaps stay and watch over invisibly? Leaving a little child like that... no wonder poor Harry has trouble trusting people. Really - his parents die (sure, not their fault, whatever Petunia thinks, but the child still feels abandoned). Then there are these people taking him, only to abandon him onto a doorstep, in rain and rather cold weather? I think Harry remembers, if only subconciously, that Sirius wanted to take care of him there and then. (If he remembers the green light, why not this?) Even when Sirius had to give up after (long?) arguement with Hagrid, he gives the flying motorcycle because Harry likes flying, to give little Harry at least that last bit of fun, and faster transport so that he's not too long out without shelter. Although Harry never saw Sirius again, until that face in the TV - maybe this last experience was one reason he chose to trust Sirius? And the fact that Sirius had given him that broomstick, sent him that letter - that Sirius never abandoned Harry - unlike every other adult he met. Finwitch From sophierom at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 11:53:12 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:53:12 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <002b01c4ad24$9e3ef310$0ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115177 Duffypoo writes: There has been lots of speculation the last few days about the 'previous' letters Petunia received from DD prior to 'the last' which was left with Harry. Speculation that one of these letters was about what really happened to Lily and James the night they were killed. This letter would have had to arrive (by owl?) in the 30 hour period between the attack and the time Petunia found HP on the doorstep "not knowing he would be woken in a few hours' time by Mrs Dursley's scream as she opened the front door." In the first chapter of PS there is quite a conversation between Vernon and Petunia that would, I think, squash the speculation on a letter of this kind: "Er -- Petunia, dear -- you haven't heard from your sister lately, have you?" "No," she said sharply, "Why?" "Funny stuff on the news," Mr. Dursley mumbled. "Owls ... shooting stars .. and ther were a lot of funny-looking people in town today ..." "So?" snapped Mrs. Dursley. "Well, I just thought .. maybe .. it was something to do with .. you know .. *her lot*." Mrs. Dursley sipped her tea through pursed lips. Mr. Dursley wondered whether he dared tell her he'd heard the name 'Potter'. He decided he didn't dare. Instead he said, as casually as he could, "Their son -- he'd be about Dudley's age now, wouldn't he?" "I suppose so, " said Mrs. Dursley stiffly. "What's his name again? Howard, isn't it?" "Harry. Nasty common name, if you ask me." "Oh, yes," said Mr. Dursley, his heart sinking horribly. "Yes, I quite agree." ..... "Mrs. Dursley fell asleep quickly but Mr. Dursley lay awake, turning it all over in his mind." Petunia, although she would have known all about this IF she had received the letter from DD, certainly doesn't appear to know anything about it, and drops off quickly to sleep. Sophierom: Duffypoo - some interesting points, and please don't send me your head cold. :-) For some reason, when I read this scene, I'm more, not less, convinced that Petunia has indeed heard from or about Lily lately. Petunia answers "stiffly" and "sharply" and she "snapped" at Vernon when he spoke to her. Given Petunia's behavior in the rest of the books (she seems to fawn over Vernon and Dudley), her posture here seems suspicious. Of course, she could be upset at having to talk about her hated witch sister, and I think this is what JKR wants us to think. But I wonder if there's not something more to it? Petunia's sharp retorts make me think of someone who is lying and is very uncomfortable doing it. So, her telling Vernon that she hasn't heard from/about Lily in a while isn't, to me, convincing enough to suggest that she's telling the truth. I think the most damning piece of evidence against my suspicions is the fact that she goes to sleep so quickly. That does make it seem like she's not worried about anything, and if DD had just written her a letter that said, Your sister is dead, be prepared to take the boy, I'd imagine that she'd have a hard time sleeping, like Vernon. However, perhaps she's faking it - I know if I were Vernon Dursley's wife, I'd have lots of practice at faking sleep! :-) Seriously though, I am suspicious of this scene. Is anyone else? I also think the fact that JKR told these events through Vernon's POV, and not Petunia's, is telling. Petunia has secrets to keep from us; Vernon does not. Sophierom, who is shuddering once again at thinking of Vernon as husband! From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 12:34:09 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008123409.39260.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115178 --- Jen Reese wrote: > Jen again: Loyalty to James, and the belief that it's better to die > than to betray your friends, is Sirius' personal conviction. An > ideal can be anything a person believes in wholeheartedly and > strives to live up to, whether it relates to the community or an > individual. No one has to agree with you, and the conviction > doesn't have to be "good", for you to hold it! That's not a conviction; that's loyalty to his best friend and almost-brother. Sirius would have backed James no matter what, no questions asked. Had James gone over to the Dark, then Sirius would have too. And IMO "die before betraying friends" is the kind of Boys-Own trite platitude that most teenagers drop as they get older and realize that while some causes are worth dying for you don't talk about it so glibly. And to have assumed that Peter Pettigrew would have faced the same dangers with the same courage as James and Sirius did when they both knew what a little suck-up he was shows that they hadn't really processed what would be needed to follow through on the all-for-one-one-for-all commitment. > Jen: He may "spout personal philosophy" but he > tends to back it up with corresponding actions. Yes...until those actions mean he has to be nice to someone he doesn't like (Kreacher, Snape), or that he has to do something he doesn't want to do (fight in the MoM rather than grab Harry and run to ensure that he'd be safe - I mean, yelling at Harry to run when he knows that Harry doesn't know his way around the MoM and might run into another group of DE's - get a brain, Sirius!), or that he has to suck up his own disappointment because of the greater good (being pouty in 12GP and letting everyone know about it by sulking with Buckbeak for hours on end) or think in advance of what effect his talk or actions will have on Harry ("you're less like your father than I thought"). Sirius talks a better game than he walks. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 13:01:49 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:01:49 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus (Was: Harry not a Prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115179 > > Del wrote: > In fact, Harry's interaction with those boys is a quite clear > > illustration of what you say : they are all in the same class, they > > sleep in the same dorm, but we don't see that Harry knows either of > > them very well beyond that (and vice versa). That's even why I'm so annoyed for his getting angry at Seamus because the boy believes his mom : Harry seems to expect Seamus to believe him instead, even though they are no more than classmates, far from friends. But that's anothermatter entirely. > > Finwitch replied: > Actually, I'm not at all annoyed with Harry. They *do* share a dorm.They *do* share classes. This means that > > 1) Seamus must have seen enough to know that Harry is NOT insane, orat least enough for reasonable doubt, and never mind what his motherwho has never so much as met Harry says based on hearsay of others whodon't know Harry either. > > 2) friends or not, a housemate should at least take 'innocent until > proven guilty' -approach. Particularly as we know how Harry himself > does take all the trouble for proper evidence in case of Draco Malfoy,who is NOT a housemate and definately not a friend, even when hefirmly believes Draco's the Heir of Slytherin... Can't Harry expect > *that* much from his housemate? To at least ASK Harry before jumping > into conclusions/believing nasty rumours? > > IMO, Harry has every right to get angry at Seamus. (more for Seamus' mother, but I don't count Seamus as a completely innocent bystander in this either.) > Hannah now: To defend Seamus Finnegan here, he doesn't just start accusing Harry of things. He *asks* Harry what really went on with LV. I understand Harry not wanting to reply, but to be fair on Seamus, he does ask. Harry then flies off the handle, threatens him, and insults his mother. So really, I can understand why Seamus might think that perhaps what the Prophet is saying has some truth in it. Also bear in mind that Seamus has already seen Harry behaving in ways that might be considered crazy or attention seeking; dreams, his scar hurting, putting his name in the goblet of fire (Seamus probably believes he did). And what does Harry do the very next day after their argument? Get into a shouting match with a teacher about Voldemort. That probably got rid of any doubt Seamus had left that Harry was, indeed, not quite right in the head. Hannah From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 8 13:20:12 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:20:12 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115180 Carol: > They also keep him in a cupboard under the stairs, complete with > spiders, at least till he receives his Hogwarts letters. > > Still, he isn't beaten or subjected to punishments of the sort > that, say, Victorian children had to endure. Setting aside the > snide remarks that the Dursleys occasionally make about his > parents, which again take us into the grey area of emotional abuse, > maybe he's neglected by the Dursleys rather than abused?<< Stefanie (making a reappearance!): > "Harry paid dearly for his moment of fun. As neither Dudley nor the > hedge was in any way hurt, Aunt Petunia knew he hadn't really done > magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his > head with the soapy frying pan." (CoS 1 [pg 16 - Bloomsbury > Paperback]) > > In the whole beginning sequence of CoS, we see the Dursley's and > Harry at *breakfast* conversing about the Masons' visit, pause for > the obligitory back story, resume at breakfast, Harry v. Dudley > action, gets in trouble and is "[given] work to do, with the > promise he wouldn't eat again until finished," (CoS 1) and then > we're told that he finishes working at 7:30. > > If this isn't abuse, I can't see what is. SSSusan: There is also, in PoA, the time when Aunt Marge is about to arrive, and Harry wants to cut a deal--he'll "remember" he goes to St. Brutus' if Uncle Vernon will sign his Hogsmeade form. When he suggests this, UV threatens to "knock the stuffing" out of Harry. Also in the same chapter, we learn that Dudley's favorite form of entertainment is watching UV "bully" Harry. So, while we don't SEE the physical abuse--I suspect JKR wanted to spare us the details?--it's fairly apparent, to me at least, that it's happening. How could it be Dudders' favorite form of entertainment if it doesn't happen? Siriusly Snapey Susan From ejblack at rogers.com Fri Oct 8 13:33:28 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:33:28 -0000 Subject: Another death? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115181 Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me. Jeanette From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 13:38:39 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008133839.44548.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115182 --- Nora Renka wrote: > And no matter what any of us think about him, Harry loved him > deeply, and he loved Harry; and I think he had a lot to offer, in > both that capacity and in others. Did Harry love Sirius deeply? How could he? Harry barely knew the man. He spent 9/10's of POA thinking he was the traitor who caused his parents' deaths and he was sure that he hated him then. In GOF he communicated with him by owl or met him in a cave with Ron and Hermione present. In OOTP, Harry was too intimidated by Sirius' mood and Mrs. Weasley's crankiness to be alone with him and spent (way too much) time dedoxying the drapes. Only once did they bond as godfather/mentor-godson/mentee: in GoF when they talked through the fireplace and Harry told Sirius all about the dragon task, and fighting with Ron and Sirius was sympathetic and didn't stress Harry out with "I'll be right there!" tendencies. Harry loved the idea of having a godfather who was his and there for him alone. Sirius loved the idea of having a godson and fulfilling the role he thought he'd lost 15 years earlier. But they weren't together long enough or often enough for them to have a relationship in the present time. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 13:37:54 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:37:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: <20041006170916.5701.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115183 Kim R.: > Hi all! I've been reading many of the interesting posts lately but haven't had time to join in the fray. I don't know if this question has come up before. Has anyone found in canon, JKR website, etc., any reference to whether DD has ever transformed himself into anyone or anything else? It occurred to me that he's likely to have animagus abilities since he's a former transfiguration teacher (e.g. we all know that current transfig. teacher McGonagall can transform herself into a cat). But I've read all the books at least once and think I would remember that particular detail about DD. Finwitch: Well, I haven't seen anything either way, apart from the part of being a transfiguration teacher, and a surname which happens to be an old word for bumblebee to point suggest animagus-ability in particular. Some have argued that his comment in PS/SS about not needing an invisibility cloak to become invisible to suggest this, but as Hogwarts library has whole *section* for invisibility (Harry was there after that Snake-incident at Duelling-Club, listening Hufflepuffs converse about Harry *urging* the Snake! This in CoS) I find it unlikely. He can make himself invisible one way or other - a spell, I think. Invisibility is going to come up sooner or later, I think. There is a book called the Invisible Book of Invisibility (Shopkeeper at POA complained about not being able to find them, but the Monsterbook of Monsters was worse). Also, in GOF we find that Moody has a magical eye that can see trough such tricks (an eye that seems to me to be much like an eye at Borkin&Burkes). In OOP there are the thestrals, beings that are invisible *unless* the spectator has "seen death". I wonder what OTHER things of invisibility we shall be reading about. And about that invisible book - is it in Braille, or is there some sort of trick to reveal its secrets? (Imagine. Ron/Harry or Neville/Luna reading an invisible book. Hermione, unable to see the book, doesn't believe they're reading at all, but rather playing a pantomime imitation of her or some other not so rational thing...) Finwitch From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 13:38:37 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:38:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115184 Meri wrote : "But why then did he leave the Pensieve out in the open? Snape knows what a busybody Harry is, and surely (though I have no canon to back this up) DD would have mentioned that Harry knows how a Pensieve works and might be tempted to peek." Del replies : Well, actually, Harry doesn't *really* know how to work a Pensieve. In particular, he doesn't know how to *get out* of it, as DD knows very well. So maybe Snape figured that Harry wouldn't be *stupid* enough to do what he did, because let's face it : going into Snape's pensieve without knowing how to get out of it was simply incredibly stupid. Del From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 13:43:41 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:43:41 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115185 Dungrollin wrote: > But if it *wasn't* an AK, if the spell that backfired was Voldy > trying to suck Harry's brain out through his nose (so to speak), > then Voldy *could* have been vanquished because of `the power > that the Dark Lord knows not'. The power that he does not > understand, that power of which Harry is so full, of which Voldy has > none, the power that Voldy can't bear, that he hates and despises so > much it caused him to abort the possession in the MoM. If Voldy > tried to pinch *that* power specifically... > > Now, I can see that backfiring in a major way. > > So what happens when a spell backfires, anyway? I can think of two > examples from canon (there may be more), and they're both from > CoS. Firstly, there's the `Eat slugs, Malfoy!', and > secondly there's the `Obliviate' from Lockhart. Both due > to Ron's malfunctioning wand. In both of these cases, backfiring > is exactly what happens. The spell affects the caster, rather than > the one for whom it was intended. > > In this scenario, the power that Harry has and Voldy doesn't, > does *not* get redistributed in Voldy's favour as the evil git > intended, it works the other way around. The powers that *Voldy* > has and *Harry* doesn't get given to Harry. Thus Harry speaks > Parseltongue (and possibly a number of other magical languages that > we have not yet been introduced to). > > "But wait!" I hear you cry. "Voldy can still speak > Parseltongue too! We heard him at the beginning of GoF! If he was > *pinching* Harry's powers, he would have cut and pasted them from > Harry, not *copied* and pasted them! If that's the kind of spell > that rebounded, then he and Nagini should be left with a couple of > photo albums of fond memories, but no conversation..." > > And that, I'm afraid, is where I give up and say, "It's > getting late. Sorry, I'm knackered. Can someone else finish this > off for me, please...?" > Hannah: It could have been that he intended to kill Harry after he'd obtained Harry's powers. So he wouldn't care whether the boy was left with those powers, as long as he (LV) had got them as well. Maybe he thought he'd obtain the powers, work out what they were, and then finish the boy off using whatever means was most appropriate. Also, maybe it wasn't the rebounding of the spell from Harry that killed (or disembodies or whatever happened) LV. Perhaps he cast the spell and it had the opposite effect, leaving Harry with LV's powers and the scar, and then someone else (mysterious third person, insert your favourite conspiracy theory protagonist here) fired the spell that 'killed' LV. That would explain how a 'transfer of power' spell had such a catastrophic effect on LV - it didn't. Hannah From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 13:50:07 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:50:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Meri wrote : > "But why then did he leave the Pensieve out in the open? Snape knows > what a busybody Harry is, and surely (though I have no canon to back > this up) DD would have mentioned that Harry knows how a Pensieve works > and might be tempted to peek." > > Del replies : > Well, actually, Harry doesn't *really* know how to work a Pensieve. In > particular, he doesn't know how to *get out* of it, as DD knows very > well. So maybe Snape figured that Harry wouldn't be *stupid* enough to > do what he did, because let's face it : going into Snape's pensieve > without knowing how to get out of it was simply incredibly stupid. > > Del Ah, Del, good to hear from you again! Harry does stupid things all the time without thinking of the consequences, like flying the car to school, and, well, practically anything else that Snape has tried to get him expelled for. I've said it before and I'll say it again, he's a teenager, and foresight is not a talent usually associated with that age group. Who knows what else Harry would have seen had he stayed in the Pensieve? Meri From owlery2003 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 13:58:08 2004 From: owlery2003 at yahoo.com (Scott Santangelo) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008135808.59256.qmail@web60107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115187 jcb54me wrote: Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me. owlery2003 replied: You know, I just saw that too, on a Headline News trailer, just a quick little blurb. Dashed to the Lexicon, but no mention there. Of course it's hardly a surprise, and there's been mention of further deaths, but this sounded recent, and I'd love to know the context for the item. I refuse to contemplate one of the trio being killed, particularly since there are so many other fine candidates - Molly and Percy come to mind. It also might be that Dumbledore is removed from the plot by the end of book six (reminiscent of Obi Wan Kenobi). This would be the most dramatic death, of a central figure, "the only one You Know Who really fears," leaving Harry on his own for the first time to chart the course toward the final showdown. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 14:02:30 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008140230.4929.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115188 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any indications in this chapter that he could have feelings for her? He called her that because he knew it would upset James. And it did. Mission accomplished. No, he had no feelings for her at all. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 14:07:55 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:07:55 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus (Was: Harry not a Prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115189 Finwitch wrote : "1) Seamus must have seen enough to know that Harry is NOT insane, or at least enough for reasonable doubt, and never mind what his mother who has never so much as met Harry says based on hearsay of others who don't know Harry either." Del replies : Actually, it's quite the opposite. Seamus knows enough of Harry to know that the boy is quite definitely not normal. He wakes up his dormmates at night because of nightmares. He's got seizures in class and pretends his scar hurts him. He keeps breaking the rules. He pretends to be the only witness to the resurrection of a dead guy. He pretends to have been attacked by Dementors. He can speak Parseltongue. And so on. So if anything, Seamus might actually have reasonable doubt that Harry is *indeed* a bit insane. Finwitch wrote : " 2) friends or not, a housemate should at least take 'innocent until proven guilty' -approach. Particularly as we know how Harry himself does take all the trouble for proper evidence in case of Draco Malfoy, who is NOT a housemate and definately not a friend, even when he firmly believes Draco's the Heir of Slytherin... Can't Harry expect *that* much from his housemate? To at least ASK Harry before jumping into conclusions/believing nasty rumours?" Del replies : And that's *exactly* what he did. He asked Harry to explain a bit more of what happened when Cedric died. But Harry just flew into a self-righteous rage, and *refused* to tell anything. You have to keep in mind that up until Harry's interview is published in the Quibbler, the students know almost nothing ! All they know is what DD told them : that LV is reborn and he killed Cedric. Period. No details, no first-hand testimony from Harry, no *nothing*. But when someone does ask for more information, what does Harry do ? He refuses ! Smells of guilt, sorry. I mean, what does he expect ? That people will read his mind ?? Finwitch wrote : "IMO, Harry has every right to get angry at Seamus. (more for Seamus' mother, but I don't count Seamus as a completely innocent bystander in this either.)" Del replies : Now now, you are the one condemning Seamus without proof now :-) How do you know that he agreed with his mom to start with ? Remember how things went : Seamus was confiding in Dean that he'd had a crappy summer because his mom had wanted to stop him from coming back to Hogwarts. And by the way, the fact that Seamus *did* come back to Hogwarts is a proof that he fought her back. Then Harry arrives, and Dean, not Seamus, spills the beans. Harry gets angry, and when Seamus asks him for more information, Harry *insults his mother* !! I'm sorry, but the whole blame lies on Harry's shoulders for how things went. Seamus is in no way responsible for what his mother thinks, and he *never* said that he agreed with her version. But Harry refused to communicate and started insulting everyone. He acted like a pig on that one, and if anything, only confirmed what Seamus's mom thought of him. As much as I understand him, I still think that we should dare putting the blame on his shoulders when he deserves it. Del From sherryola at msn.com Fri Oct 8 14:13:20 2004 From: sherryola at msn.com (sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:13:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002201c4ad40$f789c550$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 115190 SSSusan: There is also, in PoA, the time when Aunt Marge is about to arrive, and Harry wants to cut a deal--he'll "remember" he goes to St. Brutus' if Uncle Vernon will sign his Hogsmeade form. When he suggests this, UV threatens to "knock the stuffing" out of Harry. Also in the same chapter, we learn that Dudley's favorite form of entertainment is watching UV "bully" Harry. So, while we don't SEE the physical abuse--I suspect JKR wanted to spare us the details?--it's fairly apparent, to me at least, that it's happening. How could it be Dudders' favorite form of entertainment if it doesn't happen? Siriusly Snapey Susan Sherry now Add to that the whole being locked in his room with nothing to eat but cold soup being pushed through the door, once or twice a day in COS. I think the child protection services, here in the states, would have a lot to say about abuse of a child in those circumstances. I can't believe that it would be considered perfectly normal and safe treatment anywhere in the world. I would call that abuse. Even sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs could be considered to be abuse, if it is the reason he is small and kind of scrawny, as he's described in the first book. No sunlight, no air, not very healthy. Sherry G From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Oct 8 14:14:52 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:14:52 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > with snips> > Dumbledore says that Harry survived because Lily died to save him. > Now, if PuppetMaster!Dumbledore had the charm all worked out (with > or without Lily) beforehand, then I wouldn't doubt that he'd > be right. He would know, after all. But in PS he says `We may > never know', doesn't he? (At least, I think so...) > Why would he say that if *he'd* set the whole thing up? Surely he > would be more certain, and pleased with himself ? he's not > one for false modesty, is Albus. > > Then again, if Dumbledore *didn't* set it all up before hand, how > *could* he know what saved Harry at GH? How could he even know that > Lily sacrificed her life so that Harry would live? As far as we > know, he didn't witness the attack at GH. To assume that he > knows absolutely what he's talking about and is pretending not to be > sure about it in front of Harry for some other nefarious reason, > we'd have to assume that there's an eyewitness who told him how Lily > died. The only evidence we have for Lily dying to save Harry, is > Harry's memories of her pleading with Voldy, > > But if it *wasn't* an AK, if the spell that backfired was Voldy > trying to suck Harry's brain out through his nose (so to speak), > then Voldy *could* have been vanquished because of `the power > that the Dark Lord knows not'. The power that he does not > understand, that power of which Harry is so full, of which Voldy has > none, the power that Voldy can't bear, that he hates and despises so > much it caused him to abort the possession in the MoM. If Voldy > tried to pinch *that* power specifically... > > Now, I can see that backfiring in a major way. > > In this scenario, the power that Harry has and Voldy doesn't, > does *not* get redistributed in Voldy's favour as the evil git > intended, it works the other way around. The powers that *Voldy* > has and *Harry* doesn't get given to Harry. Thus Harry speaks > Parseltongue (and possibly a number of other magical languages that > we have not yet been introduced to). > > "But wait!" I hear you cry. "Voldy can still speak > Parseltongue too! We heard him at the beginning of GoF! If he was > *pinching* Harry's powers, he would have cut and pasted them from > Harry, not *copied* and pasted them! If that's the kind of spell > that rebounded, then he and Nagini should be left with a couple of > photo albums of fond memories, but no conversation..." > > Dungrollin, > (Who managed to get her right hand stuck down the back of the > radiator for five whole minutes this morning, and is sorry if this > post is incomprehensible, but she's been in the pub all evening.) Courage, Camille; this pain too must pass away. It's this sort of thing (the logical contortions necessary when dealing with JKR's little puzzles, not your dicing with death while struggling with domestic heating technology) that turned me into an HP fan and keeps me active on the board. Let others get on with all that touchy- feely emotional stuff, it's of little interest to me. I just don't see how it gets us any further forward. So Snape is nasty - so what? It's a 'given' in the story, important to the plot. Castigating him for it is expected, well-drawn characters are bound to excite comment, but to keep banging on about it achieves little, except to maybe add a little lustre to the posters moral rectitude. It's the equivalent of joining a reading group to dicuss "Moby Dick" and being harangued by Greenpeace activists because Ahab doesn't have an enlightened attitude towards whaling. All very true, but that isn't the point of being here. So far as I can see all the words expended on Snape's vileness have not changed anyone's attitudes by the smallest smidgeon. It comes under the heading of flogging a dead horse in this posters view. Mind you, it does make it much easier to scan the posts - view the subject line, note which poster it is and I can safely pass on to the next post, 'cos I can predict exactly what they're going to say. It doesn't half save time when you can safely ignore half the posts because they'll have nothing new to offer on the subject. Gives me more time to develop unpopular and probably wildly inaccurate theories. OK, having vented my spleen, let's delve into the morass that is GH. Anyone who bothers to read my stuff is well aware that I've long believed that DD predicted the probable course that events would take at GH and took precautions accordingly. This meant that for Harry to survive James and Lily couldn't. Some may see this as harsh and contrary to the view of DD as caring and compassionate, but I don't see it that way; DD believes that Harry is the person who can defeat Voldy for good and unless that happens then there will be other James's, other Lilys, uncounted numbers of them, that will die because of Voldy. It's a question of doing what is necessary. So what was it DD did, what did it protect against and how? Here we're shuffling around in the dark grasping at what little evidence Jo has seen fit to reveal. We're like the blind-folded group confronted by an elephant - rope, tree, wall, fan, spear or snake? Any hypothesis is made with limited information - which adds to the fun IMO. You pays your money and you takes your pick. What we actually know and what we can surmise are poles apart. Weaving a tapestry of fact, theory, surmise, hypothesis (reads so much better than 'cobbling a few ideas together') helps occupy time that otherwise would be spent thinking about boring stuff like income tax or an in-growing toe-nail. Innocent fun; and you never know, there might be a serendipitous outcome. You can't win unless you play. Someone, sometime might get it right, the 'what it's all about' thingy that JKR was on about. And being wrong doesn't matter anyway. So, there was this Prophecy of which Voldy knows only a part. It's the first part too, since the eavesdropper was discovered and ejected before hearing it all. (Another niggle here - who did the throwing out? It'd hardly be DD, he's listening to Sybill and I don't think she's got a 'pause' button.) How big a part of the Prophecy was reported to him we don't know, and this could be important in Voldy deciding what his options were. But it's a fair bet that DD knows how much was overheard and him being a cunning old bugger he'd be able to make a decent guess at what Voldy would be most likely to do. It can't have been just the first line otherwise he wouldn't have a clue how to identify this usurper - he needs the thrice defying and seventh month bits. With just this, well, knowing Voldy it's Herod time. Send out the gang for a bit of infanticide. No problem. Delegate - that's what any decent manager does, isn't it? And besides, you don't get to be Evil Overlord by taking un-necessary risks. And if this predicted sprog does have enough power to be dangerous, better for some relaceable minion to get it between the eyes than risk his own epidermis. But if he gets to hear a little bit more - "...will have power the Dark Lord knows not..." then it gets a touch more problematical. Power. Lovely stuff power. Get enough of it and you can do whatever you like. And this is a power he knows not. How very fascinating. That'd be enough to pique his interest, don't you think? It would call for his personal attention, he'd want to know more about that. On-going professional development, that sort of thing. Let's not forget that DD has heard exactly the same words. There's a power in Harry and power is what Voldy wants. He'll come for a closer look. It's possibly significant that in the explication at the end of OoP DD says that Harry can't be touched or harmed by Voldy. No mention is made of anyone else; other evil-doers aren't barred - Crouch!Moody can touch Harry and so can Peter at the beginning of the graveyard scene. The protection then, is specific and has been placed to stop Voldy getting at Harry. In one way the power in Harry is almost like bait dangled before a shark. Voldy will want to know more about this mysterious power and when he attempts this the protective trap is sprung. Now DD does say "We may never know." Do you believe his protestation of ignorance? I don't. If he doesn't know everything then he at least knows a hell of a lot more than he's letting on, otherwise he wouldn't be so sure that Voldy would come back, or that Harry would need on-going protection or that the Prophecy had not already been fulfilled. Voldy has been vanquished (he uses this exact word in the OoP explication), Harry has been marked. Yippee! Put out more flags! It's all over, folks! But no; not DD. It ain't finished and he knows it. How? Bloody good question. Only one answer that I can see - he knows what happened. Only two ways he could know what happened - either because there was an eye-witness or because DD planned it that way. Or both. Personally I think it's both. Your point that the only evidence we have are Harry's visions is well made; and it's all too easy to forget that these are inside his head and who else knows about them in any detail? Anybody? Unless DD has been rummaging around in Harry's memories he has to have got his info from somewhere else - and even then Harry (so far as we know) hasn't a clue from his early memories of what happened to Voldy. There's more DD could tell us, I think. Losing his powers by transfer - that's interesting. His protracted whinge to the DEs in the graveyard seems to infer that he was rendered weak by not having a body. Seems reasonable - to a certain extent anyway, though losing powers to Harry would be expected to contribute. Then he says (referring to the outcome of the PS/SS debacle) that he feared never regaining his powers, that he was as weak as he'd ever been even though this time there hadn't been a transfer. A clue? And he says he needed a wizard body. Well, AFAICS unless he still retained other of his powers then he'd only be as strong as the wizard he possessed, wouldn't he? So some, a lot, of his original power must still be with him. It'll be fascinating to see how JKR deals with this. Unless it's like loading software and still retaining the master disk I don't see how it's done. Otherwise, kill Nagini while Voldy is in residence and he'd be in a load of trouble. So we're guessing again. You know, I'm constantly gob-smacked by the fact that Jo has written 5 books and still told us hardly anything important. Ah well. Maybe in the next one. Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 14:19:40 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:19:40 -0000 Subject: About Ron ( was OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115192 Paul wrote : " Imagine the scenario where Harry and Hermione were prefects." Del replies : That's exactly the scenario Ron had imagined. He had *never* expected to be made prefect, he had thought all along that it would be Harry. Paul wrote : "Normally Ron would feel jealousy as any other person in his position but with one great difference. Ron has proved in GOF that jealousy "OVERWHELMS" him and when happens that he acts in a rather "UNFRIENDLY" way towards the person he is jealous of." Del replies : I personally don't believe in Jealous!Ron. Ron wasn't jealous in GoF, he was hurt, because he felt Harry had betrayed him by not sharing with him how to get past the age line. If you look all over the rest of the books, you'll see that jealousy is most definitely *not* one of Ron's traits. A bit of envy sometimes, but never jealousy. And Ron would not have been jealous if Harry had been Prefect, because that's exactly what he was expecting. Del From drliss at comcast.net Fri Oct 8 14:23:02 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:23:02 +0000 Subject: Another Death? Message-ID: <100820041423.2901.4166A2C5000B4F5200000B5522007511509C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115193 jcb54me wrote: Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me. Lissa: Hehe. What's with the singular? I don't think we're going to see just one death per book. I'd say a lot of characters are finding themselves with their heads on the chopping blocks. I'd put money on one or more Weasleys (c'mon, with that many of them, the odds are stacked against them!), Dumbledore, Tonks (I still think she was introduced to be cannon fodder), Lupin, and Snape, as well as Harry himself. Of course, I'm a pessimist. But still... it's a war. They were getting picked off right and left last time. It doesn't look good! Liss [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 14:27:34 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:27:34 -0000 Subject: Hags Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115194 (... in the HP-verse, that is.) The HP books and the Lexicon say hags are female humanoids who have been known to eat children, and there's one in The Leaky Cauldron while Harry stays there. And Quirrell had some nasty business with one. Honoria Nutcombe (1665 - 1743) formed a society for their reformation, and the famous wizard cards have been updated with a few famous hags, as well as with giants and vampires -- check out the biography of Amarillo Lestoat! (I think it's a wee bit sad that those pieces of information aren't recognised for what they are; JKR's quirky imagination at its best.) What do people think about hags in general? Where do they live? How do they relate to humans and other magical beings? Just how dangerous are they? Would more progressive forces in the magical society view it as politically incorrect to threaten disobedient children with them? Thoughts? Speculations? Alshain From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 14:28:05 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:28:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115195 Meri wrote : " Harry does stupid things all the time without thinking of the consequences, like flying the car to school, and, well, practically anything else that Snape has tried to get him expelled for. I've said it before and I'll say it again, he's a teenager, and foresight is not a talent usually associated with that age group." Del replies : I completely agree. However, Snape is not a teenager anymore, he's a grown-up, and like many adults he may have forgotten how stupidly teenagers can act. So maybe to him it was obvious that *nobody* would do something as stupid as diving into an enemy's Pensieve without having figured out how to get out of it first. And he was completely incensed to discover that Harry had indeed done such a stupid thing. Del From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 14:28:34 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:28:34 -0000 Subject: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115196 "dungrollin" wrote: I've found this thread very interesting, but can't help but wonder how many other degrogatory nicknames can be made from 'Severus'... I can't think of any. On the basis of that, it seems to me a mite odd to infer a huge amount from Snivellus. I somehow don't think JKR came up with the nickname and then cast around for a name for Snape that would fit it... Anyone more creative than me? Dungrollin Dharma replies: Kids are creative in their cruelty and lack of respect for one another in many instances. I could certainly imagine nicknames like: Severe Headache Severe Pain Sneakerus Slimypuss Slimerus Servilerus Whimperus Gitterus Cowardus Odorus Skulkerus Slitherus Blunderus Confunderous Oblivious Nausea-us I'm not sure that any other nickname could convey so many interesting negative character traits at once. Snivel conveys a particular kind of obsequiousness to me that most other words don't. I've always speculated that the nickname Snivellus was someone how tied to his relationship with Lucius. I'm guessing that Severus had an attachment to Lucius at school that was similar to the attachment Peter had to James. Carol, amused in spite of herself, responds; Except for one key point. Peter was the same age as the other Maruaders. Lucius Malfoy is five or six years older than Snape--a big boy condescending to allow a little one to join his gang as a sort of hanger on. He must have been impressed with Severus's precocious knowledge of hexes. (I still say that the chief significance of the nickname Snivellus is that it's both alliterative and vicious, and Sirius (who's inordinately fond of it) seems to me more likely than James to have coined it. Slitherus would have worked almost as well because it suggests Slytherin and snake--but Slitherus Snape is a bit of a tongue twister, and it doesn't have the connotations of a runny nose and whimpering that would appeal to the eleven-year-old Sirius. As for obsequiousness, I think that fits with "lapdog" rather than "Snivellus"--in other words, with the deliberately distorted perception of an adult looking back at another adult's childhood. (Of course, Sirius--or James--could have been older than eleven when he invented of the name, but it strikes me as being of long-standing. James uses it carelessly and Sirius viciously, but Severus is by that time Snivellus to them just as they are Prongs and Padfoot to each other. More so, because they use "Snivellus" publicly. It's not clear whether they did the same with MWPP, which could not have existed till three of the four became animagi, anyway. It's 1:15 a.m. and I'm probably typing nonsense, so I think I'll go to bed. Dharma replies: Carol, the age issue is addressed in a great thread started by Feklar. It might be interesting to you. As to the primary reason for the name Snivellus...I agree it could be just a bit of nastiness with alliterative flair. However, I really do think that even a young Sirius or James would have taken issue with a young Snape, if he was perceived as trying to gain favor with anyone in a position of authority/power by whining about what other people have done to him. Which is pretty much the situation Sirius described when talking about "the prank." >From what list members are saying on this topic, the debate seems to be coming down to how we as individuals interpret the word snivel. A sniveling person, to me, rings of `cowardly whiner.' Thinking about it from a kid's perspective, what is cowardly? Looking to older people resolve conflict instead of handling it peer to peer, comes to mind first for me. This speaks to some bullying issues. Often kids are afraid to tell their stories because, they fear being seen as "goody-goodies" or "suck -ups" for ratting other kids out, even if they have legitimate reason to fear for their safety. That is why I can get behind sniveling implying obsequiousness in a child's sphere of power. Often kids, who do speak up about what is happening to them away from authoritative eyes, are then ostracized for having the potential to "unnecessarily" involve people with more authority/power in their conflicts. They end up being targeted again. The sentiment is, "I'll get you when so-and-so is not around. Go whining to so-and- so if you want, but I'll be waiting." Often it seems to me that the child on the attack feels almost righteous when making some version of this threat. In their schoolyard power structure, it is disloyal and cringing to go the upper echelons to handle what they perceive as peer issues. Everyone should learn to handle his or her business. For me, in the adult world, there are many distortions here. However, I remember seeing this dynamic many times as a child, and unfortunately have seen it quite regularly working with kids as an adult. I'm convinced that in the case of Sirius/James and Snape, 'lapdog' is the extension of 'Snivellus' into the adult world. After all, Sirius was never really able to let go of the past. There are plenty of other good interpretations happening on the list, but this one rings most true to me. Now JKR, or a fellow list member, might blow this out water...but that is the risk of airing strong a strong opinion :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 8 14:36:15 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:36:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115197 Meri wrote: snip > But why then did he leave the Pensieve out in the open? Snape knows what a busybody Harry is, and surely (though I have no canon to back this up) DD would have mentioned that Harry knows how a Pensieve works and might be tempted to peek. For a guy who locks up his office with myriad spells and spends time prowling the halls, Snape seems peculilarly paraniod about his own personal security. So why on earth did he leave Harry alone in his office with a full > Pensieve? It doesn't make sense from what we know of Snape, unless, again, there is some reason that either, a: Harry had to see that memory, or b: Snape could no longer teach him Occlumency, for what ever reason. But Snape actually trusting Harry? Not in a million years. > Potioncat: I dont' think we're going to convince each other, but I have some questions anyway. How did Snape know they would be interrupted? Do you think he set it up that Draco would come running in for help? If he wanted Harry to go into the Pensieve to have an excuse to stop Occlumency, why that memory? He could have chosen anything and used the intrusion as an excuse. I know you say it's your opinion that DD would have told Snape that Harry had an experience with the Pensieve. But I feel as strongly that he wouldn't have. Or I should say, we don't know, but if I were guessing, I would guess against it. I'm basing this on the other events that DD hasn't shared with Snape in the past. (Giving Harry an Invisibility Cloak, encouraging him to wander around at night...) I think someone wanted Harry and the reader to see that memory, but it wasn't Snape. It was JKR. And she set it up so we did. Yes, Snape removes his memories in front of Harry. With no comment or explanation, or taunting. He puts them back in immediately after the Occlumency lessons. I have the impression that there is some sort of time constraint involved. But that is my guess. You know, Snape has this "saving people thing" and he had a student to rescue. Not only was his student trapped, but it was Umbridge trying to get him free...about as bad as Lockhart mending broken bones. So he takes off, forgetting his Pensieve, just like Lupin took off forgetting his Potion. So I don't see how this could have been a trap for Harry. Potioncat From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 8 14:36:35 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:36:35 -0400 Subject: Another death? Message-ID: <001901c4ad44$3847d6b0$4562d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115198 jcb54me wrote: "Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me." DuffyPoo: Straight from the recent bout of FAQ on jkrowling.com: "Are you going to kill any more characters? Yes, sorry." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 14:44:50 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:44:50 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115199 Jen Reese wrote: " Sirius wholeheartedly believed that Peter deserved to die for the chain of events that started when Peter divulged the Potter's secret location. Not only did Peter betray the Potter's, he betrayed Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore & the Order, and ultimately the WW at large. Peter's one act had devastating consequences for several generations." Del replies : Huh, actually, the one act with devastating consequences is Sirius having the brilliant idea of making Peter Secret-Keeper. Peter had been betraying them for a year, everyone considered him as a weak little thing, I don't even understand how he became a member of the Order or how he wasn't suspected of being the traitor, and yet Sirius suggests making him SK ?? Del From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 14:46:41 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008144641.67882.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115200 --- delwynmarch wrote: > Actually, if you look closely, you'll realise that making Ron and > Hermione Prefects does not seem to have brought anything to the > story..... > As for Ron, as you point out, becoming a Prefect doesn't seem to > have had any effect on him. It seems all of it was almost *useless*. > Interesting, at least to me. Oh, I'm not sure about that. He had to be prodded by Hermione to remember his duties but I think Ron's holding the position told us a lot about Ron. 1. He really does want to shine somehow, to be more than just exist in the shadow of his brothers (remember his view of the mirror of Erised in PS/SS?). But there's an old saying: be careful what you wish for because you may get it. When Ron thought about the glory of being Prefect, he didn't think of what duties come with the position. So Ron had to confront the real meaning of what he'd wished for when he was younger. Also it's ironic that he welcomes getting the job when in GOF the twins told him to butt out of their business because he was turning into Percy and accused him of being made prefect next and Ron's response was to heatedly deny that he would be. Which leads to my second point... 2. Ron badly needed to get away from the twins. Whether they meant to or not, Fred and George were cramping Ron badly. F&G's opnions mattered tremendously to Ron and if they didn't like something, then he didn't either. Ron's worst moment was his refusal to confront the twins when they were experimenting inappropriately on first years for their products. He wimped out of confronting them because he was afraid of their contempt and scorn. Is it really a coincidence that Ron had his first good Quidditch game AFTER the twins left Hogwarts? I don't think so. I think that worrying about how the twins perceived his playing was a major drag on Ron's performance all through the fall. So yes, I think we did get to see more of Ron as a result of his new position. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 14:47:33 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:47:33 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115201 Kneasy wrote: > Anyone who bothers to read my stuff is well aware that I've long > believed that DD predicted the probable course that events would > take at GH and took precautions accordingly. This meant that for > Harry to survive James and Lily couldn't. Some may see this as harsh > and contrary to the view of DD as caring and compassionate, but I > don't see it that way; DD believes that Harry is the person who can > defeat Voldy for good and unless that happens then there will be > other James's, other Lilys, uncounted numbers of them, that will > die because of Voldy. It's a question of doing what is necessary. > > Now DD does say "We may never know." > Do you believe his protestation of ignorance? I don't. > If he doesn't know everything then he at least knows a hell of a lot > more than he's letting on, otherwise he wouldn't be so sure that > Voldy would come back, or that Harry would need on-going protection > or that the Prophecy had not already been fulfilled. Voldy has been > vanquished (he uses this exact word in the OoP explication), Harry > has been marked. Yippee! Put out more flags! It's all over, folks! > But no; not DD. It ain't finished and he knows it. > > How? Bloody good question. > Only one answer that I can see - he knows what happened. > Only two ways he could know what happened - either because > there was an eye-witness or because DD planned it that way. > Or both. Personally I think it's both. > > Your point that the only evidence we have are Harry's visions is well made; and it's all too easy to forget that these are inside his head and who else knows about them in any detail? Anybody? Unless > DD has been rummaging around in Harry's memories he has to have > got his info from somewhere else - and even then Harry (so far as we know) hasn't a clue from his early memories of what happened to Voldy. > There's more DD could tell us, I think. Hannah: IMO DD knew in advance, or was confident in his guess of, what was going to happen at GH (disregarding any time travel, which just makes everything too complicated). There may have been an eyewitness too, but he had to have some kind of prior knowledge. Because he dispatched Hagrid to the scene with instructions of where to take Harry *remarkably* fast. Hagrid gets there 'before the muggles start swarming round.' That has to be fairly soon after an entire house blows up. I don't see how DD could have found out what had happened, been all shocked about it, decided what was best to do with Harry, and then sent Hagrid off, all in such a short time frame. He also must have been confident that LV had gone. Because why else would he send Hagrid, who has only rudimentary magical knowledge, unless he *knew* that all Hagrid had to do was rescue the baby, not face the all powerful Dark Lord. DD knows much more than he lets on, at least I hope so, 'cos I want answers at some point, and I don't know who else can provide them. I definitely don't believe his protestation of innocence to McGonagall at the start of PS. DD's 'truth is preferable to lies' comment doesn't mean that he can't or won't lie, or at least bend, amend, omit or conceal the truth. I don't think he's ESE! but he's definitely not a bearded personification of all things good either. Hannah From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 8 14:52:39 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:52:39 -0000 Subject: Roles in the Order was Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115202 > Dharma replies: snip > > For me, in the adult world, there are many distortions here. > However, I remember seeing this dynamic many times as a child, and > unfortunately have seen it quite regularly working with kids as an > adult. I'm convinced that in the case of Sirius/James and > Snape, 'lapdog' is the extension of 'Snivellus' into the adult > world. After all, Sirius was never really able to let go of the > past. There are plenty of other good interpretations happening on the list, but this one rings most true to me. Now JKR, or a fellow list member, might blow this out water...but that is the risk of airing strong a strong opinion :-) Potioncat: I think you may be right. Of course, I think some of the others may be right too. And JKR if she reads any of this is most likely thinking, "Get a life!" We don't know if Snape and Malfoy have any sort of history from their schooldays. It could work out that way. But at Grimmauld Place Sirius is talking about here and now. (And you are right, this would be an extension of Snivellus, which he is still using.) It may have been JKR's clue to the readers that Snape's role for the oder involves Malfoy. Goes along with the motion Snape makes in GoF when Harry names Malfoy. Notice, Snape doesn't really bite at the insult. He makes a quick word-play to turn the tables on Black by saying Lucius recognised the dog on the train platform. So if he is acting as Malfoy's lapdog, he's accepted it. And as I wrote this, I was taken by this contrast. Black calls Snape Malfoy's lapdog at Christmas...trying to cut Snape's role. Later, Harry says to Snape that it's Snape's job to know what the DE's are doing. Maybe that look on Snape's face was satisfaction that Harry knew he was more than a lapdog. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 15:12:18 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:12:18 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115203 Kneasy: > > Losing his powers by transfer - that's interesting. His protracted whinge > to the DEs in the graveyard seems to infer that he was rendered weak > by not having a body. Seems reasonable - to a certain extent anyway, > though losing powers to Harry would be expected to contribute. > Then he says (referring to the outcome of the PS/SS debacle) that he > feared never regaining his powers, that he was as weak as he'd ever been > even though this time there hadn't been a transfer. A clue? And he says > he needed a wizard body. Well, AFAICS unless he still retained other of > his powers then he'd only be as strong as the wizard he possessed, > wouldn't he? So some, a lot, of his original power must still be with him. Finwitch: Now let's see - yes, Voldy DID lose his powers (most of them anyway) when the curse backfired. He was left with the power to possess, however, and I don't know if Harry got that power from Voldy as well (and is actually doing that when he has those curious dreams!). Still, most of Voldemort's powers are gone into Harry. He's somewhere in Albania (for some reason he was thrown there). He lived as a spirit and was less than a ghost... 1) He possesses Quirrell. (He's inside Quirrell's turban. Harry senses this as the Voldemort-part of the head is towards him AND Snape is looking at him, possibly with Legilemency. Is Voldemort feeling angry at Snape, working under Dumbledore etc.?) Harry does NOT have further scar-attack during Quirrell's class, nor Snape's. 2) Voldemort drinks unicorn blood, often (this probably gives him some strength to further control Quirrell). Harry witnesses this, and *right after* feels the pain again. Did Voldemort do this with or without Quirrell? Harry's still not getting any attacks in Quirrell's class... (very interesting notice, that). 3) Harry feels Voldemort when Quirrell is in front of the Mirror of Erised. Voldemort's ANGRY at Quirrell for not being able to solve the Mirror-puzzle. ******** At this point, Harry's scar hurts not at Voldemort's presence, but when he's close and feeling angry. Next we see Voldemort, it's in the GoF - (Diary!Tom Riddle doesn't really count. That's just a memory). He *can* speak parseltongue. (I'm guessing he *regained* this ability by possessing snakes. Any snake has this ability). He has a wand and he *can* use it. (possibly gained by possessing Quirrell, who was a wizard). A point of the later happening: Voldemort INSISTS on using Harry's blood. And why? Because Harry has his powers! So, in the ritual, Voldemort regained his powers trough Harry's blood. I'm not so sure if Lily's sacrificial protection ever was a thing to be transferred trough blood or if he can touch Harry becuse he has Harry's blood in his veins? When Voldemort touches Harry on cheeck, he's not attempting to kill him and THAT is why he *could* touch him without getting hurt. (Just like with Uncle Vernon - or what did you think made Harry impossible to hold?) Sure, Voldemort thinks he got the protection, but somehow I doubt he does. Further, Dumbledore knows he doesn't. Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 8 15:20:32 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:20:32 -0000 Subject: Snape--A Spy? (was Re Snape - Abusive) In-Reply-To: <001001c4ad2b$45302a80$a258aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > I (Amanda) said - > > > > There is a great need for Harry to survive and be equipped against Voldemort; but there is also a great need for a spy in the enemy's camp, which I think Snape is. > > Kethryn - Ok, so if Snape > really was spying on the DE which I believe he was doing so, then why on earth did he tell Fudge about being a DE himself at the end of GoF? > Amanda responding: > Considering what Ministry support could mean to the struggle against Voldemort, I believe it might have been the lesser of two evils for Snape to reveal his past to Fudge. He was making a last-ditch attempt to convince him, with ultimate arguments, and only spoke after Fudge had rejected lesser proofs.< Not much is being given away. Not a word is said about Snape being a spy. Voldemort already knows that Snape is currently working at Hogwarts, and obviously he already knows that Snape was a DE. Voldemort also, at the time of the incident, believed that Snape had left him for ever. So Snape was going to have a lot of explaining to do in any case. Since Snape went off on his mission that very night, he was the one to tell Voldemort and put his own spin on the news, and it's all good news for Voldie. Fudge doesn't believe Harry's story, he's convinced himself Cedric died by accident, a rift is developing between Fudge and Dumbledore, and thanks to Snape's timely revelation of his dark mark, the old muggle-loving fool hasn't a doubt that Snape supports him, though it could have been dicey since Snape has ties to Lucius as well. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 8 15:28:30 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:28:30 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115205 > Jen Reese wrote: > " Sirius wholeheartedly believed that Peter deserved to die for the > chain of events that started when Peter divulged the Potter's secret > location. Not only did Peter betray the Potter's, he betrayed Harry, > Sirius, Dumbledore & the Order, and ultimately the WW at large. > Peter's one act had devastating consequences for several generations." > Del replies : > Huh, actually, the one act with devastating consequences is Sirius > having the brilliant idea of making Peter Secret-Keeper. Peter had > been betraying them for a year, everyone considered him as a weak > little thing, I don't even understand how he became a member of the > Order or how he wasn't suspected of being the traitor, and yet Sirius > suggests making him SK ?? Jen: Actually, my comment you're responding to was taken out of context in the above snippet. I was commenting on the fact that, right or wrong, *Sirius* held the above conviction, and that this belief fueled his man-hunt of Peter when he escaped from Azkaban. Personally, given the fact I know how things turned out, I don't think making Peter the Secret-Keeper was a brilliant idea. But I do believe from the text we have that *Sirius* believed this move would provide the perfect red herring. Sirius believed Voldemort would come after him as the logical choice for Secret Keeper, allowing the real Secret Keeper to escape unharmed. Then, Voldemort could torture Sirius forever and never have a chance of getting the information. Of course, that idea failed. My personal opinion is this wasn't a bad risk to take on Sirius' part. If Peter was indeed viewed as a 'weak nothing' by most people, it's a reasonable assumption that Voldemort would view him that way as well (and we find out later he does indeed view 'Wormtail' in a negative light) and therefore not suspect Peter is the Secret Keeper. It's easy in retrosepct to say Sirius was the cause of the problems, but I feel that diminishes Peter's role as the actual traitor and betrayer. Peter is the one who actually made an informed choice to betray his friends and the Order. Sirius' error was, as you said, not suspecting Peter in the first place. If I had to rate their actions on a morality scale however, I'd have to say that Peter made a deliberate choice and Sirius made a big mistake. To me, those are very different moral issues. Jen Reese From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 8 15:33:46 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hags In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008153346.10961.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115206 I know there has been some speculation that Doris Umbridge may be a Hag. Though she seems to dislike non purebloods, like Voldemort, I think she doth protest too much. I think it more likely that muggle children be threatened with the old hag tale. It would probably be politically incorrect in the wizarding world. alshainofthenorth wrote: (... in the HP-verse, that is.) The HP books and the Lexicon say hags are female humanoids who have been known to eat children, and there's one in The Leaky Cauldron while Harry stays there. And Quirrell had some nasty business with one. Honoria Nutcombe (1665 - 1743) formed a society for their reformation, and the famous wizard cards have been updated with a few famous hags, as well as with giants and vampires -- check out the biography of Amarillo Lestoat! (I think it's a wee bit sad that those pieces of information aren't recognised for what they are; JKR's quirky imagination at its best.) What do people think about hags in general? Where do they live? How do they relate to humans and other magical beings? Just how dangerous are they? Would more progressive forces in the magical society view it as politically incorrect to threaten disobedient children with them? Thoughts? Speculations? Alshain Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 8 15:53:06 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:53:06 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <20041008140230.4929.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115207 > 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any indications in > this chapter that he could have feelings for her? > > Magda writes > > He called her that because he knew it would upset James. And it did. > Mission accomplished. No, he had no feelings for her at all. > kmc writes: Snape called Lily "mudblood" for the same reason that Draco calls Hermione "mudblood" because she is Muggleborn. IMO Lily is linked with every male in her year because she is the only female character for that generation in the series. With Harry's generation we have a number of pairings for our discussions. kmc From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 8 16:09:18 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:09:18 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Jen Reese wrote: > > " Sirius wholeheartedly believed that Peter deserved to die for > the chain of events that started when Peter divulged the Potter's secret location. Not only did Peter betray the Potter's, he betrayed Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore & the Order, and ultimately the WW at large. Peter's one act had devastating consequences for several generations."< > > > Del replies : > > Huh, actually, the one act with devastating consequences is Sirius having the brilliant idea of making Peter Secret-Keeper. > > Jen: Actually, my comment you're responding to was taken out of context in the above snippet. I was commenting on the fact that, right or wrong, *Sirius* held the above conviction, and that this belief fueled his man-hunt of Peter when he escaped from Azkaban.< Then, Voldemort could torture Sirius forever and never have a chance of getting the information. Of course, that idea failed.< Pippin: That's just the issue, really. Sirius makes a huge point of saying that *he* would have been willing to die for his friends rather than betray them, and I believe he spoke out of personal conviction, but when push came to shove, he tried to jigger things so he wouldn't have to make the choice. Voldemort would never believe that Peter was the secret-keeper, so Sirius says, so even if Sirius talked under torture, Peter would be safe--Voldemort would only think Sirius was still holding out. Murder is against Sirius's personal philosophy, but he's willing to murder Pettigrew (he calls it that) to get revenge. Harry himself observes more than once that he's getting mixed messages from Sirius, so I'm not sure how you can say that this isn't carried out in the books. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 16:11:28 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:11:28 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115209 jen wrote : "If I had to rate their actions on a morality scale however, I'd have to say that Peter made a deliberate choice and Sirius made a big mistake. To me, those are very different moral issues." Del replies : Oh, I agree completely ! I do find Sirius's mistake interesting, though : he made a mistake because he dismissed someone he considered as a mindless inferior, and this inferior showed that he could make his own choices and not just blindly obey Sirius's will. But what I find even more interesting is the fact that Sirius didn't *learn* from his mistake. He repeated with Kreacher the *exact same scenario* that led to disaster the first time. And that's one reason why I think he wasn't a good influence for Harry : because instead of finding lessons in his past mistakes, in his past rashness, he was in fact encouraging Harry to make the exact same mistakes, to indulge in his own rashness the same way Sirius had. Now don't get all worked up : I *know* that Sirius had good excuses, that his emotional maturing was stunted by Azkaban. But unfortunately, that's exactly why he was not good for Harry : because he was still a very young man emotionally, while Harry was looking at him as at an adult. Harry thought him much wiser than he really was, and this wasn't a good thing. Del From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 16:21:41 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:21:41 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041008133839.44548.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > Harry loved the idea of having a godfather who was his and there > for him alone. Sirius loved the idea of having a godson and > fulfilling the role he thought he'd lost 15 years earlier. But > they weren't together long enough or often enough for them to have > a relationship in the present time. I think these points are all very well made, but I think trying to analyze this relationship from our point of knowledge also has some problems. We're trying to work through it rationally, and get down to an idea of 'what was actually there'--when in this case, I think we may have to go with some sort of idea of incommensurability. That is to say, our own perceptions of the relationship are less important than Harry's. It may be logical to say "There is no reason for him to have loved Black that much", but I still think we have the indications and actions that Harry really *did* love him, despite the lack of more obvious indications of the relationship. Dumbledore seems to take that tack in his end-of-book speech, and I am still wary of discounting Dumbledore when he seems to be delivering us What The Author Wants Us To Know. It has been presented to us, through that authorial mouthpiece, that losing Black was a uniquely damaging loss for Harry, of a unique figure. In that light, our own feelings about the suitability/whatever of the relationship are less interesting and important than Harry's, I think. -Nora gets ready to go see a lecture on...music theory From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 16:35:52 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:35:52 -0000 Subject: Ron&twins; Percy out (Was: Re: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: <20041008144641.67882.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich: > > 2. Ron badly needed to get away from the twins. Whether they meant > to or not, Fred and George were cramping Ron badly. F&G's opnions > mattered tremendously to Ron and if they didn't like something, then > he didn't either. Ron's worst moment was his refusal to confront the > twins when they were experimenting inappropriately on first years for > their products. He wimped out of confronting them because he was > afraid of their contempt and scorn. > > Is it really a coincidence that Ron had his first good Quidditch game > AFTER the twins left Hogwarts? I don't think so. I think that > worrying about how the twins perceived his playing was a major drag > on Ron's performance all through the fall. > > So yes, I think we did get to see more of Ron as a result of his new > position. > > Magda Finwitch: I agree that the twins opinion has great weight on Ron. And indeed that makes him less nervous about the game - and thus better at it - after the twins aren't there. Their opinion still does weigh on him, I'd say. I don't know if these sibling-dynamics ever totally leave us. They sure didn't leave Percy. He's the 'odd man out' in sibling-dealings. Bill&Charlie, twins, Ron&Ginny - Percy never had that one to pair with. He upset Bill by insulting their father (and what Bill says counts much for Percy) And now he's cut himself off the family, and even gone as far as to defy Fudge just because he's now (a bit too late, perhaps) agreeing with Percy's family in the belief about Voldemort having returned? Sure, Ron is looking up to the twins - they are the *paired* older brothers he had at home most of his life. (Bill left for Hogwarts when Ron was 2). Not to mention that Ron's worst fear got started after he had upset Fred (by breaking Fred's toy). I think he got accustomed to avoid upsetting people after that, particularly Fred&George. Fred&George told Ron about Hogwarts (nasty things that weren't true), that weird 'turn this rat yellow' spell that didn't work... I wonder what Ron thought when he found that out? Did he confront the twins about it and twins would tell him that 'ask no questions and you won't be lied to' or some such? Finwitch From karen at dacafe.com Fri Oct 8 16:45:43 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:45:43 -0000 Subject: Snape Abusive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115212 > > kmc: > > > Or did Snape just want Neville to have a compelling reason to > > > figure out what he did wrong and fix it? In my first few readings > > > of the books, I would have argued along side of you but I gradually > > > began to realize that Snape is dealing with a dangerous subject. > > > Students must learn to correct their errors. > > > Dawnnie: > > The hardest thing for me to impart on my students was the idea of > > natural consequences and doing for yourself. And I must admit, when > > I first started teaching it was hard for me to **not** rush in and > > fix/correct student errors/mistakes/problems. > > > "phoenixgod2000": > There is still a big difference between making someone answer their > history homework on their own and threatening to poison their pet. > Even if Snape knew that there was not going to be a negative effect > on Trevor, Neville had no way of knowing that. Snape did it to > simply inspire terror in Neville. He is at the very least an > emotional sadist. JK has herself described him as being based on a > hated teacher of hers. Never once has she said that he was a hated > teacher who taught her a lot. I don't think we are supposed to find > deep education reasons for his actions in potions class. I think we > are simply supposed to be sympathetic towards Neville. kmc replies: Where did you read that JKR hated her former science teacher? JKR's former science teacher was surprised to learn that he was one of three teachers that form the basis for Snape's teaching methods. "But, as if by magic, he has since come to believe that his former pupil's literary work is more of a gentle, if wile, way of paying him back for ensuring that people always paid attention during his lessons." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1731602.stm) Remember we are seeing Snape through Harry's eyes and Harry decide at age 11 that Snape is evil. Snape is teaching a subject that the pupil must concentrate on for the entire class. It is not something that you can learn by reading a book or copying someone else's notes. You learn to make potions just like a person learns to cook by doing it and not letting your mind wander. Harry was sympathetic to Neville but I think we were supposed to see Hermione jumping again with her instructions. In an interview JKR stated that she wondered why people don't worry more about Hermione. This is not a knock on Hermione. Just a different perspective on this particular event. Since the Gryffindors take Potions with the Slytherins and Snape favors his house, I will support the point that the Gryffindors get more criticism in Potions than the other houses. But that does not make Snape abusive or a bad teacher. In fact, I think Neville's and Harry's Potions Owl grades are going to be rather high. kmc From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 17:08:25 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:08:25 -0000 Subject: Another death? In-Reply-To: <20041008135808.59256.qmail@web60107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115213 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scott Santangelo wrote: > > jcb54me wrote: > Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me. > > owlery2003 replied: > > You know, I just saw that too, on a Headline News trailer, just a quick little blurb. Dashed to the Lexicon, but no mention there. Of course it's hardly a surprise, and there's been mention of further deaths, but this sounded recent, and I'd love to know the context for the item. I refuse to contemplate one of the trio being killed, particularly since there are so many other fine candidates - Molly and Percy come to mind. It also might be that Dumbledore is removed from the plot by the end of book six (reminiscent of Obi Wan Kenobi). This would be the most dramatic death, of a central figure, "the only one You Know Who really fears," leaving Harry on his own for the first time to chart the course toward the final showdown. > > > Antosha: On her website, in the FAQ section "About the Books", JKR answers the question "Are you going to kill any more characters?" with "Yes. Sorry." To be honest, I don't think any of us here find that to be much of a shock. Having ramped up the violence in the two most recent books, it would have been shocking had the peril and consequences not continued to build. If one (or more) of the Trio dies, I feel fairly certain it will happen in the last book. Otherwise, everything will be off-kilter for volume 7, and we'll spend the entire book mourning the lost friend(s). Bad enough to be mourning one or more of the other Weasleys (if it's Ginny, I'll be... annoyed--the kid's already been through hell), or Remus, or Snape (if he becomes DADA prof), or my personal 'favorite' candidate for a book 6 death, Dumbledore. (I think the time has come for Harry to save the day without the DD cavalry riding in. For book 7, he'll need to be working without a net.) Thinking about this, I have a prediction: DD for DADA professor in book 6, and Snape to fill the accursed post in the last book. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 8 18:49:01 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:49:01 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <009001c4ace7$fad4f620$fa59aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115214 Siriusly Snapey Susan Said: > > I don't want to get into a "But he's justified..." argument about > > either Snape OR Harry here, because that's not the point I'm > > trying to make. (Both have been at fault, imo, especially if we > > bring Occlumency into things.) But Snape is a bright guy, no? > > Snape is an insider, no? Snape is also someone who can clearly > > picture what Voldy's capable of, no? Then he should comprehend > > the importance of Harry learning. Yes, he gets angry > > understandably when Harry doesn't try hard enough, but his > > sarcasm and humiliating remarks and unfair punishments DON'T do > > anything to alleviate Harry's attitude; they only exacerbate it > > and keep the cycle going. Amandageist wrote: > Again, it may be that he *has* to take this tack, and part of his > frustration (coming out as sarcasm and sniping) is that he must. > Voldemort knows his position and would be suspicious if he found no > memories of teaching Harry or Harry's friends in Snape's mind--but > he would also be suspicious if he found Snape being a very > effective teacher, arming Voldemort's enemy against him. > > There is a great need for Harry to survive and be equipped against > Voldemort; but there is also a great need for a spy in the enemy's > camp, which I think Snape is. Until some final confrontation, Harry > is just one of the ways "our side" is resisting Voldemort, and > Snape is a key and dangerous part of that. His role as a teacher > pales beside it. And so, how he teaches may well have needed to be > a part of how he does his Order work, rather than the other way > around. SSSusan: I'm one of those folks who has argued in the past that *part* of Snape's behavior towards Harry/Gryffindors may be attributable to his need to maintain a cover. *I* tend to think that cover is more for the children-of-DEs in his class, who might be reporting back to mumsie & daddy, though, NOT necessarily for Voldy. I mean, I can see Snape wanting to have a few such ridiculing Potter/being unfair to Longbottom memories he could leave in his mind in case Voldy manages to access them, but a *few* would be enough. He is a "superb occlumens," after all, so we know he can prevent at least some access. Additionally, he has the Pensieve, which can be used to store particularly damaging thoughts, such as himself assisting Harry or Neville in any way. So, no, I'm not quite buying that this as *enough* of a rationale for why Snape has failed Harry & Neville in ensuring their learning. Well, okay, he can't ensure that they learn, but he could ensure that he himself has done all that HE can, by assessing how they're doing, how his methods are working. [And, no, I'm not saying he'd need to actually "be nice," nor that he should lower his standards; I'm saying he might have to *control* the humiliation & baiting he dishes, which contribute to these two failing to learn as much as they could.] I contend that Snape is smart enough & sneaky enough that, IF all his nastiness were merely a ruse to maintain a cover, then he *could* manage to use methods which *didn't* cause Harry & Neville to rebel/resist/defy and quake/bumble/fall to pieces, respectively. The fact that he HASN'T managed to do so--when he's ostensibly trying to help DD & the Order--makes me think there just has to be something *real* about Snape's unwillingness or inability to control his cruelty enough to be certain that, for the Order's sake if nothing else, Harry & Neville are "getting it." I do agree with you that Snape has a large role to play and that he has to be careful--I absolutely agree with that. But **if** Snape knows the full prophecy and takes it as seriously as DD does, then I *don't* think his role as teacher [to Harry, at least] should be paling in comparison to his own role as spy or whatever-he-does. Therefore, I think he just truly can't or won't stop himself from this detrimental behavior, or he would, for the Order's sake. Just my two knuts, of course. Siriusly Snapey Susan From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 18:50:31 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:50:31 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115215 Snipped Dungrollin's post 115135 Now Kneasy in post 115191: (with apologies for the incompetence of my snippage) > OK, having vented my spleen, let's delve into the morass that is > GH. > > Anyone who bothers to read my stuff is well aware that I've long > believed that DD predicted the probable course that events would > take at GH and took precautions accordingly. This meant that for > Harry to survive James and Lily couldn't. Some may see this as > harsh and contrary to the view of DD as caring and compassionate, > but I don't see it that way; DD believes that Harry is the person > who can defeat Voldy for good and unless that happens then there > will be other James's, other Lilys, uncounted numbers of them, > that will die because of Voldy. It's a question of doing what is > necessary. > So, there was this Prophecy of which Voldy knows only a part. > It's the first part too, since the eavesdropper was discovered and > ejected before hearing it all. > It can't have been just the first line otherwise he wouldn't have a > clue how to identify this usurper - he needs the thrice defying and > seventh month bits. > But if he gets to hear a little bit more - "...will have power the > Dark Lord knows not..." > That'd be enough to pique his interest, don't you think? It would > call for his personal attention, he'd want to know more about > that. On-going professional development, that sort of thing. > > Let's not forget that DD has heard exactly the same words. There's > a power in Harry and power is what Voldy wants. He'll come for > a closer look. > The protection then, is specific and has been placed to stop Voldy > getting at Harry. In one way the power in Harry is almost like bait > dangled before a shark. Voldy will want to know more about this > mysterious power and when he attempts this the protective trap is > sprung. > Now DD does say "We may never know." > Do you believe his protestation of ignorance? I don't. > If he doesn't know everything then he at least knows a hell of a > lot more than he's letting on, otherwise he wouldn't be so sure > that Voldy would come back, or that Harry would need on-going > protection or that the Prophecy had not already been fulfilled. > Voldy has been vanquished (he uses this exact word in the OoP > explication), Harry has been marked. Yippee! Put out more flags! > It's all over, folks! > But no; not DD. It ain't finished and he knows it. > > How? Bloody good question. > Only one answer that I can see - he knows what happened. > Only two ways he could know what happened - either because > there was an eye-witness or because DD planned it that way. > Or both. Personally I think it's both. > > Your point that the only evidence we have are Harry's visions is > well made; and it's all too easy to forget that these are inside > his head and who else knows about them in any detail? Anybody? > Unless DD has been rummaging around in Harry's memories he has to > have got his info from somewhere else - and even then Harry (so > far as we know) hasn't a clue from his early memories of what > happened to Voldy. > There's more DD could tell us, I think. > > Kneasy Dungrollin: I'm searching for the hidden necker cube. You know, the drawing of a 3D cube that flips its orientation when you look at it for long enough. That change in perspective that will make a whole plethora of facts slip into place, and provide me with a theory that I can defend in this wonderfully obsessive forum. Because I don't have any theories at the moment, I'm afraid (I didn't start playing this game until quite recently), more an endless series of questions, and a huge potential for `yes-buttery' in response to the theories of others. YahooMort came up trumps, and I've read some of your past posts about the prophecy. Just got a little problem though (which you may have addressed in other posts that I didn't find). Your reading of the prophecy means that the *events* it refers to have already come to pass, doesn't it? If the `either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives' refers to James and Lily, why does DD say `Yes' in response to Harry's `So does that mean that... that one of us has got to kill the other one ... in the end?' I suppose he could know it refers to Lily and James, but since he also knows that Harry's the only one who can defeat Voldy for good, he wants to force his hand a bit. Make him assume that it's kill or be killed, so that Harry won't hesitate when the time comes. And I've just re-read something else, again DD at the end of OotP, that made me pause... `He heard only the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as his equal. So Voldemort never knew that there might be danger in attacking you, that it might be wise to wait, to learn more. He did not know that you would have *power the Dark Lord knows not* -` Urgh. Why would DD lie about that? Okay, let's try going at this one step at a time. If DD's right *and* telling the truth, then all is as it seems. Voldy hears about the boy born at the end of July to those who thrice defied him, Lily unwittingly saves Harry by dying, Voldemort tries to AK Harry, curse rebounds and Voldy's gas. DD guesses why Harry survived, and uses Lily's sacrifice to protect Harry at the Dursley's, he also guesses at the time that there may be a connection between Harry and Voldy. However, if DD's right, but not telling the whole truth, then we have the following possibilities: 1. There was a witness to the events of GH who told him immediately what had happened, so it was more than a guess that Lily saved Harry by dying, which would also explain how Hagrid got there so quickly. 2. He set up the protection beforehand as a last resort because he suspected Sirius was the spy. 3. He knew in advance that Lily and/or James would die (as per Kneasy's reading of the prophecy), and set up the protection beforehand with Lily's knowledge and consent, despite knowing that there's no blocking an AK. 4. DD lied to Harry about how much of the prophecy Voldy knew. He knew Voldy would attempt magical larceny on the basis of it, and knew that the protection he'd set up would work against the somthingorotherus spell Voldy would inevitably use (can work with or without Kneasy's reading of the prophecy). 5 and onwards. Spare possibilities for things I haven't thought of. Please (anybody) fill in the blanks. It all gets more complicated if you think more than one may be true, but just bear with me for now... #1 is possible ? particularly in the light of the DE dandy who was supposed to meet Sirius, the one that JKR cut out. #2 is also possible, but somewhat uninteresting (at least for non- Siriophiles). #3 is plausible, but brings us back to `there's no blocking of an AK'. #4 requires a damn good reason for DD lying (or being mistaken) about how much of the prophecy Voldy knows. #5 is by far the most convincing, and as a bonus, requires no canon! I think (IIRC through the haze that was last night) I was wondering if DD was wrong. If he assumes along with everyone else that Voldy used an AK, but really it was the somethingorotherus spell. My idea (which I may not have made entirely clear) was that it was Voldy's attempt to incorporate the `power that the Dark Lord knows not' into himself that made the somethingorotherus spell backfire, rather than Lily's sacrifice. That there's something about Voldy that means not only that he doesn't have this power and despises it, but also that in trying to fill himself with it (without reading the label first), he nearly destroyed himself. This wouldn't necessarily mean that Lily's sacrifice doesn't protect Harry at the Dursley's. Although I've posted recently that I don't really get the point of sending Harry back each summer (since DD seems happy that Harry's safe enough at The Burrow and at Grimmauld Place) unless it's for unforeseen emergencies. My misgiving about the idea is that so much is made of the sacrificial love aspect of the story. Though, now I come to think about it again, has JKR ever said that was a theme of the books? I recall others (particularly those defending HP against religious fundamentalists) making much of it, but all I remember JKR saying is that death and dealing with death was a big theme running through the series. Dungrollin (wishing she had more time, brains and chocolate) P.S. Kneasy: Another niggle here - who did the throwing out? It'd hardly be DD, he's listening to Sybill and I don't think she's got a 'pause' button.) Dungrollin: Aberforth, surely? From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 18:52:48 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:52:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115216 > Meri wrote: > snip > > But why then did he leave the Pensieve out in the open? Snape > knows what a busybody Harry is, and surely (though I have no canon to back this up) DD would have mentioned that Harry knows how a Pensieve works and might be tempted to peek. For a guy who locks up > his office with myriad spells and spends time prowling the halls, > Snape seems peculilarly paraniod about his own personal security. > So why on earth did he leave Harry alone in his office with a full > > Pensieve? It doesn't make sense from what we know of Snape, > unless, again, there is some reason that either, a: Harry had to > see that memory, or b: Snape could no longer teach him Occlumency, > for what ever reason. But Snape actually trusting Harry? Not in a > million years. > > Potioncat responded: > How did Snape know they would be interrupted? Do you think he set > it up that Draco would come running in for help? If he wanted Harry to go into the Pensieve to have an excuse to stop Occlumency, why > that memory? He could have chosen anything and used the intrusion > as an excuse. > > I think someone wanted Harry and the reader to see that memory, but > it wasn't Snape. It was JKR. And she set it up so we did. Yes, > Snape removes his memories in front of Harry. With no comment or > explanation, or taunting. He puts them back in immediately after the Occlumency lessons. I have the impression that there is some sort of time constraint involved. But that is my guess. > > You know, Snape has this "saving people thing" and he had a student > to rescue. Not only was his student trapped, but it was Umbridge > trying to get him free...about as bad as Lockhart mending broken > bones. So he takes off, forgetting his Pensieve, just like Lupin > took off forgetting his Potion. > > So I don't see how this could have been a trap for Harry. > Hannah: Snape with a 'saving people thing' - I like that. It explains his behaviour in PS (where he seems to be going it alone without referring it to DD). And he rushes off as soon as he hears Trelawney screaming in the entrance hall. I agree that Snape has no reason that I can see to make Harry see that memory. I don't see how he could have set up the interruption with Draco (a very risky student to use, for one thing), and otherwise he'd have had no opportunity to leave the pensieve. People have speculated as to why that memory was in the pensieve, when surely Snape has so many, far nastier memories. I wondered if age has anything to do with it. I know Harry only breaks into 3 of Snape's memories, but all of them are when Snape is a child/teenager. Maybe because Harry only has experience of childhood, he is more likely to see these memories of Snapes, because he can relate to them more. Likewise, a lot of the memories that Snape sees are Dursley-related, maybe that's because he can relate to these? Anyway, it would make sense for Snape to hide in the pensieve the teenage/ childhood memories that he least wants Harry to see, as he's more likely to accidentally break into these if he briefly breaks down Snape's defences with a shielding spell. Hannah From EyeMelodius at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 18:57:47 2004 From: EyeMelodius at hotmail.com (annunathradien) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:57:47 -0000 Subject: Ron and money (kinda Spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115217 delwynmarch wrote: > She even concludes by saying that she "wanted to > show, through Ron, how hard it is sometimes not to have any money when > other people do". I've never thought Ron was a bad person for his upset about money, but it is a sore spot with him. As JKR confirms on her website (not that we really needed it, the soreness is pretty clear in canon). It can garner sympathy, but I still feel - as I've always felt - it could also be something exploitable. Something I had a mild suspicion of previously, with JKR bringing it up again I've been thinking about it all the more frequently. Having such a visible chink in the armor, per se, never sat well with me in regards to Ron or JKR's style. With JKR pointing it out specifically on her site, it once again draws notice to it. It's certainly true that, just because a character might be poor and have unpleasant feelings in regards, it doesn't mean they *might* be tempted by nefarious forces of any kind. However, I'm also not going to lull myself into a false sense of security in regards to Ron, or any of the characters. Especially not with the likes of ("playing on our faults and fears") Voldemort and his Death Eaters taking the gloves off in the upcoming books. annunathradien From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 8 19:02:37 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:02:37 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] GH re-re-revisited References: <1097218527.5113.27169.m21@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001d01c4ad69$62e40ae0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 115218 Dungrollin wrote: >Then again, if Dumbledore *didn't* set it all up before hand, how >*could* he know what saved Harry at GH? How could he even know that >Lily sacrificed her life so that Harry would live? As far as we >know, he didn't witness the attack at GH. To assume that he >knows absolutely what he's talking about and is pretending not to be >sure about it in front of Harry for some other nefarious reason, >we'd have to assume that there's an eyewitness who told him how Lily >died. The only evidence we have for Lily dying to save Harry, is >Harry's memories of her pleading with Voldy, the ones that start >to come back when he gets too close to a Dementor, and we have no >evidence that Lily's dying did actually save him. (For that matter, >I don't think we have any actual evidence that Harry's really safe >at Privet Drive, either.) Perhaps, Dumbledore along with the rest of >the WW, assumed that it was an AK, and the only way he could imagine >Harry possibly survived was through this ancient magic that Voldy >despises. 1. By first thing the following morning, the entire WW knows what's happened, or at least the fact that Voldemort is gone and that they have Harry to thank. And it's not just rumour, they're convinced and out on the streets partying. 2. Although Dumbledore hasn't seen Hagrid all day, he too knows exactly what happened by the time he meets McGonagall. 3. If the Ministry weren't also convinced of what had happened, I would suggest that they'd have stamped very hard on the celebrations. Hagrid finding two dead bodies and a live Harry wasn't going to be sufficient to convince anyone, even if he'd stayed around (which he didn't). All of which suggests to me that _someone_ from the good guys' side witnessed what happened (perhaps through the bedroom window from the street) and their story to the Ministry and the media (and later to Dumbledore) was sufficient to convince everyone that Voldemort was dispersed and hadn't just walked away muttering "Foiled Again!" I've previously aired the theory that the rescue party was larger than just Hagrid and that they arrived just too late, in time to be witnesses but too late to intervene. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From EyeMelodius at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 19:20:38 2004 From: EyeMelodius at hotmail.com (annunathradien) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:20:38 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: <20041008144641.67882.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115219 Magda Grantwich wrote: > 1. He really does want to shine somehow, to be more than just exist > in the shadow of his brothers (remember his view of the mirror of > Erised in PS/SS?). But there's an old saying: be careful what you > wish for because you may get it. This might be slightly random, but in regards to Ron's appearance in (PS/SS) Mirror of Erised.... Ron seemed to have what he wanted - his deepest heart's desire, yet he was alone in the Mirror. Initially, the vision (or whatever you can call it) seems kind of amusing with Ron basically wanting to be the star of the school (who among us hadn't wished that at some point in school?). But he's all alone. Perhaps I'm looking too much into it, but I've often pondered the potential consequences of the Mirror in a "The Devil and Daniel Webster" sense. You can achieve this *deepest heart's desire*... but is the price too high to pay? Ron's look in the Mirror? *Be careful what you wish for*, with possibly a side of *It's always lonely at the top*? Then again, it's the face value of the Mirror vision against the truth of the desire. Realizing the truth without being clouded at it's face value? Of course, material or truth, the price may *still* be too high to pay. annunathradien From hautbois1 at comcast.net Fri Oct 8 15:41:11 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:41:11 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: <002201c4ad40$f789c550$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115220 (SNNIP!) SSSusan: So, while we don't SEE the physical abuse--I suspect JKR wanted to spare us the details?--it's fairly apparent, to me at least, that it's happening. How could it be Dudders' favorite form of entertainment if it doesn't happen? (SNNNIP!) Sherry now I think the child protection services, here in the states, would have a lot to say about abuse of a child in those circumstances. I would call that abuse. Even sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs could be considered to be abuse... > Sherry G And...here's Patrick... What I find absolutely amazing is that Harry is as stable as he is considering the circumstances in which he was brought up. Even if there was very little physical abuse (and I agree that there must be at least a bit)the emotional neglect is enough. I often wonder when Harry turned into the Dursley's "punching bag". When he was left with them he was very young? Did they treat one-year old Harry with the same distane and and ill-will they do 15-year old Harry? If so, HOW he grew up to be as "stable" (and we know he's not TOTALLY stable) as he is is baffling. Patrick From Snarryfan at aol.com Fri Oct 8 19:31:50 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:31:50 -0000 Subject: Trust/Occ/Snape/Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115221 About this subject, Snape beginning to trust Harry, I had something to add. It wasn't the first time that Snape left the room letting the Pensieve with Harry. He did that when Trelawney was fired, and Harry left the room after him. Do what you want with this. Maybe Snape thought, after come back from the Trelawney scene and saw that Harry left too, that he wasn't as bad/james-like as he thought, and that he could trust him a little bit. Christelle From hautbois1 at comcast.net Fri Oct 8 15:05:41 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:05:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115222 (SNIP!) > Kim R.: > ...reference to whether DD has ever transformed himself into anyone or anything else? (SNIP!) > Finwitch: > Well, I haven't seen anything either way, apart from the part of being a transfiguration teacher, and a surname which happens to be an old word for bumblebee to point suggest animagus-ability in particular. Patrick chimes in here... This is very interesting. In CoS, during the scene where Dumbledore finds Harry at the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore mentions (paraphrase) "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." Perhaps in the same way Skeeter becomes "invisible" (as a beetle) Dumbledore could become "invisible" as a bumblebee. I think it's a very fitting name, considering his personality, but maybe we SHOULD be looking a bit harder at his name. Patrick From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 19:59:32 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:59:32 -0000 Subject: References: Hags - Basic Definition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alshainofthenorth" wrote: > > (... in the HP-verse, that is.) > > The HP books and the Lexicon say hags are female humanoids who have > been known to eat children, > > ..edited... > > What do people think about hags in general? Where do they live? How > do they relate to humans and other magical beings? Just how dangerous > are they? Would more progressive forces in the magical society view > it as politically incorrect to threaten disobedient children with > them? > > Thoughts? Speculations? > > Alshain bboyminn: Sorry, I can't add much but a basic definitions and some links- HAG- http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Hag.htm There are different forms of hags. The hag from European folklore is supernaturally ugly, associated with the devil and depicted sometimes as a witch. Hags are known to use a human as a mount and will "ride" them in their sleep, hence the term 'hag-ridden'. During sleep, a hag will climb onto a man's stomach or chest and will "ride" him. This will cause the man great discomfort and nightmares, and even, if the hag continues to ride the man, death. In Celtic mythology a hag is an ancient spirit, usually seen carrying rocks in her apron which, when dropped, can cause mountains to form. it is said that if two hags are heard arguing, you should retreat indoors, for it may begin to rain boulders and trees. There is also and Irish hag that helps out in the household with the spinning. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - First and foremost, Hags are UGLY. Second, they like to eat children. There are many /hags/ that are described as hags, but have names of their own. Such as .. Black Annis A fearsome hag who haunted the Dane Hills in Leicestershire. She had iron like claws and lived in a cave, which she hollowed out with her claws. It is said that she ate children and hung their skins on the cave wall. http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/folklore/englishfolkapp.html For a great cross section of info on British Folklore see... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Mysterious Britian - a guide to mysterious places, legends and folklore within the British Isles." http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/index.html This site works best with MS Internet Explorer. The cascading menus don't quite work right in Mozilla or Netscape. Interesting facts- We've all heard of the Loch Ness Monster, but there are may Lochs/lakes that have had monster sightings, one that even has a longer and more frequent history of sightings than Loch Ness. Dragons are the oldest monster and are found in nearly every culture on earth. Dragon cave paintings have been found dating back 25,000 years. BUT, and this is a big BUT, there are still modern sighting of dragons. Texas - Modern sightings include a huge, winged reptile that terrorized the San Antonio valley, Texas for several months in 1976. Tibet - . A house sized, long necked, scaly, green dragon with formidable teeth that has eaten fishermen and livestock in Lake Wembu, Tibet,... China - a horned, black-scaled dragon seen by five hundred witnesses in July 2002 in Lake Tianchie, northeast China. Wales - In the early 19th century folklorist Mary Trevelyan interviewed many elderly people living in the Glamorgan area of Wales. They recounted memories from their youth (early 19th century) of a race of winged serpents said to inhabit the forest around Penllyne Castle.... For more details, see the book "Dragons; More than a Myth?" I found many fun links by searching Google for 'Folklore Hag'. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From martyb1130 at aol.com Fri Oct 8 20:00:27 2004 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (brodeur012000) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:00:27 -0000 Subject: Marauders Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115224 Why is it that in the chamber of secrets, that Fred and George could not use the marauders map to find Ginny, and ultimately find out where "Tom Riddle" is. If the Weasleys did not have it, then why didn't Filch use it? Drew From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 20:33:12 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 13:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008203312.4980.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115225 --- justcarol67 wrote: > (Notice, btw, that James's dislike of Severus seems very > casual and offhand, something he has not thought out or even > questioned until Lily asks him what Snape has ever done to him, a > question for which he has no valid answer. Sirius's hatred of > Severus, however, is virulent and personal. In fact, James hexes > Severus for Sirius's entertainment, for no better reason than that > his best friend is bored. It's as if Severus is not a person to him > but an object to be manipulated.) > >Carol I noticed that the first time I read the chapter and ever since have wondered about it especially in connection with Sirius' claim that Snape as a kid was into the Dark Arts. There's something definitely off about that claim - either it's not true at all or Snape (like Sirius himself) came from a DA-sympathetic family with purist sympathies or it's true and for some reason wasn't important during their school years as Sirius remembers it as being. I'm sticking to my bastard-Black theory for this question. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From siskiou at vcem.com Fri Oct 8 20:57:59 2004 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 13:57:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron ( was OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39716610.20041008135759@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115226 Hi, Friday, October 8, 2004, 7:19:40 AM, delwynmarch wrote: > Del replies : > I personally don't believe in Jealous!Ron. Ron wasn't jealous in GoF, > he was hurt, because he felt Harry had betrayed him by not sharing > with him how to get past the age line. > If you look all over the rest of the books, you'll see that jealousy > is most definitely *not* one of Ron's traits. A bit of envy > sometimes, but never jealousy. > And Ron would not have been jealous if Harry had been Prefect, because > that's exactly what he was expecting. This is what I've been thinking, too. Ron was just as astonished as everyone else, when he received the badge, so I don't think he would have been eaten up with jealousy, had Harry been the one to get it. Sure, he may have felt a little surge of envy (Harry did, too), which is perfectly normal, or he may have been feeling a bit left out, but nothing OVERWHELMING . I truly don't understand where this feeling that Ron is partially defined by >paul_terzis: > The obsessive although "UNDERCURRENT" pursuit > of wealth and fame combine with the envy The way I read it, Ron wants to be standing out so he is not seen as just the brother of so-and-so, who did such and such, or the friend of... He wants to be recognized for his own accomplishments, but he isn't doing this by steamrolling over others, and he is definitely not obsessive about it. He has started to work on this and his self esteem by trying out for keeper, and having to find out it doesn't come as easily for most as he may have thought. After all, Harry just had to jump on a broom, and without ever practicing, became the youngest seeker of the century. I also agree with Del in that Ron was more hurt than jealous in GoF. He thought Harry had found a way to enter the tournament, but left Ron out (very much like the feeling Harry had when Ron and Hermione were at Grimmauld Place without being able to let him know anything about the order). Ron was wrong, of course, and unfriendly, and so was Harry in similar circumstances. If one instance of jealousy makes it your defining quality, than we pretty much all have to stand with Ron. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 8 21:02:48 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:02:48 -0000 Subject: Marauders Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115227 Drew worte: > Why is it that in the chamber of secrets, that Fred and George could > not use the marauders map to find Ginny, and ultimately find out > where "Tom Riddle" is. If the Weasleys did not have it, then why > didn't Filch use it? Hannah: The Weasleys had the map at this point, they'd been using it for some time. Even if Filch had had it, as a squib he would be unable to access it (it required magic to activate). It's been suggested before that, as the Marauders wouldn't have necessarily even known of the Chamber's existence, and certainly wouldn't have known its location, the Chamber can't be on the map. Perhaps the twins did look, and couldn't see her. Maybe Riddle didn't show up (he was a memory, not a person), or perhaps Ginny, being nearly consumed by Riddle, showed up as Riddle, and not Ginny. The twins probably never even thought of looking. They were pretty distrught at the time. Hannah From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 8 21:40:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:40:07 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: <002701c4ad20$8fc1ad90$0ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115228 Del said: >>>Don't forget that you're talking about someone who doesn't even know the name of someone he's had a common class with for several years (Theo Nott). In general terms, we could say that unless someone shines in something that interests Harry, he simply won't notice them. <<< Geoff replied: >> "That is an assumption which could be wrong. I've been trying to locate a message I wrote on this very point some while ago when I pointed out that when I was in my grammar school, I didn't know everyone in a group necessarily."<< DuffyPoo: > OotP "If anything more was needed to complete Harry's happiness, > it was the reaction he got from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. He saw > them with their heads together later that afternoon in the > library; they were with a weedy-looking boy Hermione whispered was > called Theodore Nott." Obviously Harry didn't know his name or > Hermione wouldn't have had to tell him. Harry's lack of knowledge > about other kids in his house/classes has always sort of bothered > me. SSSusan: Doesn't anyone else besides me think that perhaps Harry "doesn't know" Nott because JKR simply didn't want us to think too much about him too early in the story? Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 21:59:13 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:59:13 -0000 Subject: Secret Passageway Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115229 JR wrote: > In POA, Harry takes the secret passageway behind the humpback witch that leads him into Hogsmeade. Now since it seems that Fred and George know about this because of the Mauraders Map, wouldn't it stand to reason that Wormtail also knows about this secret passage. Why wouldn't he let the Death Eaters and Voldemort know. It would seem to me that this would be a fairly easy way to invade Hogwarts. > > Has this ever been addressed? Carol responds: I think that Wormtail in his spy days kept as many secrets as he could from Voldemort, who was chiefly concerned about Harry and would have focused chiefly on the Potters' activities and whereabouts. Wormtail, trying to fool himself into thinking that he was keeping faith with both sides, could have concealed that three of the Marauders were animagi and one a werewolf. Even with his legilimency, Voldemort would not have been probing for those particular thoughts and memories. Nor would he have cared about MWPP's activities at Hogwarts, including the Marauder's map. In any case, Voldemort wasn't interested in getting into Hogwarts at that time--James and Lily had already left and Harry was an infant. The DEs, even those in his inner circle like Bellatrix, would have known even less. Clearly the DEs in Azkaban didn't know that Pettigrew was an animagus or they'd have figured out his trick in framing Sirius Black, and they'd have even less reason than Voldemort to know about the Marauder's map, which had nothing to do with the Potters' whereabouts in the year or so before their deaths. However, now that Wormtail is himself a DE rather than a mere spy (and I think the point recently made that his Dark Mark in the graveyard scene is red rather than black does indeed suggest that it's new), and now that Voldemort, at least, is fully aware that the nickname Wormtail has more than figurative significance, the little rat may indeed reveal that he knows about secret passageways into Hogwarts. (He won't know, of course, that the fourth-floor passage is blocked, but Voldemort would probably send him in to scout the situation before using any of the passages himself.) So, while I think I understand why Wormtail's knowledge of the secret passageways was never used in the past for an invasion into Hogwarts, I do think that knowledge will come into play in Book 6 or 7. (Why have the passages in the books if their only purpose is to allow Harry to sneak into Hogsmeade--or Sirius to enter Ron's and Harry's dorm room?) Voldemort's chief target, after all, is Harry, and Harry is at Hogwarts (as is his other nemesis, Dumbledore). If I were Voldemort, I would put world dominance on the back burner until I had insured my immortality by killing "the one with the power to destroy the Dark Lord" first. Once he kills Harry, the only person who can destroy him, he'll have all the time in the world to wage VW2--which I think is why we've seen so few murders and so little terror so far. Carol P.S. I don't envision a whole regiment of DEs entering Hogwarts via the humpbacked witch, but how about Wormtail in rat form as a spy or Voldemort himself backed by Dementors, with Harry as their target? C. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 8 22:17:17 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:17:17 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115230 Magda: > > Harry loved the idea of having a godfather who was his and there > > for him alone. Sirius loved the idea of having a godson and > > fulfilling the role he thought he'd lost 15 years earlier. But > > they weren't together long enough or often enough for them to > > have a relationship in the present time. Nora: > I think these points are all very well made, but I think trying to > analyze this relationship from our point of knowledge also has > some problems. We're trying to work through it rationally, and > get down to an idea of 'what was actually there'--when in this > case, I think we may have to go with some sort of idea of > incommensurability. That is to say, our own perceptions of the > relationship are less important than Harry's. It may be logical > to say "There is no reason for him to have loved Black that much", > but I still think we have the indications and actions that Harry > really *did* love him, despite the lack of more obvious > indications of the relationship. > > It has been presented to us, through that authorial mouthpiece, > that losing Black was a uniquely damaging loss for Harry, of a > unique figure. In that light, our own feelings about the > suitability/whatever of the relationship are less interesting and > important than Harry's, I think. SSSusan: While I understand what Magda is saying about being in love with the *idea* of being a godfather/godson, I agree more fully with Nora. While it may seem bizarre to some of us that Harry could love Sirius deeply so quickly, we're...well...not Harry. My take on this is that, *because* Harry was denied love for so long, to have someone openly CARE for him -- CHOOSE him, in fact -- was a deeply moving experience. Why would he believe he was lovable up to that point? Mrs. Weasley was kind to him, yes. Lupin was, also. DD had supported him. Ron & Hermione may have shown him this some, but would Harry be confident that he lovable to an adult, parent-like figure? I think Sirius' coming for him, inviting him into his life, was a *BIG* deal to Harry, and he was overcome with wonder at it. It COULD have been just an idealized thing, yes, but I think it *was* real affection for Harry. If it had all been a "house of cards"--Sirius up on a pedestal, not a REAL person whom Harry truly cared about--then when Harry began to recognize faults & annoyances in Sirius [in OotP, particularly], he'd have had this image *shattered,* not shaken slightly, and the relationship would have crumbled. No, the affection was genuine, imo, because these annoyances & concerns didn't shatter Harry's image of Sirius, nor make him stop caring about him. At various times between the end of PoA and Sirius' death in OotP, Harry found an adult he trusted he could turn to for advice, an adult who WANTED to answer his questions(!!), an adult who risked his safety on his behalf, an adult who gave him real gifts , an adult who wanted to share his life with him. It makes perfect sense to me that it didn't take all that long for the affection to grow deep. Again, if the feelings *weren't* genuine, when Sirius became surlier, more reckless, when he goaded Harry a little, Harry would've turned away from him and said, "Screw this!" But he never did. That's how I see it anyway. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 8 22:23:16 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:23:16 -0000 Subject: PC Wizards? was Re: Hags In-Reply-To: <20041008153346.10961.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase wrote: > I know there has been some speculation that Doris Umbridge may be a Hag. Though she seems to dislike non purebloods, like Voldemort, I think she doth protest too much. I think it more likely that muggle children be threatened with the old hag tale. It would probably be politically incorrect in the wizarding world. > It appears wizards don't give a blithering snorkack about politcal correctness. -A dozen or so trolls began to smash apart the chamber with their clubs, while hags glided about the place in search of children to eat-- Bathilda Bagshot, *A History of Magic* quoted in FBAWTFT p xi. Perhaps someone would like to compose a politically correct version of that passage? (Attempts to OT-Chatter, please) As things stand, I don't think wizards will ever go into political correctness in a big way. They are unlikely to conceive of an egalitarian society as anything more than a utopian dream, since they lack the tools to construct one. Unlike Colt's pistols, Ollivander's wands do not make men equal. Even Gryffindor morality is based on chivalry, the concept that the strong should protect the weak, which is not egalitarian at all. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 8 22:39:50 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:39:50 -0000 Subject: Trust/Occ/Snape/Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115232 Christelle: > Maybe Snape thought, after come back from the Trelawney scene and saw that Harry left too, that he wasn't as bad/james-like as he thought, and that he could trust him a little bit.< Also, Snape has no way to know whether Harry looked into the Pensieve entirely of his own will. If Voldemort tempted him to do it, then the lessons not only are not working, they are indeed making things worse. In fact the patch of shivering light on the doorframe of Snape's office makes Harry think of the dancing lights in his vision and lures him to the Pensieve, hoping to learn more about the Department of Mysteries. Pippin From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 8 22:46:33 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:46:33 -0000 Subject: Roles in the Order was Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115233 potioncat wrote: Dharma replies: snip For me, in the adult world, there are many distortions here. However, I remember seeing this dynamic many times as a child, and unfortunately have seen it quite regularly working with kids as an adult. I'm convinced that in the case of Sirius/James and Snape, 'lapdog' is the extension of 'Snivellus' into the adult world. After all, Sirius was never really able to let go of the past. There are plenty of other good interpretations happening on the list, but this one rings most true to me. Now JKR, or a fellow list member, might blow this out water...but that is the risk of airing a strong opinion :-) Potioncat: I think you may be right. Of course, I think some of the others may be right too. And JKR if she reads any of this is most likely thinking, "Get a life!" We don't know if Snape and Malfoy have any sort of history from their schooldays. It could work out that way. But at Grimmauld Place Sirius is talking about here and now. (And you are right, this would be an extension of Snivellus, which he is still using.) It may have been JKR's clue to the readers that Snape's role for the oder involves Malfoy. Goes along with the motion Snape makes in GoF when Harry names Malfoy. Notice, Snape doesn't really bite at the insult. He makes a quick word-play to turn the tables on Black by saying Lucius recognised the dog on the train platform. So if he is acting as Malfoy's lapdog, he's accepted it. And as I wrote this, I was taken by this contrast. Black calls Snape Malfoy's lapdog at Christmas...trying to cut Snape's role. Later, Harry says to Snape that it's Snape's job to know what the DE's are doing. Maybe that look on Snape's face was satisfaction that Harry knew he was more than a lapdog. Dharma replies: Well to me it would make sense for Snape, as a spy for either side, to be in close contact with Lucius. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Lucius is a leader in the ranks of the Death Eaters but, if Snape never achieved equivalent status, then Lucius would be a good source of information from or about Voldemort. Staying in good favor with Malfoy is works well strategically for Snape. To some extent, at present being "Malfoy's lapdog" is utterly desirable. As to Snape's satisfaction...I really like the suggestion of Harry finally seeing that Snape is not just a lapdog. A very similar thought I've always had is that, Harry is finally acknowledging that Snape is part of the plan, for better or worse. Harry is enraged and speaking from a very angry dark place, but he's finally forced, through his own words, to confront the idea of Snape as an integral part of the unit moving against Voldemort. Harry no knows what Snape's job is in the Order. He unwittingly speaks to Snape's authority in knowledge of the Death Eaters plans, and Snape drives it home for him. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 23:01:55 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:01:55 -0000 Subject: Harry : compassion vs saving-people thing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115234 Pippin wrote: > The definition as Del is applying it is too narrow for me.True, > Harry is not much, yet, on providing emotional support. He's > been able to get by, though not happily, with amazingly little of it > himself, so it's not surprising that he'd have problems relating to > this need in other people. > > But "suffering" is not only emotional and "wanting to do > something about it" need not be limited to providing emotional > support. Would anyone really say that the researcher who puts in > long and lonely hours to find a cure for a disease or the > philanthropist who "gives till it hurts" aren't aware of others' > pain and willing to suffer themselves to alleviate it? Isn't that > compassion too? Carol responds: Maybe it's not that Harry doesn't feel compassion, he just can't express it in words. Apparently (like many men, and maybe boys as well), he feels more comfortable taking action to solve a problem than talking about it and sharing feelings. Even men who know how to listen and give comfort with a hug (neither being Harry's forte) are often at a loss for words when a woman or child is expressing emotional pain, much less admitting or expressing their own grief and fear. (Anger, though, is "manly" and can, they think, safely be expressed.) I suppose it's partly the way boys are brought up, and, of course, Harry's own upbringing would reinforce the tendency to keep his unhappiness hidden. (Also, he can endure suffering better than many people because he's used to deprivation. Neither darkness nor spiders scares him, which may partly explain why his reaction to the Forbidden Forest differs so dramatically from Ron's or Draco's and why he has so little empathy for Ron's fear of spiders.) None of this means that Harry, especially as he becomes a bit older, is wholly incapable of compassion or empathy. He recognizes Neville's pain with regard to the fate of his parents, even understands that it some ways Neville's position is worse than his own, but there's nothing he can *do* about it, and he has absolutely no idea what to *say*. By the same token, he's helpless in the face of Cho's torrent of tears over Cedric's death and her own tangled feelings of attraction to Harry and disloyalty to Cedric. The best he can manage is a "wet" kiss (funnier from an adult perspective than a child's). He can't give her what she really wants, a listening ear and words expressing understanding and validation of her feelings, not even "It's okay, Cho, I understand"--because he doesn't. But in the face of physical suffering and danger to others, when action is not only possible but seems right and necessary and no comforting words are required, Harry's compassion finds an outlet--"saving people," rescuing them from physical pain or danger, the only kind that he can fully grasp, the only kind that can be dealt with by *doing something.* Think of great surgeons with a terrible bedside manner. They want to *fix* the problem, not talk about it or listen to someone else talk about it. It's the disease, not the patient's feelings about the disease, that they perceive as the problem. Remove the cancerous tumor; end the problem; move on to the next patient. And laboratory research to find a cure for cancer is even more impersonal. Yes, it's good and necessary and admirable, but it doesn't require compassion on a personal level. It doesn't require holding the hand of a patient whose cancer is inoperable and listening to her express her fears and finding words that will comfort her without dismissing her fear and suffering. Much easier, really, if you have keen eyes and a steady hand, to operate on a different patient who can be saved. I'm not dismissing or ridiculing Harry's "saving people complex," only trying to distinguish it from a more intuitive compassion that is surely rare in the WW. Hermione can see and explain Cho's feelings to an uncomprehending Harry, but would even she be able to comfort Cho (who, of course, wants that comfort from a boy she likes, not another girl)? Would Lupin, who perhaps understands Harry better than anyone else, be able to express that understanding in words? Would Harry be receptive if he did? How would Neville react if Harry came up to him and said, "I, erm, I'm sorry about your parents?" Would Neville just nod and say "Thanks" and that would be the end of it because there's no way to *do something* about the Longbottoms' plight? Or would the conversation end with a futile quest for vengeance? Better to remain silent and take action where action is possible. Carol, rather surprised at the direction this post has taken and not at all sure that she's right in her analysis of Harry From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Fri Oct 8 23:14:28 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:14:28 -0000 Subject: A thought about PS/SS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115235 I have been transcribing the HP books. I've been planning on it for a while now, and have just started. I'm working on PS/SS right now, and I realized something: When Hagrid brings baby Harry to Privet Drive, he tells DD that he got the motorcycle from "young Sirius Black." Here's the weird part: DD thought SB was the Potter's secret Keeper, correct? And if he knew that Voldemort had gotten the Potters (which he does know), then obviously he knew that something had happened, that the secret keeper had told Voldemort where they were. So why doesn't DD have some sort of reaction to the name when Hagrid says Sirius' name? Surely DD would have registered some surprise, but he only says "No problems, were there?" DD testified that SB was the Secret keeper. Did he know about the switch? I never thought so, otherwise he'd have found a way to get SB out of prison. So why doesn't DD look surprised, upset, or ask Hagrid anything about SB? Maybe a "What was he doing there?" or something, anything! This concerns me... Any thoughts? ~Yb From dzeytoun at cox.net Fri Oct 8 23:45:50 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:45:50 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Follow directions, don't cringe or tremble, don't melt your > cauldron, and you won't get picked on. I don't agree Carol. In my view, you are imparting far too much reasonableness to Snape. I suspect Neville would be picked on even if he did not cringe, tremble, or melt his cauldron. The man just despises him. Dzeytoun From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 00:11:37 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:11:37 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115237 > Sophierom wrote: > > So, this is part II in my series on Snape as seen in canon (subtitled: > how to waste an enormous amount of time!). Part I, if you're > interested, can be found at Message 114856 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114856 > Neri: CoS is a good book for understanding Snape as a character because this is the only book in which he does NOT play an active role in the main plot. In SS/PS and GoF he is a suspect, so he has to look suspicious. In PoA and OotP he his actions drive the plot, so he needs motives for these actions. But in CoS what we see of Snape is pure characterization. Sophierom : > Snape leads them "away from the warmth and light" of the > Great Hall > and into the "cold passageway" that leads to the dungeons. > Harry > shivers when he enters Snape's office, and the room is full of > "revolting things that Harry didn't really want to know the > name of at > the moment." The fireplace "was dark and empty." > Neri: Why does Snape prefer the cold dungeon so much that he made it his office? It might be due to a mechanistic reason (like "Snape is a vampire") but I tend to think it is a metaphor. IMHO JKR tells us that Snape is a cold person. Unnaturally cold, actually, so much so that there is something suspicious about his humanity. While I've never believed the vampire theory, even before Hurricane Jo sent it to the bottom of TBAY, I think Pippin has some point: there is indeed something not entirely human in Snape. Not that I think his parents weren't humans. This would be biological determinism very uncharacteristic of JKR. The problem is likely not in Snape's blood but in his soul, and it is probably something he had done to himself in order to gain protection from Voldy, or something that Voldy did to him as a part of some terrible experiment. I smell Dark Art at work here. I mean, look at the other baddies in HP: even Uncle Vernon at least loves his wife and son. Dudley and Draco have friends. Filch has Mrs Norris. Lucius has a family and Bella has a husband. Even Voldy (whom JKR assures us has loved nobody) keeps a pet female snake. But Snape is utterly alone as far as we know, and he shows warmth to nobody. > Sophierom: Whether > or not > Snape and Dumbledore are playing "good cop-bad cop," I > can't say for > certain. But, based on what we know of Snape and his hatred for James > Potter, I happen to think that Snape sincerely would like Harry gone. > Still, I doubt he sees this as realistic, knowing as he does that > Dumbledore wants to keep him safe from LV. > > > In this scene, it seems to me that Snape is quite aware that Harry is > not behind Mrs. Norris's state, but he's willing to use the > situation > to punish Harry and help his Slytherin team nonetheless. Again, > I'm > not sure if he really expects to get away with such blatant unfairness > in the presence of Dumbledore and McGonagall. It seems almost like > it's something he knows he has to try, even if it won't work. > And in > some ways, it seems like a little show the three of them put on ? > rather like the scene in Snape's office when Ron and Harry have > just > landed the car into the Whomping Willow. Snape is the "bad > cop" and > both Dumbledore and McGongall play some version of the "good > cop." Neri: I think most of us agree that there is some element of act in Snape's behavior. I think most of us also agree that there is at least some element of sincere hatred in it. So the question is, what percent is an act and what percent is true emotion. I can well see why Secret Agent Snape has to maintain his cover by favoring the Slytherins in class, but I never understood why would DD and Snape play good cup/bad cup with Harry when they are alone with him. They don't have to tell him it's all a cover, but why does Snape has to play his "role" so realistically when he has only Harry (and Ron or Hermione) for a crowd? What would it achieve? Even if you believe in MAGIC DISHWASHER (which I personally don't) do you think DD and Snape has been preparing for the Shrieking Shack scene for three years in advance? > Sophierom: > A nice description of a "usual" potions class: "Potions > lessons took > place in one of the large dungeons. > When Snape > turned and walked off to bully Neville, Hermione caught Harry's > eye > and nodded." > > Noteworthy here is JKR's use of the word "bullying" in > relation to > Snape's treatment of Neville in potions class. > >`A bad idea, Professor > Lockhart,' said > Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. `Longbottom > causes devastation with the simplest spells. We'll be sending > what's > left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital wing in a matchbox.' > Neville's round, pink face went pinker.'" Thanks, Sophyrom. I couldn't remember any cases of Snape tormenting Neville in CoS. As I said before I think these specific two cases are important because, unlike SS/PS and PoA, there's nothing in the plot of CoS that requires them. This is pure characterization. Since child abuse is an important theme of HP, and we know Snape himself was an abused child and teenager, I think JKR is definitely trying to say something here. Neri From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 00:28:27 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:28:27 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115238 Mean and asocial people do exist in RL. People who don't care about being liked. People who don't consider social relationships to be important. People who would rather be left alone. People who have no patience with the weaknesses of others and who don't feel obliged to pretend they don't mind. In short, people who are not very happy in our society and who don't see why they should pretend they are. I see Snape as one of those people. He was always an oddball. He never made the most basic efforts to be liked (like not looking unattractive). He seems to have always been a loner. He doesn't enjoy teaching. He doesn't believe in being politically correct. He's got preferences and dislikes and he's honest about them. He doesn't care about keeping his emotions in check as long as he himself doesn't get burned. And so on. So he's an asocial. So what ? There's no rule against that. That's why I'm asking : what's wrong with Mean!Asocial!Snape ? Del From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 9 00:36:29 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:36:29 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Mean and asocial people do exist in RL. People who don't care about > being liked. People who don't consider social relationships to be > important. People who would rather be left alone. People who have no > patience with the weaknesses of others and who don't feel obliged to > pretend they don't mind. In short, people who are not very happy in > our society and who don't see why they should pretend they are. > > I see Snape as one of those people. He was always an oddball. He never > made the most basic efforts to be liked (like not looking > unattractive). He seems to have always been a loner. He doesn't enjoy > teaching. He doesn't believe in being politically correct. He's got > preferences and dislikes and he's honest about them. He doesn't care > about keeping his emotions in check as long as he himself doesn't get > burned. And so on. > > So he's an asocial. So what ? There's no rule against that. > > That's why I'm asking : what's wrong with Mean!Asocial!Snape ? > > Del Why, nothing Del! Mean, asocial people can have many functions in a novel. Among their most satisfying is to either be redeemed or get their just deserts or both. I think most people who read HP are hoping one or the other or both happens with Snape. After all, we read HP to be entertained, and those would be outcomes that a large number of people would find entertaining. If nothing else, because mean people in real life are rarely redeemed, and don't often get a satisfying dramatic comeuppence, we look forward to seeing those things in literature. It helps keep the old stomach lining intact. Dzeytoun From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 00:37:56 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:37:56 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115240 JKR has given a hint that 'devoted fans' may have correctly worked out where Sirius' motorbike is/ended up. Anyone got any comments on what this means (as in - who has guessed and what did they decide?). My own guess is that, as an enchanted muggle artefact, it's either at the ministry pound (A.Weesley overseer) or in A.Weesley's garage at the Burrow - just the kind of thing muggle men like to take apart on the kitchen table, let alone aformentioned Arthur. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 00:51:47 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:51:47 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115241 Dzeytoun wrote : " Mean, asocial people can have many functions in a novel. Among their most satisfying is to either be redeemed or get their just deserts or both. I think most people who read HP are hoping one or the other or both happens with Snape." Del replies : Heh heh :-) Just gotta love your answers, Dzeytoun ;-) Actually, I'm not so sure I want Snape to be redeemed or punished. As Sirius so aptly explain : the world is not divided between good people and DEs (or something like that). There are many shades of grey, and Snape is one of them : a nasty guy working for the good side, for whatever (probably selfish) reasons. I don't see any reason why he should change or be punished. What would it mean ? That people can only either be white heroes, or doomed grey losers ? Not very realistic, now is it ? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 00:56:08 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 00:56:08 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115242 macfotuk wrote: "JKR has given a hint that 'devoted fans' may have correctly worked out where Sirius' motorbike is/ended up. Anyone got any comments on what this means (as in - who has guessed and what did they decide?)." Del replies : Well, it seems logical that when Hagrid was done with delivering Baby Harry, he just went home, since he didn't have to give his bike back to Sirius. And right next to Hagrid's cabin, there's a place well-known for being the home of many different kinds of magical creatures, biological or not. So my bet is on the Forbidden Forest. Del, who acknowledges that she actually read that idea on this very forum a long time ago. From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 21:26:21 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:26:21 -0000 Subject: Pureblood (was Snape and Malfoy related? (was: Snape and Lucius ages) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115243 Dharma > > It is not clear to me that Snape is a pureblood Wizard. From what > I can gather, we can eliminate the possibility of him being a > > Muggleborn Wizard. Unless I've missed something, the possibility > of Snape being a half-blood Wizard still exists. > > Beyond the bloodline issue since at least one of Snape's parents > was pureblood, it suggests the possibility that he is related to > the Malfoys. It's not a certainty in my mind. However, if they > were related, it would not shock me. > > Potioncat: > From the last set of questions JKR answered, I understood Snape to > be Half Blood as well. So that either one of his parents was Muggle > born or one of his parents was a Muggle (less likely, I think.) Sandy, sticking her nose where it probably doesn't belong... JKR was asked if Snape was pureblood at the Edinburgh Book Festival, and (as she is so good at) she talked alot without ever giving a yes or no answer. Which leads me to believe that his status as pureblood or half-blood must have some importance in upcoming story lines, or why wouldn't she give a simple answer? Is he a pureblood? We (or Harry anyway) didn't see him on the Black family tree. (Harry didn't see the Potters, either, and you'd think Sirius would have mentioned if *they* were related -- I guess they could have been blasted off when James married Lily, but still, Sirius would know). But my question actually goes to an understanding of what "pureblood" means. JKR says on her website that Harry is considered a half-blood because his grandparents (Lily's parents) were muggles. But with someone like the Malfoys, I'm sure they look much further back than grandparents, as well. In other words, if your (or Snape's or whoever's) great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a muggle, their blood is still sullied and they count as half-bloods, right? (If Harry weds another halfblood, or even a pureblood, their kids still aren't purebloods, right?) I know that at some periods/places in U.S., they even had specific words for people with various proportions of black blood in them, but even if it was only 1/32, they were still considered to be black (or so Mark Twain tells us in Pudd'nhead Wilson), and I think the pureblood maniacs have a similar mindset, they just don't bother to do the math to figure out the fraction. From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 23:18:29 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 23:18:29 -0000 Subject: Another death? In-Reply-To: <001901c4ad44$3847d6b0$4562d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115244 > jcb54me wrote: > "Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me." > > DuffyPoo replied: > Straight from the recent bout of FAQ on jkrowling.com: > > "Are you going to kill any more characters? > > Yes, sorry." > Sandy weighs in: Well, since JKR long ago revealed that the final chapter of book 7 is an epilog that reveals what happens "to the students who survive," I don't think it came as much of a shock to anyone that there would be more deaths. I'm guessing this ended up on the news because some editor who doesn't know a whole lot about HP (except, perhaps, that it's a multi- billion dollar business) heard it (maybe from their kid who saw it on the web site), decided it was worth a story, and assigned it to some poor reporter who had to turn it into something. (I once went to a journalism seminar with 20-plus professional journalists, and each and every one had at least one example of a time they'd had to write such a "because-it's-news-to-the-assigning-editor" article that really had no news value.) Sandy, who's now happily remembering all the many reasons she left the grind of daily journalism From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 22:51:42 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041008133839.44548.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20041008225142.90625.qmail@web54103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115245 >Nora wrote: >And no matter what any of us think about him, Harry loved him deeply, and he loved Harry; and I think he had a lot to offer, in both that capacity and in others. >Magda replied: >Did Harry love Sirius deeply? How could he? Harry barely knew the man. He spent 9/10's of POA thinking he was the traitor who caused his parents' deaths and he was sure that he hated him then. In GOF he communicated with him by owl or met him in a cave with Ron and Hermione present. In OOTP, Harry was too intimidated by Sirius' mood and Mrs. Weasley's crankiness to be alone with him and spent (way too much) time dedoxying the drapes. >Only once did they bond as godfather/mentor-godson/mentee: in GoF when they talked through the fireplace and Harry told Sirius all about the dragon task, and fighting with Ron and Sirius was sympathetic and didn't stress Harry out with "I'll be right there!" tendencies. >Harry loved the idea of having a godfather who was his and there for him alone. Sirius loved the idea of having a godson and fulfilling the role he thought he'd lost 15 years earlier. But they weren't together long enough or often enough for them to have a relationship in the present time. Now Kim R. adds: Both Nora and Magda make good observations, though I think I might lean more in Nora's direction about this. Here's what I see: Looking at it psychologically from Harry's point of view, maybe all it took for Harry to "bond" with Sirius was first, finding out that someone he thought had betrayed his parents actually hadn't (in addition to finding out that that person had broken out of Azkaban to find the real traitor and to protect Harry from potential harm); and second, finding out that the newly-found non-traitor (sorry for the lousy English there) was his godfather (i.e. a relative, in a sense), not to mention his murdered parents' closest friend (of course, he found out Sirius was his godfather before he found out Sirius wasn't a traitor). Despite the lack of time spent with Sirius, for a boy as bereft as Harry, a bond with Sirius might well have formed quickly and deeply. It's partly (or perhaps mainly?) the loss of his parents at such a tender age and the deep emotional scar that that must have caused, plus the loss of his father as a role model, guide, etc. that would make Sirius so attractive and important to Harry. Who knows what the time period required for bonding really is? Babies are supposed to bond pretty much instantly with their mothers, aren't they? So losing Sirius so soon was in a way like losing his parents all over again. He'd hardly known them either and they were gone. Not only gone, but gone by violent means. He'd hardly got a chance to know Sirius, he was looking forward to someday living with him (translate: finally having a family of his own), and poof, Sirius is gone too. I'm surprised Harry isn't a basketcase as a result. Kim From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 23:27:11 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008232711.45999.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115246 SSSusan wrote: >While I understand what Magda is saying about being in love with the *idea* of being a godfather/godson, I agree more fully with Nora. While it may seem bizarre to some of us that Harry could love Sirius deeply so quickly, we're...well...not Harry. >My take on this is that, *because* Harry was denied love for so long, to have someone openly CARE for him -- CHOOSE him, in fact -- was a deeply moving experience. Why would he believe he was lovable up to that point? Mrs. Weasley was kind to him, yes. Lupin was, also. DD had supported him. Ron & Hermione may have shown him this some, but would Harry be confident that he lovable to an adult, parent-like figure? I think Sirius' coming for him, inviting him into his life, was a *BIG* deal to Harry, and he was overcome with wonder at it. >It COULD have been just an idealized thing, yes, but I think it *was* real affection for Harry. If it had all been a "house of cards"--Sirius up on a pedestal, not a REAL person whom Harry truly cared about--then when Harry began to recognize faults & annoyances in Sirius [in OotP, particularly], he'd have had this image *shattered,* not shaken slightly, and the relationship would have crumbled. No, the affection was genuine, imo, because these annoyances & concerns didn't shatter Harry's image of Sirius, nor make him stop caring about him. >At various times between the end of PoA and Sirius' death in OotP, Harry found an adult he trusted he could turn to for advice, an adult who WANTED to answer his questions(!!), an adult who risked his safety on his behalf, an adult who gave him real gifts , an adult who wanted to share his life with him. It makes perfect sense to me that it didn't take all that long for the affection to grow deep. Again, if the feelings *weren't* genuine, when Sirius became surlier, more reckless, when he goaded Harry a little, Harry would've turned away from him and said, "Screw this!" But he never did. Kim here again: Looks like the thoughts I sent on this topic were very similar to SSSusan's, and I couldn't have put it better myself (I truly hadn't read Susan's email before sending mine -- Sorry!). Maybe that means great minds think alike...;-) Here's another thought (considering my track record, it's no doubt been discussed at length before... in which case, feel free to ignore): Perhaps Snape will turn out not to be such a bad guy after all. After he reveals to Harry how much he'd loved Harry's mother way back when, and they (Snape and Harry) come to some reconciliation of the conflicts they've had, Snape will become a friend and mentor to Harry... (I can hear the groans as I write this)... It's just that Snape reminds me so much in some ways of Ebenezer Scrooge. He needs a second chance in life just as much IMO. Then again Lupin is as good, perhaps a better candidate than Snape, but there's that tricky habit he has of turning into a werewolf every full moon... Kim R. (who will try to inform herself better by reading all previous threads til her eyes fall out of her head, then take some Ginkgo biloba to remember everything she read) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 01:23:55 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 01:23:55 -0000 Subject: Riddle Bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: > > > Two little bits about Riddle stick in my mind and I'm wondering if > there are any theories, new or from previous discussions, about them. > > The first is in Cos Chapter 13, when Harry contemplates the name Tom > Riddle: "And while Harry was sure he'd never heard the name T.M. > Riddle before, it seemed to mean something to him, almost as though > Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half- > forgotten. But this was absurd. He'd never had friends before > Hogwarts, Dudley made sure of it." > > Is this memory really Harry's? Or is it a glimmer of what LV left in > his brain that is vaguely remembering the name Tom Riddle? > Or did Harry hear the name when he was an baby? or a small child at > the Dursleys? perhaps young Harry had dreams and maybe even an 'imaginary friend' who owed much to Tom Marvolo Riddle. he would have needed *something* to get him through those long dark tea times of the soul locked under the stairs with no-one who loved him to help. > --- > second bit: In the first chapter of GoF, the murders of the Riddles > of Little Hangleton are described. Frank Bryce told the police "the > only person he had seen near the house on the day of the Riddles' > deaths had been a teenage boy, a stranger, dark-haired and pale. > Nobody else in the village had seen any such boy..." > > Of course, we automatically assume the teenage boy is Tom Riddle, > there to murder his muggle father and grandparents. I still lean > towards believing that. But in examining everything that Riddle did > on his way to becoming LV, well, we have so little information. > So on re-examination, has anyone else seen a theory, or considered, > that the teenage boy that Frank sees is not Tom (Lv) Riddle but > rather Time Turner Harry, going back to look for Riddle. Maybe to > learn something about Riddle on a date (due to the obituaries) where > Harry knew where to find him with few people around to see him. I > know Time Turning is unpopular, but I am still curious about this > bit. > > mhbobbin I really hate the idea of time-turners being used for anything more than a few hours at best. I liked the post (sorry not to be able to quote it) to suggest that Hagrid may have used TT to remove the PS/SS before Quirrel!Mort stole it and for Snape to apparate as DE at the graveyard in GoF (not that I think he did this), but over long time I think its nonsense and dangerous (logistically unmanageable): One of my chief reasons for thinking the DD=Ron theory is utter tosh. just my own views of course. From karen at dacafe.com Sat Oct 9 02:19:48 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 02:19:48 -0000 Subject: Marauders Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115248 > Drew: > > Why is it that in the chamber of secrets, that Fred and George could > not use the marauders map to find Ginny, and ultimately find out > where "Tom Riddle" is. If the Weasleys did not have it, then why > didn't Filch use it? > kmc: The map was written when the Marauders roamed the castle and grounds during the full moon. It contains only those places that the Marauders could go. Since none (as far as we know through OotP) of the Marauders speak Parseltongue, they could not have opened the chamber. Therefore the Chamber is off the map just like the Shrieking Shack. I am sure that when Ginny was taken F&G checked the map to look for her. Filch is a squib. He cannot use magic to activate the map. I am sure when he confiscated off the Marauders he tried to make it work. The most he would have gotten with out the proper commands would have been insults like the ones the Map wrote for Snape. -kmc From karen at dacafe.com Sat Oct 9 02:37:40 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 02:37:40 -0000 Subject: Pureblood (was Snape and Malfoy related? (was: Snape and Lucius ages) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115249 > Dharma > > It is not clear to me that Snape is a pureblood > Wizard. From what > > I can gather, we can eliminate the possibility of him being a > > > Muggleborn Wizard. Unless I've missed something, the possibility > > of Snape being a half-blood Wizard still exists. > > > Beyond the bloodline issue since at least one of Snape's > parents > > was pureblood, it suggests the possibility that he is related to > > the Malfoys. It's not a certainty in my mind. However, if they > > were related, it would not shock me. > > > > Potioncat: > > From the last set of questions JKR answered, I understood Snape to > > be Half Blood as well. So that either one of his parents was > Muggle > > born or one of his parents was a Muggle (less likely, I think.) > > Sandy, sticking her nose where it probably doesn't belong... > JKR was asked if Snape was pureblood at the Edinburgh Book Festival, > and (as she is so good at) she talked alot without ever giving a yes > or no answer. Which leads me to believe that his status as pureblood > or half-blood must have some importance in upcoming story lines, or > why wouldn't she give a simple answer? > Is he a pureblood? We (or Harry anyway) didn't see him on the Black > family tree. (Harry didn't see the Potters, either, and you'd think > Sirius would have mentioned if *they* were related -- I guess they > could have been blasted off when James married Lily, but still, > Sirius would know). > But my question actually goes to an understanding of what "pureblood" > means. JKR says on her website that Harry is considered a half- blood > because his grandparents (Lily's parents) were muggles. But with > someone like the Malfoys, I'm sure they look much further back than > grandparents, as well. In other words, if your (or Snape's or > whoever's) great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was > a muggle, their blood is still sullied and they count as half- bloods, > right? (If Harry weds another halfblood, or even a pureblood, their > kids still aren't purebloods, right?) > I know that at some periods/places in U.S., they even had > specific words for people with various proportions of black blood in > them, but even if it was only 1/32, they were still considered to be > black (or so Mark Twain tells us in Pudd'nhead Wilson), and I think > the pureblood maniacs have a similar mindset, they just don't bother > to do the math to figure out the fraction. kmc adds: I want to get a copy of "Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy". IMO a person claiming to be pure-blood must have ancestors listed in the book. In addition they must prove that there Great-great- grandparents were pure-blood. I also think that pure-blood marriages based on love are few and far between because "the choice is very limited" (Sirius in Chapter 6 OotP). I believe the Weasley's are the exception and the Malfoy's have an arranged marriage. -kmc From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 9 02:35:04 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:35:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? Message-ID: <20041008.224100.3932.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115250 Sherry said: > Even sleeping in the cupboard > under the stairs coul be considered to be abuse, if it is the > reason he is small and kind of scrawny, as he's described in the first book. It's called "failure to thrive." My cousin is a pediatric nurse, and that's one criteria her hospital relies on for suspecting abuse. In at least one instance she told me about, an infant's failure to thrive was the tip of the iceberg, and it was a good thing the doctors kept an eye on the kid's case based on the FtT issue alone. I *despise* the Dursley's treatment of Harry, and it frustrates me to no end that those chaps are supposed to be kid-lit fun, so we're not supposed to wonder why Sirius or any of Harry's teachers never called the police. Grrrr HATE HATE. Last nite I fell in love with an eminently satisfying AU fic called "Stealing Harry" by Copperbadge in which Sirius and Remus find out about Harry's treatment when he's eight years old and simply pluck him from the Dursley's home. Sirius saying "You're lucky I don't kill you" to Vernon was just. *Neat.* Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From hmmadigan at excite.com Sat Oct 9 02:47:24 2004 From: hmmadigan at excite.com (female_jedis) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 02:47:24 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohnooboe" wrote: > > > (SNNIP!) > SSSusan: > > So, while we don't SEE the physical abuse--I suspect JKR wanted to > spare us the details?--it's fairly apparent, to me at least, that > it's happening. How could it be Dudders' favorite form of > entertainment if it doesn't happen? > (SNNNIP!) > Sherry now > I think the child protection services, here in the states, would > have a lot to say about abuse of a child in those circumstances. I > would call that abuse. Even sleeping in the cupboard under the > stairs could be considered to be abuse... > > Sherry G > > And...here's Patrick... > > What I find absolutely amazing is that Harry is as stable as he is > considering the circumstances in which he was brought up. Even if > there was very little physical abuse (and I agree that there must be > at least a bit)the emotional neglect is enough. I often wonder when > Harry turned into the Dursley's "punching bag". When he was left > with them he was very young? Did they treat one-year old Harry with > the same distane and and ill-will they do 15-year old Harry? If so, > HOW he grew up to be as "stable" (and we know he's not TOTALLY > stable) as he is is baffling. > > Patrick Actually, what is really stunning is that he should be completely emotionally under-developed. Physical abuse aside, babies and small children (well all of us really) need consistent, positive emotional connections in order to thrive. There are tons of studies to this end. Harry's brain development should have been seriously limited by the lack of positive stimuli. If Petunia completely ignored Harry as a baby and as a young child, while showering Dudley with attention and affection, Harry quite simply should be a sociopath at this point and should be completely unable to form healthy relationships without intensive therapy. Actually, he should be much more like Voldemort. I can completely understand why Voldemort turned out the way he did. I don't understand how Harry can be so "normal" when he has been deprived of loving relationships since he was roughy one. I additionally can't understand Petunia at all. How could someone be so cruel and neglectful to the only child of her dead sister. Whatever their relationship was at the time of Lily's death, wouldn't you think in death, some remnant of sibling love would have revived? From karen at dacafe.com Sat Oct 9 02:50:57 2004 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 02:50:57 -0000 Subject: A thought about PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115252 Yb wrote: > > I have been transcribing the HP books. I've been planning on it for > a while now, and have just started. I'm working on PS/SS right now, > and I realized something: > > When Hagrid brings baby Harry to Privet Drive, he tells DD that he > got the motorcycle from "young Sirius Black." > > Here's the weird part: > > DD thought SB was the Potter's secret Keeper, correct? And if he > knew that Voldemort had gotten the Potters (which he does know), > then obviously he knew that something had happened, that the secret > keeper had told Voldemort where they were. > > So why doesn't DD have some sort of reaction to the name when Hagrid > says Sirius' name? Surely DD would have registered some surprise, > but he only says "No problems, were there?" > > DD testified that SB was the Secret keeper. Did he know about the > switch? I never thought so, otherwise he'd have found a way to get > SB out of prison. So why doesn't DD look surprised, upset, or ask > Hagrid anything about SB? Maybe a "What was he doing there?" or > something, anything! > > This concerns me... Any thoughts? > kmc: He may have been expecting Sirius to be at GH. It may be the reason he sent Hagrid and not someone else. I have read these books numerous times and it is just now that I associated the "No problems, were there?" with the fact that Sirius was there. I had read that as problems with the authorities, problems with the collapsed house, or problems with even finding Harry. Which leads to another question? If the Potters were being protected by the Fidelus charm, how did Hagrid know where Harry was? You would think that the charm was still in effect and Hargid could put his nose right against the rubble and not see Harry. -kmc From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Oct 9 03:05:30 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041009030530.71069.qmail@web52003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115253 I alwaysfigured Hagrid put it somewhere for safekeeping, but 3 other options are: 1)Hagrid destroyed it in anger when he thought Sirius betrayed the Potters. 2)Dumbledore put it away for safekeeping as he had an inkling Sirius was not the secret keeper and he thought Sirius would be back for it just as he kept James invisibility cloak. 3)It was put in Sirius vault at Gringot's to be passed on with the Black family fortune. delwynmarch wrote: macfotuk wrote: "JKR has given a hint that 'devoted fans' may have correctly worked out where Sirius' motorbike is/ended up. Anyone got any comments on what this means (as in - who has guessed and what did they decide?)." Del replies : Well, it seems logical that when Hagrid was done with delivering Baby Harry, he just went home, since he didn't have to give his bike back to Sirius. And right next to Hagrid's cabin, there's a place well-known for being the home of many different kinds of magical creatures, biological or not. So my bet is on the Forbidden Forest. Del, who acknowledges that she actually read that idea on this very forum a long time ago. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 9 03:12:18 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:12:18 -0400 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" References: Message-ID: <00e001c4adad$c9117b10$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115254 > Yb replies: > Picture this: Little Sevvie comes into Hogwarts knowing plenty of > hexes and curses and the like. Plus, he is a Potions professor, so > he must have had a knack for brewing things. These sort of things, > especially the hexes part, would show up rather early in his career > at Hogwarts, like the first time some of the other students started > teasing him about being thin, pale, and probably greasy-haired. > Sevvie would fire a couple of hexes and send the tormentors running > for cover, and little Lucius would take notice. Feklar: As I said, most of this is fannon or fanfiction. I've read and liked a number of stories featuring an early relationship between LM and SS. But I think JKR tries very hard to write about realistic kids and teenagers in unreal situations. I guess it seems to me that a lot of fannon characterizations assume more mature motives and rationalizations than really fit with JKR's characterizations. It is indeed possible that LM was as politically astute at 16 as at 41 and acted as head junior DE talent scout and recruiter, but it's also possible he was a hormonal, popularity-obsessed snob, who saw a greasy, little, snot-nosed kid Severus and kept as far away as possible. Like HAnnah, I also suspect young SS's dark knowledge may have been exaggerated. Sirius the adult is relating Sirius the kid's impression of SS, it may be the 11 yo Sirius was stunned by an awesome bat-bogey hex, but that's not what he remembers, what he remembers is that Snape came to school knowing some nasty stuff. Feklar From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 9 03:30:14 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:30:14 -0400 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" References: Message-ID: <00e601c4adb0$4a990c50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115255 Dharma: > feklar wrote: > > I always thought the LM/SS childhood relationship was fannon and > the lapdog comment referred to LM being an infamous and powerful > DE. I think SB thinks LM was probably as powerful as a DE as he > clearly is in everyday life, and Snape was probably a potions- > making nobody much as he is in real life. > > Hannah: > > No, I think there's more to it than that. Note Snape's > favouritist treatment of Draco (even more so than of other > Slytherins), the way Draco speaks to Snape, and that Lucius > speaks 'most highly' of Snape to Umbridge. feklar: I also think all of this could be explained if SS became involved with the pureblood elitists towards the end of his HW years. It seems far more likely to me that a 18 yo and 23 yo would be friends than a 11 and 16 yo. I think it is possible they are friends, at least socially, but Sirius can't imagine anyone wanting to be polite (much less friendly) with Snape, so in his mind the only possible relationship is of Snape as lapdog. > Dharma replies: > > Hannah, I like what you are offering up here. I think that Feklar > was really questioning/objecting to my assertion that it was a > *school* relationship. To me you guys both seem to be on to > something. I'm wondering if they could have had an idol/fan or > student/mentor relationship that started at a young age and > continued, leading to Snape becoming a Death Eater? Feklar: Yes, not just you, but many writers and posters seem to take it as a given they were friends (or had a relationship of some sort) in school, while it seems to me a bit more likely that it would have started after Lucius graduated. I also think it's possible they knew each other though family or social gatherings, but that doesn't mean they have much interest in talking to each other. When I see my 13 yo cousin, he barely says two sentences to me before burying himself in a book or video game. I can't blame him though--I don't have much to talk to him about either. Feklar From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Oct 9 03:37:38 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:37:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115256 Carol: > > And Sirius at his best is not much of a role model for the boy > > destined to be the one who destroys Voldemort. He's arrogant and > > reckless, qualities that Dumbledore can't allow Harry to develop. > Nora: > He's certainly not the only character in the books who is arrogant, > but I'll let everyone fill in that blank for himself. And no matter > what any of us think about him, Harry loved him deeply, and he loved > Harry; and I think he had a lot to offer, in both that capacity and > in others. (I'm a little frustrated because now we're never going to > get some personal exposition of some events that only Black would > really have the interesting perspective on, if you know what I > mean.) If we're going to wipe out everyone who could be a bad role > model for the kid, the Order is toast. Admittedly, I've never been a Sirius fan, and I've always thought he was a dangerous influence on Harry because he *seemed* rational but in fact his opinions were heavily coloured by his past experience. Sirius represented to Harry not just someone who cared deeply about him (in fact and not just in Harry's perception), but also a connection to his family. He was a great comfort to Harry and I will not denigrate that. Thematically, however, Sirius represents a POV that I think Harry will move beyond, and therefore he needed to be removed as an influence. The Sorting Hat exhorts the students from different houses to unite or else "crumble from within." Sirius represents an "us vs. them" mentality, in which those who are labelled as enemies are not allowed to have shades of grey. The Sorting Hat's philosophy would be anathem to Sirius, who labelled those he associated with his family and the Dark Arts -- Kreacher, Snape, and undoubtedly more than I am missing -- as enemies, and justified the abuse and bullying on that basis. Despite the handshake Dumbledore wangles out of them at the end of GoF, I cannot envision any true alliance between Snape and Dumbledore; Harry's views at this point seem generally allied with Sirius'. While he is horrified at the vision of James' bullying behavior, he notes approvingly that the Twins engage in the same behavior if they "truly loathed" the victim or if the victim "really deserved it." In order to achieve the unity the Sorting Hat warns is necessary to protect Hogwarts from "external, deadly foes," Harry needs to move beyond Sirius' views. In OOP the two main representatives of the our-team-vs.-their team POV (Sirius and the Twins) were effectively removed from the equation, Sirius by his death and the Twins by their grand exit from school. This will allow Harry the figurative space he'll need to become a standard- bearer for unity. Debbie From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 9 03:57:36 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:57:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice References: Message-ID: <014001c4adb4$1d2fd8d0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115257 > Cory again: > > Sure she could have, but she didn't. Having Ron and Hermione as > prefects enabled her to demonstrate certain things about their > characters -- Hermione got to show that she has a backbone (standing > up to the twins when they were feeding their joke candies to the > first years). Ron...well I don't know, exactly; he didn't exactly do > a bang-up job as a prefect. It did give him his much-needed chance > in the spotlight, though. That HG was a prefect made sense to me, both plot-wise and in terms of what I expect a prefect to be. But Ron as prefect didn't do anything as a character or plotwise, so the purpose kind of escaped me. That's why it read to me as a bit heavy-handed on the author's part, or as someone else said, he's a prefect b/c he's a main character. To contrast, when Harry and Ron run off to rescue HG from the troll in SS, I didn't think, "A-ha! They are going off to be heroes because they are the main characters!" That was why they were going to be the heroes, but the authorial intent wasn't so obvious... Although, with Ron as prefect, I'm still not sure what the authorial intent is. Maybe he'll become a responsible upstanding academic citizen or something. Feklar From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 04:20:27 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 04:20:27 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: <20041008123409.39260.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115258 Magda snipped: Yes...until those actions mean he has to be nice to someone he doesn't like (Kreacher, Snape), or that he has to do something he doesn't want to do (fight in the MoM rather than grab Harry and run to ensure that he'd be safe - I mean, yelling at Harry to run when he knows that Harry doesn't know his way around the MoM and might run into another group of DE's - get a brain, Sirius!), or that he has to suck up his own disappointment because of the greater good (being pouty in 12GP and letting everyone know about it by sulking with Buckbeak for hours on end) or think in advance of what effect his talk or actions will have on Harry ("you're less like your father than I thought"). Sirius talks a better game than he walks. Snow: I don't know about that last statement. If Sirius hadn't approved so profoundly of starting a group to teach and learn defense against the dark arts the children would have all died at the Ministry. All of Harry's friends or stalkers (Luna) would have still gone with Harry that night but much less knowledgeable if it hadn't been for Sirius's enthusiasm over the need for all of them to be aware of what they may be facing outside of Hogwarts. In a way Sirius was the reason the children were able to learn to defend themselves. Sirius had convinced Harry that sometimes when faced with a choice of taking the easy rode of obeying the rules so as not to get into trouble at school you have placed yourself and others in more danger by not taking a risk in which you might save many. As for other qualities that Sirius has shown, the one that came to mind after reading your post was when Mr. Weasley was bitten and the twins were adamant over going to their fathers side, Fred had spouted to Sirius that it was easy for him to say that there were things worth dying for because he didn't see Sirius risking his neck. Sirius was obviously hurt by this comment from Fred but had a very mature and consoling attitude towards him all the same. To me that shows great strength of character not to have carried on in a ranting behavior after just having his ego slam-dunked by a child. Sirius had received this same type of criticism to his worthlessness from Molly when she stated that it was difficult for Sirius to raise Harry while being imprisoned. Sirius's reaction to Molly was quite different from that with Fred. Both instances cut Sirius and promoted more feeling of despair and depression for Sirius but with Fred Sirius overcame his own feelings and consoled Fred and his siblings. Another example where Sirius had put his own feelings and desires aside was when Harry asked Sirius if he could live with him if all did not go well at the hearing. Sirius would have liked nothing better than to have Harry with him always and yet Sirius knew that Harry could not live with him because the muggle family had protection from blood for Harry. All Sirius could say was we'll see but he knew in his heart it would never be. Sirius knows what was right for Harry and put his own feelings aside, which only deepened his depression of feeling worthless. In the end I think we will find that Sirius made a conscious sacrifice to and for Harry. Sirius had harbored such guilt over the death of James that he felt an obligation over and above the love he had for his godson, which would have caused him to act irrationally when it came to anyone interfering, good or bad, with anything concerning Harry. Molly's good intentions for Harry's well being were as condoned by Sirius as much as Snape's less than enthusiastic attitude towards teaching Harry Occlumency. Sirius was as overprotective of Harry as a bear with its cub. Sirius's attitude towards Snape was only ever indifferent when it came to Harry. Sirius did say that he was a berk for the way he had acted and also that he was not proud of the way he acted concerning the pencieve scene. Sirius does show a reluctance to believe that Snape had truly changed but most of the readers also have the same attitude towards Snape's true intensions. Why would anyone criticize Sirius, who knows about as much as we the readers, for being cautious concerning Snape who was once a death eater? When it comes down to it the author says it best: Do you like Sirius Black? Sirius's great redeeming quality is how much affection he is capable of feeling. He loved James like a brother and he went on to transfer that attachment to Harry. With all Sirius's faults his redeeming quality was his affection. Snow From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 04:50:55 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 04:50:55 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115259 Dungrollin snipped a lot: And I've just re-read something else, again DD at the end of OotP, that made me pause... `He heard only the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as his equal. So Voldemort never knew that there might be danger in attacking you, that it might be wise to wait, to learn more. He did not know that you would have *power the Dark Lord knows not* -` Snow: You neglected to mention that this child that was born at the end of July has the `power' to vanquish the Dark Lord. This puts a bit of a spin on things. Voldemort does `not' know that Harry possesses the power the Dark Lord knows not. Voldemort is aware, however, that a child born at the end of July holds `the" power that could vanquish the Dark Lord. Voldemort is not yet aware of the part of the prophecy that states that he will mark Harry as his equal but he has heard that this child holds a power to vanquish the Dark Lord. I will assume that Voldemort feels that he is the Dark Lord in question and therefore feels threatened and at the same time curious of a `power' that exists that can possibly vanquish him but lies within an infant. An infant child could not possibly be a threat, yet! But it may be worth a look-see as to what power this child has that could be of such significance that it could destroy the almighty Dark Lord. You can't send a servant on such an important errand. Without the understanding of the end of the prophecy, Voldemort himself is intrigued and preceded to investigate and possibly kill the child (if he could be of actual danger) of said prophecy made by an unknown seer. Big Mistake! From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Sat Oct 9 02:26:50 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:26:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pureblood (was Snape and Malfoy related? (was: Snape and Lucius ages) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41674C6A.2060003@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115260 Sandy wrote: > But my question actually goes to an understanding of what "pureblood" > means. JKR says on her website that Harry is considered a half-blood > because his grandparents (Lily's parents) were muggles. But with > someone like the Malfoys, I'm sure they look much further back than > grandparents, as well. In other words, if your (or Snape's or > whoever's) great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was > a muggle, their blood is still sullied and they count as half-bloods, > right? (If Harry weds another halfblood, or even a pureblood, their > kids still aren't purebloods, right?) > I know that at some periods/places in U.S., they even had > specific words for people with various proportions of black blood in > them, but even if it was only 1/32, they were still considered to be > black (or so Mark Twain tells us in Pudd'nhead Wilson), and I think > the pureblood maniacs have a similar mindset, they just don't bother > to do the math to figure out the fraction. Gabriel now: You're quite correct about words for people of any African descent. I've never heard them used in real life myself, but as someone with an obsessive love of both Anne Rice books (which have portions set in the time when the words were used) and language, I tend to remember them. They're rather ridiculous words, like "quadroon" (1/4) or "octoroon." (1/8) I doubt that, in the WW, they go to such an extent as to coin multiple terms for what is basically the same prejudice - "mudblood" seems like a general enough term to use on anyone, and we haven't really seen any others in the books, unless I've missed something. However, it does seem like the blood obsession is virulent enough to make someone half-blooded if, as you suggested, their great*5 grandfather was a Muggle. On a slightly more humourous bent, the movie "Dr. Strangelove" was on television recently, and thinking of it made a peculiar image come to mind. Suddenly I had this picture of Lucius Malfoy, crouching in his cell in Azkaban, scrawling the words "Purity of Essence" over and over again on the walls. Is anyone else amused by this, or is it just me? - Gabriel Fey From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 01:41:44 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 01:41:44 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115261 > Neri wrote: > Why does Snape prefer the cold dungeon so much that he made it his > office? It might be due to a mechanistic reason (like "Snape is a > vampire") but I tend to think it is a metaphor. IMHO JKR tells us > that Snape is a cold person. Unnaturally cold, actually, so much so > that there is something suspicious about his humanity. Sandy here: I've always wondered if Snape didn't end up with the dungeon office as a form of self-inflicted punishment for whatever deeds he might have done as a DE. (nothing I can prove, just an occasional thought, since he seems the kind of brooding personality that might do that). Another possibility would be that DD assigned him the dungeon digs as a gentle reminder that he *could* be in Azkaban, instead, but that is out of character for DD. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 23:36:01 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 16:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041008233601.53029.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115262 Kim had asked: >...reference to whether DD has ever transformed himself into anyone or anything else? Finwitch replied: >Well, I haven't seen anything either way, apart from the part of being a transfiguration teacher, and a surname which happens to be an old word for bumblebee to point suggest animagus-ability in particular. Then Patrick chimed in: >This is very interesting. In CoS, during the scene where Dumbledore finds Harry at the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore mentions (paraphrase) "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." > >Perhaps in the same way Skeeter becomes "invisible" (as a beetle) Dumbledore could become "invisible" as a bumblebee. I think it's a very fitting name, considering his personality, but maybe we SHOULD be looking a bit harder at his name. To which Kim replies: By George (or shall I say By Ginny?), I think you're both on to something! Kim R. From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Oct 9 07:23:06 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:23:06 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > > Del replies : > Well, it seems logical that when Hagrid was done with delivering Baby > Harry, he just went home, since he didn't have to give his bike back > to Sirius. And right next to Hagrid's cabin, there's a place > well-known for being the home of many different kinds of magical > creatures, biological or not. > > So my bet is on the Forbidden Forest. > > Del, who acknowledges that she actually read that idea on this very > forum a long time ago. Sue: Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike!* Both are canon, then. Now,you could suggest that he got back, thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ... did whatever he did with the bike. But my bet is that the original was simply a mistake on the author's and editor's part, too late to change. :-) But yes, it quite probably IS somewhere in the Forbidden Forest if we ignore the glitch. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 07:30:39 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:30:39 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death and Harry's Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > ...edited... > > SSSusan: > While I understand what Magda is saying about being in love with the > *idea* of being a godfather/godson, I agree more fully with Nora. > While it may seem bizarre to some of us that Harry could love Sirius > deeply so quickly, we're...well...not Harry. > > My take on this is that, *because* Harry was denied love for so > long, to have someone openly CARE for him -- CHOOSE him, in fact -- > was a deeply moving experience. ...edited... > > It COULD have been just an idealized thing, yes, but I think it > *was* real affection for Harry. ...when Harry ... recognize faults & > annoyances in Sirius..., he'd have had this image *shattered,* ...., > and the relationship would have crumbled. No, the affection was > genuine, imo, because these annoyances & concerns didn't shatter > Harry's image of Sirius, nor make him stop caring about him. > > ...edited... > > That's how I see it anyway. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: Once again, SSSusan and I are in sync, I thought her analysis was very insightful and can't find anything to pick at, but I will add one additional point. Upon this earth, and more importantly in Harry's life, not a trace of his father, James, remains. Not a single connection or artifact to tie Harry to James. Well, that's not quite true, there is the Cloak and the Map, but nice as they are, they are not very warm and 'fuzzy', and they only come later, after Harry finds out he is a wizard. Sad and worthless as she is, at least Petunia is a living connection between Harry and his mother. Then Harry meets Lupin, but there relationship is established in a different frame work, teacher/student, and he doesn't find out about the connection between his father and Lupin until later in the year, and even then the true extent of James and Lupin's relationship is not revealed until near the very end of the book. Sirius on the other hand, once all the details are in, was James very best and closest friend; more like a brother than a friend. So close that Sirius was named as Harry's Godfather. That makes Sirius the closest living thing in the world to Harry's father. In a sense, when Harry is standing in Sirius's presents, he is standing in the reflected presents of his own father. That has to be a very warm and comforting feeling for Harry. From a longer perspective, Sirius is Harry's gateway to truly knowing his own father. Sadly, like so many of use with regard to the ones we love, we think there will always be time; that we have a whole lifetime to get aquanted. And that is true, unfortunatly, we forget that sometimes a 'whole lifetime' is, in reality, a very short span of time. So, thinking there would always be time, Harry didn't ask those question that he needed to ask, and part of the loss of Sirius, is the loss of the answers to those question that no one but James closest, dearest, and most intimate friend could answer. I'm not saying that this defines the whole spectrum of Harry and Sirius's relationship, just that it was a strong influencing factor in Harry quickly developing strong feelings for Sirius. In a sense, to love Sirius, is to love Harry own father by proxie. To lose Sirius, is to lose his father all over again. Just a thought. Steve/Bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 9 08:24:41 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 08:24:41 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115265 Female_Jedis wrote: > If Petunia completely ignored Harry as a baby and as a young child, > while showering Dudley with attention and affection, Harry quite > simply should be a sociopath at this point and should be completely > unable to form healthy relationships without intensive therapy. Just a quick note here: while lots of abused children do not have normal psychological development, the range of responses is quite varied. As far as I know, no one is really sure why one person coming from an abusive background turns out to be, as you say, a sociopath and another with a similar background turns out more-or-less OK. There are lots of theories, but mainly it seems to be a matter of individual psychological resilience. Harry's fairly-normal emotional development is *unusual*--one would probably expect him to have more problems than he does--but not *completely* unrealistic. If you took a hundred RW kids with backgrounds like Harry's (which wouldn't be tough, provided you left out the almost-killed-by-evil-wizard bit), you'd expect most of them to show some psychological problems, a few to be total sociopaths, and a few more to be basically OK despite it all. Alex From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 9 09:24:31 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 09:24:31 -0000 Subject: A thought about PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115266 > Yb wrote: > > When Hagrid brings baby Harry to Privet Drive, he tells DD that he got the motorcycle from "young Sirius Black." > > > > DD thought SB was the Potter's secret Keeper, correct? And if he > > knew that Voldemort had gotten the Potters (which he does know), > > then obviously he knew that something had happened, that the secret keeper had told Voldemort where they were. > > > > So why doesn't DD have some sort of reaction to the name when > Hagrid says Sirius' name? Surely DD would have registered some surprise, but he only says "No problems, were there?" > > > kmc replied: > He may have been expecting Sirius to be at GH. It may be the reason he sent Hagrid and not someone else. I have read these books > numerous times and it is just now that I associated the "No problems, were there?" with the fact that Sirius was there. I had read that as problems with the authorities, problems with the collapsed house, or problems with even finding Harry. > > Which leads to another question? If the Potters were being protected by the Fidelus charm, how did Hagrid know where Harry was? You would think that the charm was still in effect and Hargid could put his nose right against the rubble and not see Harry. Hannah: Hagrid was a friend of the Potters, so he may have known the location. He could have been shown a piece of paper where Peter had written the location (so needn't have known of the switch). I think that the charm was broken when the house blew up. After all, muggles were alerted and 'started swarming round.' So Hagrid needn't even have known. As for DD's lack of reaction to Sirius being there, it's just another suspicious thing about the whole set up. Hannah From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 9 09:24:52 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 05:24:52 -0400 Subject: Marauders Map Message-ID: <003101c4ade1$d57a5eb0$b6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115267 Drew "Why is it that in the chamber of secrets, that Fred and George could not use the marauders map to find Ginny, and ultimately find out where "Tom Riddle" is. If the Weasleys did not have it, then why didn't Filch use it?" DuffyPoo: Filch didn't know how to work it, he isn't magical, he's a Squib and it takes magic to make it work. The Chamber itself isn't on the map as MWPP didn't know where it was and they were the creators of the map. kmc said: "The map was written when the Marauders roamed the castle and grounds during the full moon. It contains only those places that the Marauders could go. Since none (as far as we know through OotP) of the Marauders speak Parseltongue, they could not have opened the chamber. Therefore the Chamber is off the map just like the Shrieking Shack. I am sure that when Ginny was taken F&G checked the map to look for her." DuffyPoo: Actually, the Shrieking Shack should have been on the map as MWPP were there once a month, at least. It may have been on, but as F&G told HP that the tunnel was not accessible from the Hogwarts end, he never bothered to look to see where in Hogsmeade the tunnel came out. I'm quite certain, knowing F&G, that once the message appeared on the wall at Hallowe'en, they searched the map for the Chamber, as well. Since MWPP didn't know where it was, even if they did know of its existence -- it seems most people have heard the story of the first opening -- they could not put it on the map. Must've ticked them off royally...what fun they *think* they could have had down there! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 9 09:27:11 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 05:27:11 -0400 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? Message-ID: <003501c4ade2$28604b30$b6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115268 macfotuk wrote: "JKR has given a hint that 'devoted fans' may have correctly worked out where Sirius' motorbike is/ended up. Anyone got any comments on what this means (as in - who has guessed and what did they decide?)." Del replies : "Well, it seems logical that when Hagrid was done with delivering Baby Harry, he just went home, since he didn't have to give his bike back to Sirius. And right next to Hagrid's cabin, there's a place well-known for being the home of many different kinds of magical creatures, biological or not." DuffyPoo: Except Hagrid says "Yeah, I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back." Sue: "Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike!* Both are canon, then. Now,you could suggest that he got back, thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ... did whatever he did with the bike. But my bet is that the original was simply a mistake on the author's and editor's part, too late to change. :-)" DuffyPoo: "Black argued, but in the end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike to get Harry there. 'I won' need it any more,' he says. I shoulda known there was somethin' fishy goin' on then. He loved that motorbike, what was he givin' it ter me for?" Sirius wanted Hagrid to use the bike to get HP to his relatives. He wouldn't need it any more because he was going to kill Peter Pettigrew and knew he'd be locked up in Azkaban. The rest of Hagrid's statement here is hindsight. Since Hagrid didn't know any of what was going on, just his orders to take HP, he wouldn't have considered keeping the bike. He didn't know then, all he learned some time later, and his intent was to return the bike to 'young Sirius Black' when he'd done with it. He knew Sirius loved the bike, and would have planned to return it to him, IMO. Where is it now? He told HP that he 'flew' to get him off the island in PS. Is the bike still on the island? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From junebaby12 at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 9 07:01:30 2004 From: junebaby12 at yahoo.com.au (Laura) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:01:30 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: <20041008232711.45999.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115269 In response to the idea of Harry not being able to have a "deep love" for Sirius because he didnt know him well enough. We need to remeber that Sirius is the nearest thing to a parent Harry has got, and as Harry doesnt remeber his own parents any instinct to love a family member will be projected onto Sirius. Of course there are the Dursleys, who are blood relatives, but Harry has no real emotional attachment to them. Then there are the Weasleys, who have treated Harry like part of the family, but I dont think anything quite compares to Sirius's role in Harrys life, even if Harry wasn't fully aware of it. Sirius has a great love for Harry too, and surely Harry is able to pick up on that too. Lo From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 9 09:40:56 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 09:40:56 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115270 > Sophierom : > > Snape leads them "away from the warmth and light" of the > > Great Hall > > and into the "cold passageway" that leads to the dungeons. > > Harry > > shivers when he enters Snape's office, and the room is full of > > "revolting things that Harry didn't really want to know the > > name of at > > the moment." The fireplace "was dark and empty." > > > > Neri: > Why does Snape prefer the cold dungeon so much that he made it his > office? It might be due to a mechanistic reason (like "Snape is a > vampire") but I tend to think it is a metaphor. IMHO JKR tells us that > Snape is a cold person. Unnaturally cold, actually, so much so that > there is something suspicious about his humanity. Hannah: I think his quarters are in the dungeon because that's where the Slytherin common room is. Snape is head of Slyhterin house. We see in PoA and OotP that McGonagall must sleep near the Gryffindor common room, close enough to get there quickly when Neville runs to fetch her after Harry's snake vision, and even to be woken up by the disturbance after Black broke in. So it makes sense that heads of house sleep in rooms close to those of their charges, in case they are needed. Now we know that Snape was a Slytherin himself, he spent 7 years sleeping in a dungeon dormitory and hanging out in a dungeon common room, so he's used to it. Snape is paranoid about his office and supplies (and with good reason) so he has them close to his rooms. And it makes sense to have his classrooms down there too. On a side note, has anyone ever realised that when the troll is 'in the dungeons' in PS/SS, DD sends the children back to their dormitories, which for the Slytherins, are *in* the dungeons. Is he trying to get rid of them all? ;-) Hannah From hannah at readysolve.com Sat Oct 9 10:10:12 2004 From: hannah at readysolve.com (khilari2000) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:10:12 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > macfotuk wrote: > "JKR has given a hint that 'devoted fans' may have correctly worked > out where Sirius' motorbike is/ended up. > > Anyone got any comments on what this means (as in - who has guessed > and what did they decide?)." > > Del replies : > Well, it seems logical that when Hagrid was done with delivering Baby > Harry, he just went home, since he didn't have to give his bike back > to Sirius. And right next to Hagrid's cabin, there's a place > well-known for being the home of many different kinds of magical > creatures, biological or not. > > So my bet is on the Forbidden Forest. > Maybe it met Mr Weasely's car and there is now a secret colony of baby tricycles in the Forbidden Forest? Khilari > Del, who acknowledges that she actually read that idea on this very > forum a long time ago. From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Oct 9 10:33:23 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:33:23 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115272 Sue wrote: >>Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike! * Both are canon, then. Now,you could suggest that he got back, thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ... did whatever he did with the bike. << HunterGreen: Perhaps he didn't take Sirius seriously (no pun intended) when he said to keep the bike, and realized it later (as he suggests), along with realizing how odd that was. Perhaps after he left he couldn't find Sirius, then remembered what he said, and decided to do whatever he did with the bike (maybe he just left it at Sirius' house?). From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 11:37:45 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 04:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Harry relationship (was Re: Sirius' death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041009113745.94756.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115273 --- cubfanbudwoman wrote: > SSSusan: > > At various times between the end of PoA and Sirius' death in OotP, > Harry found an adult he trusted he could turn to for advice, an > adult who WANTED to answer his questions(!!), an adult who risked > his safety on his behalf, an adult who gave him real gifts , an > adult who wanted to share his life with him. It makes perfect > sense > to me that it didn't take all that long for the affection to grow > deep. Again, if the feelings *weren't* genuine, when Sirius became > surlier, more reckless, when he goaded Harry a little, Harry > would've turned away from him and said, "Screw this!" But he never > did. > Siriusly Snapey Susan Your posting (including the part I've snipped above) doesn't really contradict my point. I completely agree that Harry really wanted all of those things - but he was much happier contemplating that he finally had a godfather than in interacting with him. Sirius had his own issues that Harry was completely incapable of helping with and as a result most of their personal interaction was very stressful for Harry (who tended to blame himself for causing Sirius to be reckless). The idea of confiding in Sirius was almost always more attractive to Harry than actually going through with it. And it's interesting that Harry felt closest to Sirius the further he was away from the man. His strongest desires to talk to him occurred when he was pretty much incapable of getting to the technology that would be necessary to facilitate it. He doesn't even open the Christmas present that Sirius gives him purposely to aid in communication between them, and when he's with Sirius at 12GP he doesn't hang out with him but rather with Ron and the other kids. That doesn't strike me as a warm and loving interactive relationship. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 11:50:28 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:50:28 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > > Sue wrote: > >>Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid > says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this > strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD > and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike! > * Both are canon, then. Now,you could suggest that he got back, > thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ... did whatever he did > with the bike. << > > HunterGreen: > Perhaps he didn't take Sirius seriously (no pun intended) when he > said to keep the bike, and realized it later (as he suggests), along > with realizing how odd that was. Perhaps after he left he couldn't > find Sirius, then remembered what he said, and decided to do whatever > he did with the bike (maybe he just left it at Sirius' house?). mhbobbin: Although Hagrid didn't know to suspect Sirius Black as the Secret Keeper, Dumbledore did. So in retrospect, it does seem a bit odd for Hagrid to be telling DD that he used the motorbike from the Betrayer and is taking the motorbike back to the Betrayer. Of course, DD might be playing his knowledge close to the vest (and this bit of exposition doesn't belong in this first chapter) but it does make me wonder if DD planned to catch up to Sirius himself and question him. (which would have changed the course of the story) First, I'll deal with Harry's safety, then justice for Sirius. But now I'm confused. Since the Attack on GH takes place a full day before Harry is left at Privet Drive, and Sirius caught up with Pettigrew "the next day", has the incident with Pettigrew / Black with the death of 12 Muggles already happened by the time Harry is dropped at Privet Drive? Or is it the following day? It all comes back to the missing 24 hours--what was DD doing in that 24 hours, was Harry hidden somewhere first and so forth? From patientx3 at aol.com Sat Oct 9 11:59:28 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:59:28 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115275 Sophierom wrote: >>So, this is part II in my series on Snape as seen in canon (subtitled: how to waste an enormous amount of time!). Part I, if you're interested, can be found at Message 114856 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114856 << [large snip] >>Chapter 11, 189-195: Dueling Incident. [snip] And when Lockhart suggests that Neville and Justin duel in front of the entire club, Snape responds as follows: " `A bad idea, Professor Lockhart,' said Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. `Longbottom causes devastation with the simplest spells. We'll be sending what's left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital wing in a matchbox.' Neville's round, pink face went pinker.'" Then, "with a twisted smile," Snape suggests Malfoy and Harry.<< HunterGreen: Its rather hard to defend Snape's treatment of Neville in this scene (although I do love the phrase "malevolent bat"), but it is interesting to note that the medium-that-must-not-be-named changed the reference in this scene to Ron, which makes a lot more sense (not that I'm saying anything against the book, I think JKR was trying to show us something about Snape in addition to plot-specific point of getting Harry on the stage). I wonder, is Snape just referring to the 'desvastation' of the first potions class, or is there something additional that Neville has done that we simply weren't privy to? Neville is often thought of or referred to as a "weak" wizard, and in that case *he* would be the one in danger in a dueling situation, not Justin. If Snape really had cause to think that Neville caused "devastation with the simpliest spell", then what he said can *sort* of be defended. If Neville had caused more accidents like the one in the first potions class, then sending him up on stage to attack another student wouldn't be the best idea. About the first potions class, I think that was more Snape's fault than anything else. Why would he assign a potion that could go so badly wrong on to a group of eleven-year-olds on their first day of class? No wonder Umbridge thinks the class is advanced, and Snape thinks Lupin is 'hardly overtaxing them'. Sophierom: >>Chapter 15, 267: Potions class after Hagrid's been arrested and Dumbledore has been forced to take a leave. As Malfoy makes derogatory comments about Dumbledore and McGonagall, "Snape swept past Harry, making no comment about Hermione's empty seat and cauldron." [snip] There has been a great deal of speculation that Snape's job as a spy relies not on being a part of LV's inner circle but instead through maintaining a close connection with Lucius Malfoy. You could read this scene, along with Snape's favoritism toward Draco, as a piece of evidence for this idea. << HunterGreen: Personally, I think his favortism toward Draco is exactly what it seems. With Lucius being a few years older than Snape in school, and them both being in the same house, I can easily see a bit of hero worship being built up (Lucius is, after all from a long line of purebloods and is very wealthy, and I imagine he was quite popular in school). The two of them are simply still friends now, and out of loyalty he favors his friend's son. Why would they still be friends now that Snape is on the "good" side and Lucius is a far cry from it? As far as we can tell, switching sides had no effect on Snape's personality, so he probably still prefers the same people (he certainly still hates the same people, just because he's on Dumbledore's side now doesn't mean that him and Sirius--or even him and Lupin--are suddenly friends). Sophierom: >>You could also read the scene as a sign of Snape's cruelty (perhaps he simply doesn't care about Hermione and/or he shares the sentiment about "mudbloods.") Being a Snape-o-phile, I'm tempted to read the scene a little more optimistically. [snip] I'm also tempted to read Snape's failure to make a remark about Hermione not as indifferent cruelty but instead as a very subtle sign that he's not happy with the situation. We all know Snape is one to pick on the Gryffindors. It wouldn't have been out of character for him to say something like, "Oh, what a pity the know-it-all isn't here to answer any questions today." Given his typical mean behavior, I'd take silence as a compliment!<< HunterGreen: I tend to agree with you. It would seem strange for him to offer some sort of condolence of Hermione's inaction, and it would be equally odd for him to reprimand Draco. However, it wouldn't seem that out of place for him to make a cruel comment of his own about Hermione (which would be *very* cruel), but he doesn't say a word. Sophierom: >>PoA, when/if I get to it, will be much more difficult for me to do. With Lupin's caring as a foil, along with Snape's hatred of Lupin and Black, my favorite greasy git is bound to look pretty bad in the next book! Still, will he look evil? We'll see. But he certainly didn't appear evil in CoS.<< HunterGreen: Looking forward to it (if you do write it that is). It is rather hard to defend him when he's being cold to Lupin at every opportunity, but then again, Lupin doesn't seem bothered by it (and he is dutifully making that potion for Lupin, although I'm sure he *detests* having to do it). From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 12:05:59 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 05:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041009120559.81239.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115276 --- elfundeb2 wrote: > In order to achieve the unity the Sorting Hat warns is > necessary to protect Hogwarts from "external, deadly foes," Harry > needs to move beyond Sirius' views. In OOP the two main > representatives of the our-team-vs.-their team POV (Sirius and the > Twins) were effectively removed from the equation, Sirius by his > death and the Twins by their grand exit from school. This will > allow Harry the figurative space he'll need to become a standard- > bearer for unity. > > Debbie Yes, I'll go along with this. Harry needed Sirius for a couple of books - to know that someone was "there" for him (even though whenever Sirius was "here" for him, he found it stressful) - but he also needs to get past the quidditch-level us-against-them mentality of the playing field. The past has heavily influenced the past three books, constraining characters' actions, determining their emotions and feelings - it's time that the future had a turn too. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 9 12:21:40 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:21:40 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > lotsa snips> > YahooMort came up trumps, and I've read some of your past posts > about the prophecy. Just got a little problem though (which you may > have addressed in other posts that I didn't find). > Kneasy: You mean you actually found something you were looking for by using Yahoo!Mort? Now there's a novelty. > Your reading of the prophecy means that the *events* it refers to > have already come to pass, doesn't it? If the `either must die at > the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other > survives' refers to James and Lily, why does DD say `Yes' in > response to Harry's `So does that mean that... that one of us has > got to kill the other one ... in the end?' > > I suppose he could know it refers to Lily and James, but since he > also knows that Harry's the only one who can defeat Voldy for good, > he wants to force his hand a bit. Make him assume that it's kill or > be killed, so that Harry won't hesitate when the time comes. > Kneasy: That Prophecy. What a pain. I doubt very much that it's to be read as a straightforward Harry vs Voldy foretelling - JKR, when questioned about it said that she and Sybill had "..been VERY careful.." (her emphasis) when constructing it. Bluff, double-bluff or warning to interpreters? Parts of it are past events - the "born to", the "marking", why not the "neither can live"? I haven't yet seen an interpretation that I'd accept unreservedly or even with more than moderate enthusiasm (not even my own), all of 'em have drawbacks somewhere. The wondering about whether it has already been fulfilled in its entirety was sparked by my natural suspicions and incipient paranoia - was JKR pulling a fast one? Giving us something deliberately obscure (but basically unhelpful for future theorising) to worry over and to concentrate on while she stacked the deck elsewhere. I don't trust DD to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I've quoted it before, but whenever he whitters on about how precious truth is I'm constantly reminded of that quote of Churchill's - "In wartime...truth is so precious she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." And he'd be a right mug to disclose anything truly significant to Harry when Harry has Voldy trolling around inside his mind. He has this plan, he's working to an agenda we wot not of. He's done some very odd things for an omniscient, world number one wizard. One of my first major posts was a performance review and job evaluation of A.P.W.B. Dumbledore - 65696 'FLOOZY No.1 - The Dumbledore Papers' For someone reputedly so smart he's been remarkably inept - unless it's deliberate. > Okay, let's try going at this one step at a time. > > If DD's right *and* telling the truth, then all is as it seems. > Voldy hears about the boy born at the end of July to those who > thrice defied him, Lily unwittingly saves Harry by dying, Voldemort > tries to AK Harry, curse rebounds and Voldy's gas. DD guesses why > Harry survived, and uses Lily's sacrifice to protect Harry at the > Dursley's, he also guesses at the time that there may be a > connection between Harry and Voldy. > Kneasy: Except... Voldy had not achieved immortality. Unless DD possesses info we don't have, how could he know that Voldy would survive an AK? Many posters also think that for the 'sacrifice' to be truly that, then Lily did not defend herself or Harry other than verbally and by standing in Voldy's way. She didn't fight, she offered her own life - not an easy or natural thing to do in the circumstances. How could DD be so sure that would be or was the actual case? As to the connection - something was going on during the missing 24 hours. Harry could have been undergoing an investigation of some sort, but that'd be guesswork at the moment. > > I think (IIRC through the haze that was last night) I was wondering > if DD was wrong. If he assumes along with everyone else that Voldy > used an AK, but really it was the somethingorotherus spell. > > My idea (which I may not have made entirely clear) was that it was > Voldy's attempt to incorporate the `power that the Dark Lord knows > not' into himself that made the somethingorotherus spell backfire, > rather than Lily's sacrifice. That there's something about Voldy > that means not only that he doesn't have this power and despises it, > but also that in trying to fill himself with it (without reading the > label first), he nearly destroyed himself. > Kneasy: That's a possibility. I have a hankering for a failed possession attempt. It wouldn't show on the wand replay and it gives some sort of explanation for Voldy leaving bits of himself behind. But what do I know? But don't forget that the very first line of the Prophecy says that Harry has power - sufficient to knock off Voldy, even though at that point it doesn't classify it as 'unknown by Voldy'. He'd still be interested in having a peek, and accessing it if he could, I think. What he wouldn't expect is for some snotty brat in Pampers to bite back. There are times when I despair at the ineptitude of villains, I really do. Why mess around when he could've fed Harry to Nagini? Problem solved. > > My misgiving about the idea is that so much is made of the > sacrificial love aspect of the story. Though, now I come to think > about it again, has JKR ever said that was a theme of the books? I > recall others (particularly those defending HP against religious > fundamentalists) making much of it, but all I remember JKR saying is > that death and dealing with death was a big theme running through > the series. > Kneasy: Yup. Death is supposed to be a major theme; no mention of love being a complementary aspect so far as I know. Many assume so, same as many assume that it's a morality tale, despite the fact that what she said was that it isn't, but hopefully it's a story from which morals could be drawn - which could be a very different thing; you can draw morals from almost any story. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 12:43:47 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 05:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041009124347.98153.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115278 --- snow15145 wrote: > Snow: > If Sirius hadn't approved so profoundly of starting a group to > teach and learn defense against the > dark arts the children would have all died at the Ministry. All of > Harry's friends or stalkers (Luna) would have still gone with Harry > that night but much less knowledgeable if it hadn't been for > Sirius's enthusiasm over the need for all of them to be aware of > what they may be facing outside of Hogwarts. In a way Sirius was > the reason the > children were able to learn to defend themselves. Sirius had > convinced Harry that sometimes when faced with a choice of taking > the > easy rode of obeying the rules so as not to get into trouble at > school you have placed yourself and others in more danger by not > taking a risk in which you might save many. It was Hermione who set up the DA and established the reasons for it. Sirius agreed with the importance of the idea but it's interesting to note his first reaction when talking to the kids: "D'you think your father and I would've lain down and taken orders from an old hag like Umbridge?" He's proud that Harry's a chip off the old block and showing that Marauder spirit to rag a nasty and bad teacher. Then he throws himself into the planning - as Hermoine says, he's living through their activities. > As for other qualities that Sirius has shown, the one that came to > mind after reading your post was when Mr. Weasley was bitten and > the twins were adamant over going to their fathers side, Fred had > spouted > to Sirius that it was easy for him to say that there were things > worth dying for because he didn't see Sirius risking his neck. > Sirius > was obviously hurt by this comment from Fred but had a very mature > and consoling attitude towards him all the same. "The little colour remaining in Sirius' face drained from it. He looked for a moment as though he would quite like to hit Fred, but when he spoke, it was in a voice of determined calm." You're right, he didn't go through with hitting Fred so I suppose that might count as mature and consoling. On the other hand, Fred might just have been out of reach; Harry's not clear on that point. This and your other examples don't show "great strength of character"; it shows the normal adult reaction to an emotional kid's outburst when the kid is scared and upset about a family medical emergency and when quarrelling with other adults. You're setting the bar awfully low if we're expected to give Sirius credit for simply not blowing up at Fred at that time. > Why would anyone criticize Sirius, who knows about > as much as we the readers, for being cautious concerning Snape who > was once a death eater? Because Snape saved Harry's life in PS/SS? Had I been Sirius and I'd found out that the guy I despised with all my heart had actually been responsible for saving the life of my best friend's son, I'd be a heck of a lot more circumspect in how I'd treat that guy and how I'd talk about him in front of said kid. Not to mention I'd thank the guy profusely for being there when I was in prison and couldn't help my godson at all. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pcsgames at toltbbs.com Sat Oct 9 12:53:34 2004 From: pcsgames at toltbbs.com (Phil Vlasak) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 08:53:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20041009084314.023dacc8@mail.toltbbs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115279 >macfotuk wrote: >"JKR has given a hint that 'devoted fans' may have correctly worked >out where Sirius' motorbike is/ended up. > >Anyone got any comments on what this means (as in - who has guessed >and what did they decide?)." > >Del replies : >Well, it seems logical that when Hagrid was done with delivering Baby >Harry, he just went home, since he didn't have to give his bike back >to Sirius. And right next to Hagrid's cabin, there's a place >well-known for being the home of many different kinds of magical >creatures, biological or not. > >So my bet is on the Forbidden Forest. > >Del, who acknowledges that she actually read that idea on this very >forum a long time ago. Now Phil: Here are some clues that Hagrid has it and probably used it several times in book one and a hint he used it in book five. Harry couldn't sleep. He shivered and turned over, trying to get comfortable, his stomach rumbling with hunger. Dudley's snores were drowned by the low rolls of thunder that started near midnight. ( ( PS Chapter five, Harry hearing the motorcycle arrive.) "How did you get here?" Harry asked, looking around for another boat. "Flew," said Hagrid. "_Flew?" "Yeah--but we'll go back in this. Not s'pposed ter use magic now I've got yeh." They settled down in the boat, Harry still staring at Hagrid, trying to imagine him flying. ( (PS chapter five, possibility that the motorcycle flew back by itself.) "Here," said Kingsley brusquely to Mr. Weasley, shoving a sheaf of parchment into his hand, "I need as much information as possible on flying Muggle vehicles sighted in the last twelve months. We've received information that Black might still be using his old motorcycle." (OOP chapter seven, Hagrid could have been spotted flying it in his search for the giants.) we was headin' fer where Olympe's school is, 'cause we knew we was bein' tailed by someone from the Ministry. We had to go slow, 'cause I'm not really s'posed ter use magic an' we knew the Ministry'd be lookin' fer a reason ter run us in. But we managed ter give the berk tailin' us the slip round abou' Dee-John--" (OOP chapter 20, Hagrid and Madame Maxime first used the motorcycle on the road.) .) "We chanced a bit o' magic after that, and it wasn' a bad journey. 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, but apart from tha', couldn't'a bin smoother. (OOP chapter twenty, later they flew on it.) "I-I tripped." "You tripped," she repeated coolly. "Yeah, tha's right. Over ... over a friend's broomstick. I don' fly, meself. Well, look at the size o' me, I don' reckon there's a broomstick that'd hold me. (OOP chapter twenty, further hint that Hagrid uses the motorcycle, and not a broomstick.) Phil (hoping these clues do form an answer to the puzzle.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 9 14:00:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:00:11 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115280 Dzeytoun: >Mean, asocial people can have many functions in a novel. Among their most satisfying is to either be redeemed or get their just deserts or both. I think most people who read HP are hoping one or the other or both happens with Snape. After all, we read HP to be entertained, and those would be outcomes that a large number of people would find entertaining. If nothing else, because mean people in real life are rarely redeemed, and don't often get a> satisfying dramatic comeuppence, we look forward to seeing those things in literature. < Some of us might find it entertaining to see Snape accepted for what he is. Perhaps he doesn't deserve it, but tolerance seems to be the theme here, not retribution. There's a useful analogy with Buckbeak. Like Snape, Buckbeak makes no allowances for childhood and will savagely attack anyone who offends him, regardless of the seriousness of the offense. Not only that, to treat him courteously violates a common notion of propriety; he's a brute beast and surely humans should not bow to beasts. But those who are willing to accede to the demands of Buckbeak's nature will gain a useful and powerful companion, while those who refuse are likely to get their arms ripped half off. Readers understand that because Buckbeak couldn't behave otherwise without becoming something other than a hippogriff, punishment would be useless and unjust. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 14:30:28 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:30:28 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Some of us might find it entertaining to see Snape accepted for > what he is. Perhaps he doesn't deserve it, but tolerance seems > to be the theme here, not retribution. > > There's a useful analogy with Buckbeak. Like Snape, Buckbeak > makes no allowances for childhood and will savagely attack > anyone who offends him, regardless of the seriousness of the > offense. Not only that, to treat him courteously violates a > common notion of propriety; he's a brute beast and surely > humans should not bow to beasts. But those who are willing to > accede to the demands of Buckbeak's nature will gain a useful > and powerful companion, while those who refuse are likely > to get their arms ripped half off. > > Readers understand that because Buckbeak couldn't behave > otherwise without becoming something other than a hippogriff, > punishment would be useless and unjust. It's an interesting analogy, Pippin, but it does has a major weakness, as I'm sure you know--mainly the difference between human and hippogriff. One famous old definition (Harry Frankfurt's) of 'personhood' is the ability to have second-order desires; to have a desire about the desires that one has. Easier to give an example: to have the wish to *want* to do good things for other people. I don't think Buckbeak is capable of that, while I do think Snape is. I think tolerance is an important issue, and I think there *are* lessons to be learned about allowing Snape to be himself. On the other hand, I think there is a reciprocal issue--Snape learning that he shouldn't always treat people as he does. I keep coming back to problems of liberalism, but 'you gotta get along to go along' is one of them. I'm unresolved on the issue of whether Snape is capable of change. Feeling somewhat optimistic, I would like to hope that he is. But I'm almost tempted to sit down and try to construct out an IF/THEN flowchart of all the possibilities of motivations and outcomes that we've all argued about over the years, because some of them are mutually contradictory--and if we try to accept all of them, we get PreposterouslyCompetent!Snape. That is to say, Snape who is very deeply damaged and cannot help his behavior towards the kids, BUT he's also really just doing it out of frustration and also trying to help them along as he's completely aware of the importance of Harry AND he always has their best interests in mind; he's emotionally damaged from abuse BUT is still perfectly in control of his emotions to succeed as a spy... I bet there's one piece of missing information that would trigger a cascade of 'Oh, that's it?' -Nora hopes that the new book comes out at a good time, not exams, please not during exams... From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 9 14:34:26 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:34:26 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > I don't see any reason why he > should change or be punished. What would it mean ? That people can > only either be white heroes, or doomed grey losers ? Not very > realistic, now is it ? > > Del No, it isn't very realistic. You are right that if JKR is striving for realism, then neither outcome is necessary for Snape. My own personal suspicion is that redemption will come after death, as I don't see Snape (or Dumbledore, for that matter) surviving the series. But we will see in time whether JKR follows the "realistic" path or the path of more traditional literary tropes. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 9 14:43:48 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:43:48 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > > I'm unresolved on the issue of whether Snape is capable of change. > Feeling somewhat optimistic, I would like to hope that he is. But > I'm almost tempted to sit down and try to construct out an IF/THEN > flowchart of all the possibilities of motivations and outcomes that > we've all argued about over the years, because some of them are > mutually contradictory--and if we try to accept all of them, we get > PreposterouslyCompetent!Snape. That is to say, Snape who is very > deeply damaged and cannot help his behavior towards the kids, BUT > he's also really just doing it out of frustration and also trying to > help them along as he's completely aware of the importance of Harry > AND he always has their best interests in mind; he's emotionally > damaged from abuse BUT is still perfectly in control of his emotions > to succeed as a spy... > > I bet there's one piece of missing information that would trigger a > cascade of 'Oh, that's it?' > Excellent answer, Nora! I think you are quite right that there is a crucial piece of information coming that will make these issue largely resolve. Just three comments: 1) However it resolves, some of us are going to be very disappointed. As you say, the different theories about Snape are incompatible, and somebody has to see treasured theories/interpretations fly out the window; 2) I hope the information is significant/surprising/satisfying, but I'm afraid we might be disappointed there, too (prophecy anyone?); 3) Some significant issues are likely to be left over even after the revelation. Despite what JKR says, tight plotting is not exactly her greatest strength. Dzeytoun From dzeytoun at cox.net Sat Oct 9 15:00:21 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:00:21 -0000 Subject: Harry, the adults, and thanking Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115284 Let's turn all the arguments about Harry thanking Snape, or not, around. A couple of people have pointed out that, while it is true that Harry does not thank Snape for saving his life in PS/SS or for his actions in PoA, nevertheless none of the adults urge him to do so. Isn't it curious that in his speech at the end of PS/SS, where he explains the friction between Snape and James, Dumbledore never recommends or urges Harry to thank Snape for saving his life? Nor does McGonagall, for that matter. On the matter of Occlumency, it is also interesting, although a more minor point, that no one ever suggests that Harry should thank Snape for being willing to teach him. It would be natural for Remus, when he urges Harry to study hard, to add "and you might want to thank Snape for being willing to teach you." We have talked a lot about Harry not thanking Snape. Yet surely one reason he does not is the subtle message he gets from adults that Snape doesn't need to be thanked. Frankly, all the adults seem to have the attitude, conveyed in multiple ways, that Snape is only doing his duty (to the Order, to James, or both) and therefore doesn't need/deserve thanks. In my opinion they are conveying an even starker message. One justifiable read of their attitude seems to be "We know you don't like Snape. We don't like him, either. But he does have useful functions, like doing his duty for which one does not need to thank him." The other even subtler message is "Yes, Snape hates you. He saves you because he is duty bound, so don't feel the need to thank him for it." Given that we are dealing with a young boy in the age range 11 to 15, it isn't very surprising that he doesn't feel much need to thank Snape, or even to try and reach some truce with him, given such messages. Dzeytoun Dzeytoun From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 15:20:58 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:20:58 -0000 Subject: A thought about PS/SS / Doubts about DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > snip> > > > > > So why doesn't DD have some sort of reaction to the name when > > Hagrid says Sirius' name? Surely DD would have registered some > surprise, but he only says "No problems, were there?" > > > > > > kmc replied: > > He may have been expecting Sirius to be at GH. It may be the > reason he sent Hagrid and not someone else. I have read these books > > numerous times and it is just now that I associated the "No > problems, were there?" with the fact that Sirius was there. I had > read that as problems with the authorities, problems with the > collapsed house, or problems with even finding Harry. > > > >snip> > As for DD's lack of reaction to Sirius > being there, it's just another suspicious thing about the whole set > up. > Hannah mhbobbin: It does seem to underscore that DD keeps so many secrets under wraps. Why no reaction to Sirius Black's name? Good point. And how was DD expecting Hagrid to transport Harry to Privet Drive had Black not loaned him the motorbike. Thestral? (Around a baby? I don't like that at all.) What did DD's "to-do" list look like that day? We only know he wasn't around Hogwarts because McGonagall wanted to question him and could not. He ostensibly was making arrangements for Harry. Was he thinking, first I arrange for Harry's safety, next I pursue Sirius Black for questioning --using his special skills, and possibly, justice. He likely believes that he alone knows that Black was the Secret Keeper and is not revealing that information to his two most trusted associates--McGonagall and Hagrid--yet. Seems risky to allow Hagrid to go to GH where he might meet up with the Betrayer, with the result of the Betrayer lending his motorbike to transport Harry-- unless DD had some doubt about Sirius' guilt. (Of course, all this exposition about SB would have overwhelmed the first chapter.) DD clearly knows more about GH and The Betrayal than has yet been revealed. Were DD's intial doubts about Sirius' guilt simply overtaken by events? Sirius's actions were not those of an innocent man---as DD reminds us about later events. I find DD's silence about SB in this scene as possible evidence that DD wanted the opportunity to speak to SB before coming to a conclusion about the Betrayal, but was later persuaded by events that Sirius was,in fact, guilty. But i concede it's more suspicious than that. Posters have made interesting cases that DD is responsible for SB disappearing into Azkaban and Sirius disappearing beyond the veil. I'm almost persuaded. Time and again, we return to Godric Hollow. It is still, IMO, the central mystery of the story. mhbobbin---who posted on the motorcycle thread that which belonged here. forgive me for redundancy. From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 15:47:06 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:47:06 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: <014001c4adb4$1d2fd8d0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115286 > Cory again: > > > > Sure she could have, but she didn't. Having Ron and Hermione as > > prefects enabled her to demonstrate certain things about their > > characters -- Hermione got to show that she has a backbone (standing up to the twins when they were feeding their joke candies to the first years). Ron...well I don't know, exactly; he didn't exactly do a bang-up job as a prefect. It did give him his much- needed chance in the spotlight, though. Feklar wrote: > That HG was a prefect made sense to me, both plot-wise and in terms of what I expect a prefect to be. But Ron as prefect didn't do anything as a character or plotwise, so the purpose kind of escaped me. That's why it read to me as a bit heavy-handed on the author's part, or as someone else said, he's a prefect b/c he's a main character. To contrast, when Harry and Ron run off to rescue HG from the troll in SS, I didn't think, "A-ha! They are going off to be heroes because they are the main characters!" That was why they were going to be the heroes, but the authorial intent wasn't so obvious... Although, with Ron as prefect, I'm still not sure what the authorial intent is. Maybe he'll become a responsible upstanding academic citizen or something. > ***** Maybe Jo's authorial intent to make Ron prefect (and Keeper in the Quidditch team, too) was to give his character the opportunity that he had been dreaming of (and denied of in GoF): to outperform his older siblings' achievements, to stand out for and by himself. Jo gave Ron the chance to experience part of his dreams/wishes come true (PS: Head Boy and Quidditch Captain) and I believe that he has realized that the phrase "Be careful what you wish for, it may come true" is of wise value, he realized (or didn't he?) that 'glory and fame' do not come for free, they come with responsibilities and hard work too... I believe that Jo wanted to show us that sometimes when we 'complain of life being not fair' (as Ron did in GoF) it's not mainly due to Fate, it's because of our choices, too. Now, the thousand dollar questions are: 1)Do we think that Ron 'performed' well with his given opportunities? 2)Did he chose to do what was 'easy' or what was 'right'? IMO, no to 1), and 'what was easy' to 2). Jo implies so in the FAQ section of her website: "...Ron got it wrong in 'Phoenix', from which we can deduce that he hasn't been a very authoritarian prefect thus far...", she also says that she doesn't believe in Fate, that she believes 'in hard work and luck, and that the first often leads to the second', and from her books she also makes us know (Harry and readers) that Ron's prefect opportunity was actually a fluke, it had been Harry's in first place, and that Angelina chose Ron as Keeper over two other better players mainly because he was a Weasley. So, to summarize this, I believe her authorial intent in making Ron a Prefect (and Keeper) was to expose him to a 'real-life try-out', we will have to wait for HBP to see what Ron's balance sheet is of his performance in OoTP... if he is willing to work hard for what he wants, or if he is going to 'change' his wish-list so that he doesn't have to work that hard, or if he didn't learn much from this experience... Can't wait to read that darn book! Marcela From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 15:51:09 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:51:09 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115287 Nora wrote : " I think tolerance is an important issue, and I think there *are* lessons to be learned about allowing Snape to be himself. On the other hand, I think there is a reciprocal issue--Snape learning that he shouldn't always treat people as he does. I keep coming back to problems of liberalism, but 'you gotta get along to go along' is one of them." Del replies : I agree. The only problem I see is that Snape does *not* want to get along. He seems to barely want to go along. We still don't know why he changed camps, why he works for the good side. He does seem to have quite a lot of respect, and maybe even affection, for DD and maybe for McGonagall, but those two might be the *exceptions*, not the rule. They might be the only ones Snape actually wants to get along with, which is why he tends to do as they ask. I think that Snape has learned a long time ago that he shouldn't treat people as he does. But in my idea, he simply doesn't care. He is voluntarily, willfully, doing what he knows he shouldn't be doing, and he is shamelessly deriving pleasure from some of the things he does. This is perfectly immoral, for sure, but many people do that every day, from the kid who steals candies, to the teenager who watches adult movies, to the boss who sexually harrasses his secretary, to the teacher who ridicules his student... Oops :-) ! I don't like Mean!Snape, of course I don't. But I do think he represents an important part of society. And asking him to change is like expecting all the mean people around us to see the light. Most of them won't, and even if they do many will choose to remain selfish and self-centered. Reciprocality is an ideal, not a reasonable expectation. Let's not forget that Scrooge is a character in a *Christmas* tale. By definition, Christmas stories don't happen the rest of the year. Del From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 16:06:08 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:06:08 -0000 Subject: Harry, the adults, and thanking Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > [snip, with profound regrets] > We have talked a lot about Harry not thanking Snape. Yet surely one reason he does not is the subtle message he gets from adults that > Snape doesn't need to be thanked. Frankly, all the adults seem to > have the attitude, conveyed in multiple ways, that Snape is only > doing his duty (to the Order, to James, or both) and therefore > doesn't need/deserve thanks. In my opinion they are conveying an > even starker message. One justifiable read of their attitude seems > to be "We know you don't like Snape. We don't like him, either. But he does have useful functions, like doing his duty for which one does not need to thank him." The other even subtler message is "Yes, > Snape hates you. He saves you because he is duty bound, so don't > feel the need to thank him for it." [snip] dolor: I really like this thought. It brings to mind Sirius Black's casual negligence and disdain towards Kreacher. Is Snape the de facto "house elf" in Harry's life, i.e., the one who tirelessly and thanklessly serves? Come to think of it, that also seems to reflect Percy's attitude toward his mother, a not uncommon youthful perspective on family roles and functions, unfortunately. Technically, McGonagall is Harry's head of house. In lieu of proper direction from the Dursleys, who do seem to have taught Harry superficial manners, she should be the one to proffer him such guidance at school, but she's a pretty hands-off head of house, except where Quidditch is concerned... Lupin clearly only feels such responsibility when he is under contract to do so. Note that he returns the Marauders' Map to Harry once he has tendered his resignation. Why, then, would anyone expect him to give Harry behavioral directions beyond said scope, especially in the presence of Harry's actual legal guardian? Dumbledore is even more removed from the day-to-day care and guidance of Harry. If anyone would offer such advice about respect, I would expect it to be Hagrid. Hagrid, however, is less likely to witness Harry's encounters with Snape, significantly uninvolved with Harry's occlumency lessons. Thus, Harry has only the superficial guidelines instilled in him by the Dursleys, and they are the initial target of Harry's rebellion in each text. Ah well... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 9 16:06:38 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:06:38 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115289 Kneasy: > I haven't yet seen an interpretation that I'd accept > unreservedly or even with more than moderate enthusiasm (not even > my own), all of 'em have drawbacks somewhere. > I don't trust DD to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but > the truth. He's done some very odd things for an > omniscient, world number one wizard. dungrollin: > > If DD's right *and* telling the truth, then all is as it seems. > > Voldy hears about the boy born at the end of July to those who > > thrice defied him, Lily unwittingly saves Harry by dying, > > Voldemort tries to AK Harry, curse rebounds and Voldy's gas. DD > > guesses why Harry survived, and uses Lily's sacrifice to protect > > Harry at the Dursley's, he also guesses at the time that there > > may be a connection between Harry and Voldy. Kneasy: > As to the connection - something was going on during the missing > 24 hours. Harry could have been undergoing an investigation of some > sort, but that'd be guesswork at the moment. dungrollin: > > I think I was wondering if DD was wrong. If he assumes along > > with everyone else that Voldy used an AK, but really it was the > > somethingorotherus spell. > > > > My idea (which I may not have made entirely clear) was that it > > was Voldy's attempt to incorporate the `power that the Dark Lord > > knows not' into himself that made the somethingorotherus spell > > backfire, rather than Lily's sacrifice. That there's something > > about Voldy that means not only that he doesn't have this power > > and despises it, but also that in trying to fill himself with it > > (without reading the label first), he nearly destroyed himself. Kneasy: > That's a possibility. I have a hankering for a failed possession > attempt.It wouldn't show on the wand replay and it gives some sort > of explanation for Voldy leaving bits of himself behind. But what > do I know? > > But don't forget that the very first line of the Prophecy says that > Harry has power - sufficient to knock off Voldy, even though at > that point it doesn't classify it as 'unknown by Voldy'. He'd still > be interested in having a peek, and accessing it if he could, I > think. What he wouldn't expect is for some snotty brat in Pampers > to bite back. There are times when I despair at the ineptitude of > villains, I really do. Why mess around when he could've fed Harry > to Nagini? Problem solved. SSSusan: Oh, all this is just **delicious**! I love thinking about what might've happened at Godric's Hollow. I think I'm *most* excited about Book 6 for the possibility that JKR is finally going to explain some of this--kind of how I sat up straighter & shivered in anticipation the moment I turned the page to "Snape's Worst Memory" in OotP. It was THE moment I'd been most looking forward to getting to in Book 5. Likewise, it will be nice to get some answers to GH, and I *so* hope they're coming in HBP. In the meantime, it's fun to collect all these thoughts on what might be. Was there a witch or wizard in a portrait at Godric's Hollow who was able to rush off to Hogwarts before the house was blown up? Was DD in on planning this whole thing, suspecting it was inevitable? Did Lily & James also plan it out or were they in the dark? Was Voldy's spell an AK or something else? If something else, was it a possession attempt? What did he leave of himself in Harry? Is something of Harry in him? And what's up with DD anyway? JKR says he's the "epitome of goodness", but there are so many *questions*.... dungrollin: > > My misgiving about the idea is that so much is made of the > > sacrificial love aspect of the story. Though, now I come to > > think about it again, has JKR ever said that was a theme of the > > books? I recall others (particularly those defending HP against > > religious fundamentalists) making much of it, but all I remember > > JKR saying is that death and dealing with death was a big theme > > running through the series. Kneasy: > Yup. Death is supposed to be a major theme; no mention of love being > a complementary aspect so far as I know. Many assume so, same as > many assume that it's a morality tale, despite the fact that what > she said was that it isn't, but hopefully it's a story from which > morals could be drawn - which could be a very different thing; you > can draw morals from almost any story. SSSusan: Kneasy, your comments about morality tale vs. a story from which morals can be drawn *are* almost dead-on what JKR has said in an interview: "I did not conceive it as a moral tale, the morality sprang naturally out of the story, a subtle but important difference. I think any book that sets out to teach or preach is likely to be hard going at times (though I can think of a couple of exceptions)." [WBC Chat, 2004] And, dungrollin, you also are right in what JKR has said about death: "Death is an extremely important theme throughout all seven books. I would say possibly the most important theme." [A&E Biography] I'm one of the ones who's talked about the possibility of sacrificial love as being the key to the end of the series, but I think you're correct that JKR herself has not indicated this. Siriusly Snapey Susan, giddy with anticipation...and wondering how long it will be.... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 9 16:14:31 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:14:31 -0000 Subject: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115290 Pippin: > > Readers understand that because Buckbeak couldn't behave otherwise without becoming something other than a hippogriff, punishment would be useless and unjust.<< Nora: > It's an interesting analogy, Pippin, but it does has a major weakness, as I'm sure you know--mainly the difference between human and hippogriff.<< > > One famous old definition (Harry Frankfurt's) of 'personhood' is the ability to have second-order desires; to have a desire about the desires that one has. Easier to give an example: to have the wish to *want* to do good things for other people. I don't think Buckbeak is capable of that, while I do think Snape is.< > > I think tolerance is an important issue, and I think there *are* > lessons to be learned about allowing Snape to be himself. On the other hand, I think there is a reciprocal issue--Snape learning that he shouldn't always treat people as he does. I keep coming back to problems of liberalism, but 'you gotta get along to go along' is one of them. if we try to accept all of them, we get PreposterouslyCompetent!Snape. That is to say, Snape who is very deeply damaged and cannot help his behavior towards the kids, BUT he's also really just doing it out of frustration and also trying to help them along as he's completely aware of the importance of Harry AND he always has their best interests in mind; he's emotionally damaged from abuse BUT is still perfectly in control of his emotions to succeed as a spy... > > I bet there's one piece of missing information that would trigger a cascade of 'Oh, that's it?'< Pippin: Such as Not-linked-to-(other)-vampires-partVampire!Snape? Like Buckbeak neither foal nor fowl,Snape could possess an atypical mind, thus misleading the legilimens despite not being in perfect control of his emotions (canon: 'Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works?"). FBAWTFT implies there's debate about whether vampires are capable of overcoming their brutal natures enough to be welcomed into the polity, which speaks to Nora's quote about personhood. The centaurs say they shouldn't be. But then, as it turns out, the centaurs themselves are better at spouting their philosophy (we do not attack foals) than acting on it, so who are they to judge? Of course that will disappoint those who want to find purely human reasons for Snape's behavior, but I think the vampire metaphor might be a useful one to explain, in a poetic way, why if it's a good thing for Harry to be flexible enough to alter his behavior the same should not be expected of Snape. The underlying truth would be that humans aren't equally flexible -- change is possible for some but not for everyone. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 17:08:44 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:08:44 -0000 Subject: Ron and hard work (was OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115291 Marcela wrote : " Now, the thousand dollar questions are: 1)Do we think that Ron 'performed' well with his given opportunities? 2)Did he chose to do what was 'easy' or what was 'right'? IMO, no to 1), and 'what was easy' to 2). Jo implies so in the FAQ section of her website: "...Ron got it wrong in 'Phoenix', from which we can deduce that he hasn't been a very authoritarian prefect thus far..."," Del replies : Needless to say, as a Ron fan, I disagree :-) The quote from JKR's website has been discussed before, and quite a few people agree that if anyone got anything wrong, it's JKR herself. Ron did not get anything wrong (namely, that Prefects can't dock points from Houses), or else Ernie did too, and probably Hermione too since she didn't contradict them. It follows that we can't deduce anything about what kind of Prefect Ron is. And anyway, being a good Prefect doesn't necessarily mean being an authoritarian one. As many have pointed out before, we simply don't know how good of a Prefect Ron is. The only thing we know is that he didn't stand up to his brothers, but then none of the older Gryffindor Prefects did either, only Hermione. That would indicate that it's Hermione who is not "normal", not the 5 other Gryffindor Prefects, including Ron. So no I don't agree with your statement that Ron did not perform well as a Prefect. Marcela wrote : " she also says that she doesn't believe in Fate, that she believes 'in hard work and luck, and that the first often leads to the second', and from her books she also makes us know (Harry and readers) that Ron's prefect opportunity was actually a fluke, it had been Harry's in first place, and that Angelina chose Ron as Keeper over two other better players mainly because he was a Weasley." Del replies : The Prefect badge might have been Harry's in the first place, but that doesn't mean that Ron didn't do anything to deserve it. There were 3 other boys DD could have chosen, and none of them have demonstrated that they really couldn't be Prefects. So if DD chose Ron, it's because he saw something more in Ron than in either Neville, Dean or Seamus. As for Ron becoming Keeper, I think it is *exactly* an example of JKR's philosophy : hard work attracts luck. 1. When asked what he wants as a Prefect gift, Ron chooses a new broom. That's a good proof that he had his eyes on the Keeper post a long time before tryouts. Moreover, if he hadn't been chosen, the new broom would have been basically useless, so Ron would have sacrificed a perfect opportunity to get something else. 2. Ron practiced for an entire week, several hours every day, before showing up to the tryouts. If that's not hard work, I don't know what is. 3. Ron was not chosen because he is a Weasley ! He was Angelina's third choice, and he got the post over the other two because he wasn't as whiny as one and he was more committed to the team than the other. 4. Let's not forget the *negative* influence of the Twins. Ron had it *harder* because of them : not only did he have to dare trying out, but he also had to dare risking to make a fool of himself in front of his older and infinitely more talented brothers, who would not have let him forget about his lame attempt for the entire year, had he not been chosen. In short : Ron sacrificed, worked hard, and got lucky. Go, Ron, go ! Del From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 9 17:38:29 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:38:29 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115292 > Pippin: > That's just the issue, really. Sirius makes a huge point of saying > that *he* would have been willing to die for his friends rather > than betray them, and I believe he spoke out of personal > conviction, but when push came to shove, he tried to jigger > things so he wouldn't have to make the choice. Jen: Purely out of curiosity, did you believe Sirius was trying to 'jigger things' to get out of making that choice when you first read his story in POA? My first reaction after reading POA, was along these lines: "Man, that guy got a raw deal. First one of his friends framed him as a traitor, then he was thrown into this bizarre Wizard prison with no trial, no hope of survival *and* he wants to take care of Harry now. This dude sounds OK." In GOF he appeared to be taking up where he left off in POA, attempting to help Harry in his own imperfect way while on the run from the law. (As a big aside, I'm purposely not talking here about whether Sirius was a good godfather, or a good influence on Harry or any of the like. I'm simply trying to sort out what motivations I ascribed to Sirius at the time of my inital reading.) With OOTP, most of the characters acted in ways that surprised and dismayed me at times, so I lumped Sirius in with Molly, Harry, Percy Dumbledore and Snape as exhibiting some of their negative characteristics to the extreme. And of course, with the addition of Umbridge and Fudge acting so corruptly from their positions of power, they overshadowed the negatives of the Order members in my mind. But NOW, in retrospect, and with the addition of JKR's summation....well all I can say is her summary wasn't the *main* thing I read into the character. I didn't see that the *main* motivation on Sirius' part was to merely be a spouter of philosophy with no follow-through. Now that JKR is sharing her beliefs about Sirius as a character, I have no choice but to accept it. It taints the character for me though, and makes me wonder what else I'm reading differently from how she intends it; what other characters have different motivations from those I've assigned so far? > Pippin: > Murder is against Sirius's personal philosophy, but he's willing > to murder Pettigrew (he calls it that) to get revenge. Jen: When Lupin and Sirius calmly rolled up their sleeves to murder Peter, they appeared to be veteran fighters who were trained to injure and kill. My personal philosphy is they were making the wrong choice, as they weren't in the middle of a war anymore and Peter should be handed over to the justice system, such as it is. But unless I'm forgetting a canon point where Sirius stated he was opposed to murder (and I know you will be able to quote me one if it exists, Pippin!) I definitely had the feeling Sirius and Lupin had killed before. Pippin: > Harry himself observes more than once that he's getting mixed > messages from Sirius, so I'm not sure how you can say that this > isn't carried out in the books. Jen: Hopefully my first answer speaks to this. It's not so much that now, after reflection on JKR's thoughts, that I can't *possibly* see Sirius in the way she presented him. It's more that I'm disappointed by it and feel a certain sense of trepidation about future books and my own abilty to perceive where JKR is headed with certain characters. Other people enjoy that feeling more than I do ;). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 17:51:42 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:51:42 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "templar1112002" wrote: > > ...edited... Ron's prefect opportunity was actually a fluke, it had > been Harry's in first place, and that Angelina chose Ron as Keeper > over two other better players mainly because he was a Weasley. > > So, to summarize this, I believe her authorial intent in making Ron > a Prefect (and Keeper) was to expose him to a 'real-life try-out', > we will have to wait for HBP to see what Ron's balance sheet is of > his performance in OoTP... ...edited... > > Marcela bboyminn: All good points, points I don't necessarily dispute, however, I do think there is more to the story. I think part of 'Ron as Prefect' is a general growing up of the members of the Trio. This is the first time Ron must act on his own, to develop himself independant of Harry. When they ride to school on the train, Harry realizes that this will be the first time he has ridden the train without Ron. So, while Ron is off being an independent Prefect, Harry is forced to make his own way and in doing so is forced to interact more closely with other students. To some extent, I think Harry's friendship with Ron and Hermione is his way of avoiding socializing with other students. He sort of clings to them at the exclusion of others. For a socially awkward child who has never had any friends, and even more so, has either been presecuted or ingnore by everyone he has ever met, Ron and Hermione are a safe and easy haven. Now, however, Harry is force to function socially with out them, and in doing so, is forced to expand his contact with other students in a favorable way through the train ride, his relationship with Cho, and the DA Club. Ron, is also forced to act independently. He has to monitor study halls when the weather is bad, he has to monitor the hallways in the evenings, and he has to assist the school staff in other ways like putting up Christmas decorations. In these situation, there is no one Ron can defer to, the responsibility falls on him. And even though Ron is not likely to hand out punishments, the students must still respect him, because, even though he may not, he does have the power to do so. Ron practices and tries out for the Quidditch team on his own. Most logically, if Ron had told Harry in advance, Harry would have been supportive, but I think this is something that, consciously or subconsciously, Ron really wanted to do on his own. When Ron finally wins the Quidditch Cup, he pretty much does it without any support from Harry. So, in a sense, what this circumstance has force them to do is grow up a little bit, to stop being the 'Trio' and become the independent entities of Harry/Ron/Hermione. In summary, I think part of the reason Ron became Prefect was because the story needed Ron to become his own man. You do make a vaild point about Ron getting his positions by /default/, but I don't think that diminishes his accomplishments. Like it or not, Dumbledore had prefectly valid reasons for not choosing Harry. When, like it or not, all the pluses and minuses were weighed the vote went to Ron. Same with Quidditch, while two of the other candidates did /demonstrate/ better Quidditch skills, there were genuine valid negatives to each of them, and when all things were weighed, again, the vote went to Ron. Ultimately, Ron wasn't just given these post, he won them on merit, and the other's lost on demerits (in manner of speaking). And once again, I will say that no one has convinced me that Ron was any less a good Prefect than the typical normal average Prefect. True, he wasn't up to Percy or Hermione's caliber, but neither were any of the other Prefects. Always eager to defend Ron. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 18:31:09 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:31:09 -0000 Subject: Ron and hard work (was OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115294 > > Marcela wrote : > " Now, the thousand dollar questions are: > > 1)Do we think that Ron 'performed' well with his given opportunities? > 2)Did he chose to do what was 'easy' or what was 'right'? > > IMO, no to 1), and 'what was easy' to 2). Jo implies so in the FAQ section of her website: "...Ron got it wrong in 'Phoenix', from which we can deduce that he hasn't been a very authoritarian prefect thus far..." > > Del replies : > Needless to say, as a Ron fan, I disagree :-) > > The quote from JKR's website has been discussed before, and quite a few people agree that if anyone got anything wrong, it's JKR herself. Ron did not get anything wrong (namely, that Prefects can't dock points from Houses), or else Ernie did too, and probably Hermione too since she didn't contradict them. It follows that we can't deduce anything about what kind of Prefect Ron is. And anyway, being a good Prefect doesn't necessarily mean being an authoritarian one. > > As many have pointed out before, we simply don't know how good of a Prefect Ron is. The only thing we know is that he didn't stand up to his brothers, but then none of the older Gryffindor Prefects did either, only Hermione. That would indicate that it's Hermione who is not "normal", not the 5 other Gryffindor Prefects, including Ron. > > So no I don't agree with your statement that Ron did not perform well as a Prefect. ***Marcela here: I did not make a statement, it was an opinion. If you read my post properly, you will also find out that I was just trying to give my take on what was Jo's authorial intent by making Ron a Prefect and what her views of his character were, as per two posters wonderings on this issue. (As Harry thought it in GoF, you just missed the point, ). My point was that she was trying to show us two of her beliefs through Ron: that she doesn't believe in Fate, just hard work and luck, and that it's all about the choices we take in life (easy Vs. right). In GoF Ron had been complaining about the unfairness of life, Jo gave him two golden opportunities in OoTP to shine and finally get what he had wished for. Jo showed us in OoTP a hesitant Ron at best when coming to Prefect responsibilities and a complaining/whining one at worst when coming to duties/work. Jo showed us a happy Ron when he made it in the Quidditch team, and a 'quitter' when pressure/work was required of him, yes he did work hard to stay in the team, but mainly due to Angelina not letting him give up. In the end, he came to the realization that he couldn't get any worse so he might as well go for it and try his best, he got lucky and he got the Cup for his team. Can't wait to see if Jo is going to have Ron learn that perseverance and hard work, are the keys to success, not whining. > > Marcela wrote : > " she also says that she doesn't believe in Fate, that she believes 'in hard work and luck, and that the first often leads to the second', and from her books she also makes us know (Harry and readers) that Ron's prefect opportunity was actually a fluke, it had been Harry's in first place, and that Angelina chose Ron as Keeper over two other better players mainly because he was a Weasley." > > Del replies : > The Prefect badge might have been Harry's in the first place, but that doesn't mean that Ron didn't do anything to deserve it. There were 3 other boys DD could have chosen, and none of them have demonstrated that they really couldn't be Prefects. So if DD chose Ron, it's because he saw something more in Ron than in either Neville, Dean or Seamus. > ****Marcela again: Again, my point here was to prove authorial intent, not whether Ron deserved the badge or not. I'd be very cautious in saying that Jo is wrong about what she thinks of one of her main characters, after all, she has devoted many years and lots of energy to her story and Ron is one of the main characters, she surely knows what to think of them... aside from whether she is wrong or right on the House docking-points system (IMO it needs to be explained a bit more, too), it's clear to me from her answer that she doesn't think very highly of Ron's performance as a Prefect. Del: > As for Ron becoming Keeper, I think it is *exactly* an example of > JKR's philosophy : hard work attracts luck. > 1. When asked what he wants as a Prefect gift, Ron chooses a new > broom. That's a good proof that he had his eyes on the Keeper post a long time before tryouts. Moreover, if he hadn't been chosen, the new broom would have been basically useless, so Ron would have sacrificed a perfect opportunity to get something else. > 2. Ron practiced for an entire week, several hours every day, before showing up to the tryouts. If that's not hard work, I don't know what is. > 3. Ron was not chosen because he is a Weasley ! He was Angelina's > third choice, and he got the post over the other two because he wasn't as whiny as one and he was more committed to the team than the other. > 4. Let's not forget the *negative* influence of the Twins. Ron had it *harder* because of them : not only did he have to dare trying out, but he also had to dare risking to make a fool of himself in front of his older and infinitely more talented brothers, who would not have let him forget about his lame attempt for the entire year, had he not been chosen. > In short : Ron sacrificed, worked hard, and got lucky. > > Go, Ron, go ! ***Marcela: I agree with you here, and you prove part of my point: that Jo's authorial intent was to show us it is hard work and luck what got Ron the Keeper position. But (there is always one 'but', of course ): what was Jo's authorial intent by making Ron's Quidditch career so tough? Why did she choose to make him whiny or a 'quitter'? I think that her intention was to show us that sometimes we are not mentally ready to get what we wish for, that we always have to work hard, even after we get what we want, and that oft-times we find out that what seemed to be unattainable and dreamy could turn out to be daily nightmares once attained... As I said in my previous post, and I quote myself: "... So, to summarize this, I believe her authorial intent in making Ron a Prefect (and Keeper) was to expose him to a 'real-life try- out', we will have to wait for HBP to see what Ron's balance sheet is of his performance in OoTP... if he is willing to work hard for what he wants, or if he is going to 'change' his wish-list so that he doesn't have to work that hard, or if he didn't learn much from this experience..." Marcela From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 18:33:48 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:33:48 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? SIRIUS Defined In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: > > ...edited... > > But NOW, in retrospect, and with the addition of JKR's > summation....well all I can say is her summary wasn't the *main* > thing I read into the character. I didn't see that the *main* > motivation on Sirius' part was to merely be a spouter of philosophy > with no follow-through. Now that JKR is sharing her beliefs about > Sirius as a character, I have no choice but to accept it. It taints > the character for me though, and makes me wonder what else I'm > reading differently from how she intends it; what other characters > have different motivations from those I've assigned so far? > > ...edited... > > Jen bboyminn: Let's keep in mind that JKR has complete life histories/backstories for most of her characters. She probably know the intimate details of Sirius's life from the day he was born. The Sirius we know and have seen is only a faction of who he is or what he could be. These characters, like real people, are multi-faceted and multi-leveled. While I accept what JKR said about Sirius, and can see those aspects myself, they are none the less just that -- /aspects/. Sirius, given the circumstance was extremely limited in his ability to function. Being a convicted murderer and escaped prisoner, severly restricted his movements. An certainly, the tragic events of James and Lily's death, Peter's betrayal and escape, and all those miserable years in Azkaban have damaged him. Those are all defining aspects of who he has become. But I see much more. Given the chance to socialize with the world normally, and chance to care about and care for Harry on regular basis, the clearing of his name, the final demise of Voldemort, etc...; in other word, given a chance to heal, all these, if he had lived, I feel would have lead to a Sirius who was more than capable of being an effective friend, guardian, and life-guide for Harry. Sirius would have always been damaged by his experiences, but I think he had the underlying character to eventually rise above it. Let's not forget that Harry is damaged goods too. Given what Harry will have experienced by the end of the Series, there are few people in Harry's world who could understand that level of damage and trama. So, had Sirius lived, I think he and Harry would have been a good match. They had both experienced a horror of a life that no one else could comprehend. I think it is a mistake to take JKR's statements as the sum total all-encompassing definition of Sirius. She is, in a very short context driven response, simply pointing out an apsect of Sirius that should be evident to us all. But, I personally refuse to take that as the sum total of what and who Sirius was, and what he could have become. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 9 18:34:12 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:34:12 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115296 Female_Jedis wrote: > > If Petunia completely ignored Harry as a baby and as a young > > child, while showering Dudley with attention and affection, > > Harry quite simply should be a sociopath at this point and > > should be completely unable to form healthy relationships > > without intensive therapy. Alex: > Just a quick note here: while lots of abused children do not have > normal psychological development, the range of responses is quite > varied. As far as I know, no one is really sure why one person > coming from an abusive background turns out to be, as you say, a > sociopath and another with a similar background turns out more-or- > less OK. There are lots of theories, but mainly it seems to be a > matter of individual psychological resilience. Harry's fairly- > normal emotional development is *unusual*--one would probably > expect him to have more problems than he does--but not > *completely* unrealistic. If you took a hundred RW kids with > backgrounds like Harry's (which wouldn't be tough, provided you > left out the almost-killed-by-evil-wizard bit), you'd expect most > of them to show some psychological problems, a few to be total > sociopaths, and a few more to be basically OK despite it all. SSSusan: Alex is right about this. And we've talked about it before, for instance, in the context of why Tom Riddle might have turned out so badly, as one who was left in an orphanage as an infant, whereas others in that situation didn't turn into Evil Overlords. I've postulated--as have others--that a part of the reason Harry might be so "okay" is that he had a good 15 months with presumably tremendous love & attention from James & Lily. If one believes Erik Erikson, that earliest time is **essential** for developing a sense of identity and security. If he'd been plucked away from J&L at 3 months or so, he might not have been able to withstand what happened. 'Course...that's RW talk again, and this is JKR'S WW, so it might just be because she wants us to recognize that Harry's unusual and extraordinary. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 18:56:15 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:56:15 -0000 Subject: Who Saved Harry? ...NOT Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115297 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dzeytoun" wrote: > > Let's turn all the arguments about Harry thanking Snape, or not, > around. A couple of people have pointed out that, while it is true > that Harry does not thank Snape for saving his life in PS/SS > ...edited... > > Dzeytoun bboyminn: OK, let's straighten this out once and for all, Snape did not save Harry. At best, Snape assisted Hermione in saving Harry. Snape was muttering counter-jinxes against Quirrels jinx which at best were only marginally effective. The truth is Quirrel was winning and he had Harry hanging by one hand and losing ground quickly. Snape's counter-jinxes merely slowed the effectiveness of Quirrel's action. That's not small thing though, as it's this delay that allows Hermione time to cross the stadium and stop Quirrel. Although, she thinks she is stopping Snape. If Harry should thank anyone, he should thank Hermione, which I'm sure he did. I seriously doubt that anyone Harry's age would feel even the slightest desire to thank a person who regularly seems to hate them, abuses them, and makes their life miserable. If Snape show even the slightest sign of easing off, Harry would be more inclined to feel some gratitude. Think what you will, but Harry's actions are perfectly understandable to me, and I would likely act the same in that situation. Regardless of what good they may do, I don't feel very grateful to people who make my life miserable on a regular basis, and even more so, seem to enjoy making my life miserable; thanks but no thanks. I do foresee a change in Harry and Snape's relationship in the future and have out lined some of these feeling in another post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115157 As far as Snape /saving/ Harry in PoA, one could interpret it that way, but he did so in the most mean-spirited, spitefull, vengefull, viscious, and self-serving way, so again, thanks but no thanks. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 12:46:09 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:46:09 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: <002701c4ad20$8fc1ad90$0ec2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115298 Delurking > DuffyPoo: > OotP "If anything more was needed to complete Harry's happiness, it was the reaction he got from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. He saw them with their heads together later that afternoon in the library; they were with a weedy-looking boy Hermione whispered was called Theodore Nott." Please forgive me if I have missed something, but does that passage (or any other in cannon) clearly state that Nott is in Harry's year or in his potions class? It would be quite possible, IMO, for four slytherins whose fathers were alike named as Death Eaters to want to hash the matter out together, even if one of them was not in the same year. Odds are good that they know each other through their parents', um, association. And Harry and company are also known to associate with Gryffindors from other years. But Harry couldn't necessarily be expected to learn the name of every Slytherin in classes above and below his. So I repeat, other than Theodore Nott's conversation with Malfoy, C&G, have we seen him before in cannon? Is there any evidence that he is, in fact, in their year and in their potions class? As for how Hermione knew to tell Harry his name, I've noticed that her excellent memory and attention to fine details appears to extend to interpersonal relationships, as well. We see this especially in OOtP, in which she frequently explains relationships and psychology of more familiar characters, to which Ron and Harry, being far less aware, are obliviious. My guess is that Hermione, having long since memorized Hogwarts, a History, along with most significant library books, has now applied herself to the more significant (and ultimately rewarding) task of really knowing about people. Perhaps she felt it part of her duty as Prefect. Or potentially useful in working against Voldemort. Or perhaps she has an interest that matches her apparent aptitude. In that I envy her-- names and people never came that easily for me-- especially as a teenager. So clearly, she would be willing and able to explain to Harry who the mostly unfamiliar underclassman (or perhaps upperclassman) was and why he was joining M,C&G in their counsels. >Harry's lack of knowledge about other kids in his house/classes has always sort of bothered me. At the most, using the number in HP's year, there are 70 kids in Gryffindor house, and a maximum of 20 kids in any class when two classes are together. Yet HP doesn't know their names? This boggles my mind. Harry's been in Potions class with the Slytherin ten for five years and Care of Magical Creatures for three, and he doesn't even know this kid's first name? I knew the names of every kid in my home form (which was made up of all 5 grades) in high school, and there were more than 20 for sure. I may not have known them all personally, but I knew their names at least. > You are to be commended-- and possibly, like Hermione, envied-- for your capacity to recall names and people. Some of us have to struggle to remember names even within our class. I had fewer than 50 people in my graduating class, and did not know all of them by name. I knew my friends, and I knew the people who were not nice to me, and those in my smaller classes by name at least. People who were school celebrities or villains, of course. People who stood out for their actions or appearance. But otherwise, names and relationships usually escaped me, to my occasional embarrassment. Perhaps this means I was self-absorbed. But I had lots of other things to remember and deal with besides memorizing names of people who never bothered with me, either. I was never offended if someone didn't remember my name, for I could sympathize. Oddly enough, my mother is the sort of person who (having grown up in our community) knew everyone and their families rather naturally. It took hours to complete a grocery expedition, because every other aisle she would run into peopple she knew and have a lengthy converstion with them about their family members (whose names always called forth readily.) Give her five minutes with a stranger from another town in the county, and she could find some common acquaintance, friend, or relative. On at least one occasion, she knew a new student's name before I did, and she was annoyed with me for not having more information to share with her. I really think that there is a range of social awareness (like most other personality traits). People like Dumbledore, Hermione, and my mother are on one end of the spectrum. And people like Ron, Harry, and I are closer to the other side. Harry has lots of other talents, and was once wisely advised to play to his strengths. So perhaps he can be forgiven for not seizing a Hogwarts roster and committing it to memory? As has been observed, he has "quite enough to be getting on with." Andrea From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 13:49:07 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:49:07 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: <20041008.224100.3932.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115299 Aura said:> > I *despise* the Dursley's treatment of Harry, and it frustrates me to no > end that those chaps are supposed to be kid-lit fun, so we're not > supposed to wonder why Sirius or any of Harry's teachers never called the > police. Grrrr HATE HATE. > Sandy: I bought SS (at a yard sale, for $1) when my child was small, figuring I'd read it in advance and decide when it would be age- appropriate. I was really reluctant to read it to him when he got older, because I was so bothered by how badly Harry was treated by the Dursleys. I thought that mistreatment, and Harry's memories of his mother's death in POA (which had me practically in tears) would be very disturbing to a child, but my son has never shown any reaction to either -- I guess both are so out of his realm of experience he really can't understand it... From Weiss145 at aol.com Sat Oct 9 15:00:00 2004 From: Weiss145 at aol.com (Weiss145 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:00:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Lucius ages Re: Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115300 "It is indeed possible that LM was as politically astute at 16 as at 41 and acted as head junior DE talent scout and recruiter, but it's also possible he was a hormonal, popularity-obsessed snob, who saw a greasy, little, snot-nosed kid Severus and kept as far away as possible."-Feklar A humble lurker, de-lurking for a bit. I actually think it's quite possible for a sixteen year old and an eleven year old to get along well. It depends on the two people and how much they have in common. Snape may have been a very mature young man, even at eleven and found himself a niche in the older students who also liked to study. I myself as a freshman used to sit with the seniors because I found their conversation much more interesting. I was (and still am) a bookworm type and was a bit of a radical thinker in my conservative private school. Most of my peers did not care about freedom for Tibet or about the importance of organ donation. My older friends were amazing people and they treated me like an equal. Although they respected me, it was still clear that I was the junior in the bunch. I got teased a bit and treated like a mascot, but it was all in good fun. I didn't mind being called "Freshie" and being told how easy I had it because I know my friends honestly cared about me. I knew that when it came to venting about problems, I could turn to them, but just as important they could and did turn to me. I also got protected by the Seniors. Someone might have called me a lapdog or their pet, because everyone soon knew not to bother me or face the wrath of the upperclassman. Snape might have been getting teased by the Gryffindors, and the upper level Slytherins step in. As Snape stands smugly, knowing he has his friends there, Sirius decides to be a sore loser and call him a lapdog, since there is nothing he can do against fifth and sixth years. I don't think Lucius was actively recruiting for the Death Eaters yet. Maybe he was just a teenager who enjoyed speaking to someone who shared his interests (and yes, being worshipped is always nice). I think characters are often flattened into pigeonholes because we see them through Harry's eyes. Snape could be a very nice person to his friends and so could Lucius. I've read the debates on Lucius being an abusive father and honestly I can see both sides, although I choose to see Lucius as a father who is very hard on his son, giving him every opportunity he can but expecting Draco to work hard to make the best of them. I think Draco fears his father, but I do think he honestly loves him. When Lucius goes to Azkaban, my heart broke for Draco. I hope no one ever has to go through the pain of having a father arrested and sent to prison, because it is an experience that can break your world into a thousand shards. Yes, Lucius was guilty, but Draco wasn't and the punishment falls on him too. I am curious to see if JKR puts in Draco being teased for having a father in prison and if Snape comforts hi. El [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 9 19:29:00 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:29:00 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115301 Andrea asked : " So I repeat, other than Theodore Nott's conversation with Malfoy, C&G, have we seen him before in cannon? Is there any evidence that he is, in fact, in their year and in their potions class?" Del replies : Ooooh yes :-) I'm smiling because I'd been waiting for Theo Nott ever since I'd read the Graveyard scene in GoF. When Nott Sr was mentioned. my mind clicked. I went back to PS/SS (that I had read way too many times :-) and there it was : a Nott being Sorted into Slytherin. So yes we do know that there's a Nott in Slytherin in Harry's year. It would be very surprising if it weren't Theo. Del From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Oct 9 21:08:47 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:08:47 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115302 Debbie: > > The sentence I focused on was the lament in PS/SS that > Gryffindor hadn't won the cup "since Charlie Weasley left." So, > according to JKR's calculation of their relative ages, that would > have been last year (as of PS/SS), leaving no intervening time > period for Slytherin to have won. If that's the case, then why > can't McGonagall look Snape in the face? < > Pippin: > 'Left" could refer to leaving the team (on account of injuries or > wanting to prepare for his OWLs and NEWTs ), not leaving > Hogwarts. In PoA Wood mentions injuries and bad luck -- he > needn't be referring to Harry's injuries alone. Debbie again: That's true, but it's also mentioned that Charlie could've played for England if he had not chosen to work with dragons instead, so it's unlikely that he left because of injury. And since Gryffindor could not have won more recently than Charlie's second year for seven years to have elapsed, I doubt he left to prepare for his OWLs that early. While students (like Krum) are sometimes good enough to play for their country's team, it seems unlikely that a second year would be a candidate for a national team. > I find it perfectly plausible canon that despite having Charlie on > their side, the only year that Gryffindor won the Quidditch cup was > Charlie's second. That leaves room for the seven year losing > streak mentioned in PoA. A heartbreaker, but that's Quidditch > (and baseball.) Gryffindor also didn't win the House Cup for > seven years prior to PS/SS, but that is a different award, though > winning the Quidditch Cup contributes to it. But if Charlie continued to play for a losing team, the statement would more likely have been "since Charlie was playing for us." Using the phrase "left" strongly implies that Charlie led the team to victory in his last year before leaving (though it's possible that he left before finishing his NEWTs). Debbie From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 9 21:18:57 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:18:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's wrong with Mean!Snape ? References: Message-ID: <008901c4ae45$96ec1fd0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115303 > No, it isn't very realistic. You are right that if JKR is striving > for realism, then neither outcome is necessary for Snape. My own > personal suspicion is that redemption will come after death, as I > don't see Snape (or Dumbledore, for that matter) surviving the > series. But we will see in time whether JKR follows the "realistic" > path or the path of more traditional literary tropes. > > Dzeytoun Feklar-- Ironically, I was talking about who would die at the end with a friend the other day. Our conclusions was there wouldn't be any point in redemption through death for Snape--he's already redeemed himself by changing from the bad side to the good. But I'm not sure JKR really gois in for the redemption through self-sacrificial death thing. I mean, Sirius could have done with a little redemption (not by death, just could have learned to grow up and solve his problems instead of wallow or make them worse (not unlike Snape)), but instead he got a relatively pointless death. I also thought that if Harry died in the end, I think it would ruin something of the books for me, because he never would have had the chance to be a real person and live his life without the weight of destiny on him. That just seems to run counter to the more life-affirming aspects of the series (i.e. that being a hero isn't the greatest aspiration you can have). Feklar From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 9 21:45:40 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:45:40 -0000 Subject: JKR characterizations--oversimplification? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > That's just the issue, really. Sirius makes a huge point of saying that *he* would have been willing to die for his friends rather than betray them, and I believe he spoke out of personal conviction, but when push came to shove, he tried to jigger things so he wouldn't have to make the choice. > > Jen: Purely out of curiosity, did you believe Sirius was trying to 'jigger things' to get out of making that choice when you first read his story in POA? My first reaction after reading POA, was along these lines: "Man, that guy got a raw deal. First one of his friends framed him as a traitor, then he was thrown into this bizarre Wizard prison with no trial, no hope of survival *and* he wants to take care of Harry now. This dude sounds OK." < Pippin: When I first read the story, I thought the SK switch was just "being carried away with our own cleverness." It reminded me of the elaborate plans that Tom Sawyer made for Jim's escape in *Huckleberry Finn* and seemed on the same boyish level as "AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!" which rang of The Three Musketeers. I felt there was a lot of bravado in both. At the end of the book, I was still a little worried about Sirius, because he seemed so quick to violence and anger. But I was glad that there was finally an adult who was willing to offer Harry a home and unconditional love. If there's a main point to Sirius, I think that's it. Even though Sirius was never able to follow through on his promise to give Harry a home, he was able to give him love, and it's because of that love that Harry found the power to resist Voldemort. I never expected Harry to find a real home with him--IMO, Harry's quest is not to remedy his orphan status but to reach maturity in spite of it. Jen: > > But NOW, in retrospect, and with the addition of JKR's summation....well all I can say is her summary wasn't the *main* thing I read into the character. I didn't see that the *main* motivation on Sirius' part was to merely be a spouter of philosophy with no follow-through. < Pippin: The question JKR was answering was, "Do you like Sirius" -- not "What is the main motivation of the character." She told us that she does like him, though he's not wholly wonderful. It doesn't mean we're not supposed to like Siirus, or that Harry is better off without him or anything like that. > > Pippin: > > Murder is against Sirius's personal philosophy, but he's willing to murder Pettigrew (he calls it that) to get revenge. << > Jen: When Lupin and Sirius calmly rolled up their sleeves to murder Peter, they appeared to be veteran fighters who were trained to injure and kill. . But unless I'm forgetting a canon point where Sirius stated he was opposed to murder (and I know you will be able to quote me one if it exists, Pippin!) I definitely had the feeling Sirius and Lupin had killed before.<< Pippin flips pages: GoF, ch 27 "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible. He was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters." Pippin From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Oct 9 21:55:49 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:55:49 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115305 I can't seem to preview this for some reason, so hope it doesn't end up with tortuously unpleasant paragraphing. > Kneasy: > You mean you actually found something you were looking for by > using Yahoo!Mort? > Now there's a novelty. Dungrollin: Beginners luck, I'm sure - I certainly can't find the same post again now. > Kneasy: > That Prophecy. What a pain. > The wondering about whether it has already been fulfilled in its > entirety was sparked by my natural suspicions and incipient > paranoia - was JKR pulling a fast one? Giving us something > deliberately obscure (but basically unhelpful for future > theorising) to worry over and to concentrate on while she stacked > the deck elsewhere. > > I don't trust DD to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but > the truth. > And he'd be a right mug to > disclose anything truly significant to Harry when Harry has Voldy > trolling around inside his mind. > He has this plan, he's working to an agenda we wot not of. He's > done some very odd things for an omniscient, world number one > wizard. One of my first major posts was a performance review and > job evaluation of A.P.W.B. Dumbledore - 65696 'FLOOZY No.1 - The > Dumbledore Papers' > For someone reputedly so smart he's been remarkably inept - unless > it's deliberate. Dungrollin: Ha! Just read it, and loved it. Dungrollin previously: > > If DD's right *and* telling the truth, then all is as it seems. > > Voldy hears about the boy born at the end of July to those who > > thrice defied him, Lily unwittingly saves Harry by dying, > > Voldemort tries to AK Harry, curse rebounds and Voldy's gas. DD > > guesses why Harry survived, and uses Lily's sacrifice to protect > > Harry at the Dursley's, he also guesses at the time that there > > may be a connection between Harry and Voldy. > > > Kneasy: > Except... Voldy had not achieved immortality. Unless DD possesses > info we don't have, how could he know that Voldy would survive an > AK? Many posters also think that for the 'sacrifice' to be truly > that, then Lily did not defend herself or Harry other than verbally > and by standing in Voldy's way. She didn't fight, she offered her > own life - not an easy or natural thing to do in the circumstances. > How could DD be so sure that would be or was the actual case? Dungrollin: That's a verrry good question. How the hell was DD so sure? Sorry to quote the barmy old codger again, but: `You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished [`vanquished' - noted] hours before, but his supporters ? and many of them are almost as terrible as he ? were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone for ever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.' `Knowing him as I have done'? What's that all about? Is this his way of saying that he knows exactly what steps Voldemort took to protect himself from death? But then... the answers to the two questions JKR said we *should* be wondering about might be the same... And she didn't think anyone would guess them. Well, perhaps I'll come back to that later, once we've figured out what happened at GH. (Ahem - nothing like na?ve optimism, is there?) By the way, Kneasy, I'm in agreement that DD's not ESE, but unquestionably somewhat selective when it comes to the truth (he says something to this effect at the end of PS ? `I will not, of course, lie'). Do you think he *does* lie, or do you think he's super-careful with his phraseology? I keep coming back to JKR's words about him being the epitome of goodness, so I'm somewhat loath to think he lies directly. Caveat: Or, at least, that he *frequently* lies directly without a very good reason. Any ideas (even if it's only in one or two instances from canon) how we can distinguish between the two? Dungrollin previously: > > My idea (which I may not have made entirely clear) was that it > > was Voldy's attempt to incorporate the `power that the Dark Lord > > knows not' into himself that made the somethingorotherus spell > > backfire, rather than Lily's sacrifice. That there's something > > about Voldy that means not only that he doesn't have this power > > and despises it, but also that in trying to fill himself with it > > (without reading the label first), he nearly destroyed himself. > > > Kneasy: > That's a possibility. I have a hankering for a failed possession > attempt. It wouldn't show on the wand replay and it gives some sort > of explanation for Voldy leaving bits of himself behind. But what > do I know? > Dungrollin: Too modest, dear sir. Yes... *But*... Why possess a toddler? My understanding (limited though it may be) of possession, is that it's about forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. Or forcing them to do something that the possessor can't do themselves. Or else, forcing them to do something that's a smidge dangerous, and the possessor would rather someone else snuffed it if the plan goes pear-shaped. What could he gain from possessing baby Harry? 15 month-old Harry was filling nappies and gurgling in his cot, he can't have been in a position to do anything useful. And what was there to do? Voldy's already knocked off James and Lily. If he wants to read Harry's mind to check whether he's a potential competitor for the EvilBastardoftheMillenium cup, he should use Legithingy, shouldn't he? Can you read a wizard's powers like that? What could he gain from *possessing* Harry? Means and opportunity granted in spades, but where's the motive? Which reminds me of the post I was originally going to write when I got sidetracked by all this. I don't have time to do it now, maybe later. I was going to check out all the instances we have of possession in the books and compare and contrast, because it smells a bit fishy to me. What we learn about the wee beasties in the Albanian forest, Quirrell, Ginny, and then Harry in the MoM seem to me to be wildly different experiences. (If someone else has the time, please do; or point me to where it's already been done...) And magical larceny wouldn't show up on the wand replay either, would it? Kneasy: > But don't forget that the very first line of the Prophecy says that > Harry has power ? sufficient to knock off Voldy, even though at > that point it doesn't classify it as 'unknown by Voldy'. He'd still > be interested in having a peek, and accessing it if he could, I > think. What he wouldn't expect is for some snotty brat in Pampers > to bite back. There are times when I despair at the ineptitude of > villains, I really do. Why mess around > when he could've fed Harry to Nagini? Problem solved. Dungrollin: Of course, you're right. Voldy could well have assumed the first line meant magical power, and it doesn't knock the idea down. I just originally thought that hearing `power the D.L. knows not' would give him a little extra... encouragement, to explore/pinch powers, rather than just AK Harry asap. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's what whoever was speaking through Sybill meant. I can play at twisting that prophecy too... The first `power' mentioned, `the power to vanquish the Dark Lord', can be read as potential, opportunity, capability, or even authority, and not just as skill or ability, or magical power. Not that that changes much for the present discussion, I suppose. If we're right about it not being an AK (I say `we' but ... well, anyway -) then either Voldy heard only the first line and assumed that it meant magical power, or he heard more and *knew* it, and DD's lying or mistaken (again). Or perhaps - Oh dear. I just had a thought that will take a lot of chocolate to work through. But won't post it now, as bed beckons. Ta-ra, Dungrollin. PS ? I like SSSusan's idea that the eyewitness to the GH incident was a painting. Remember reading something (though have absolutely no recollection of when or where) about the possibility of there being a painting of Godric Griffindor in DD's study. Could have been You Know What contamination, though. From mysticowl at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 22:05:57 2004 From: mysticowl at gmail.com (Alina Chimanovitch) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:05:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauders Map In-Reply-To: <003101c4ade1$d57a5eb0$b6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> References: <003101c4ade1$d57a5eb0$b6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115306 It's possible that Slytherin made the Chamber unplottable. After all, he seems to have done everything else in order to hide the chamber from everyone but a descendent, why not that? I think if the Chamber was as easy to find as looking at the Marauder's Map, then DD and his predecessors would've found it long ago as well. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 9 22:13:49 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:13:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? Message-ID: <20041009.181451.4000.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115307 Sandy said: > I bought SS (at a yard sale, for $1) when my child was small, > figuring I'd read it in advance and decide when it would be age- > appropriate. I was really reluctant to read it to him when he got > older, because I was so bothered by how badly Harry was treated by > the Dursleys. I thought that mistreatment, and Harry's memories of > his mother's death in POA (which had me practically in tears) would > be very disturbing to a child, but my son has never shown any > reaction to either -- I guess both are so out of his realm of > experience he really can't understand it... Yeah, children's authors can put a lot of casual cruelty without consequence into their books because it doesn't bother kids. Like JKR said something like, "I'm a children's author, I have to be a heartless murderer." Kids really aren't bothered by fantasy stories (or fairy tales) with child abuse, death, etc the way adults are. They don't have the life experience to relate to it or the abstract thinking required to sympathize with someone who is in in situation different from theirs. Which causes problems for the grownup readers, as we've seen on this list: how to reconcile what's "just fairy tale violence" from what we should interpret as genuinly damaging to Harry et al. Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 10 00:05:01 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:05:01 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115308 Pippin: > > I find it perfectly plausible canon that despite having Charlie on their side, the only year that Gryffindor won the Quidditch cup was Charlie's second. That leaves room for the seven year losing streak mentioned in PoA. A heartbreaker, but that's Quidditch (and baseball.) Gryffindor also didn't win the House Cup for seven years prior to PS/SS, but that is a different award, though winning the Quidditch Cup contributes to it. Debbie: > But if Charlie continued to play for a losing team, the statement would more likely have been "since Charlie was playing for us." Using the phrase "left" strongly implies that Charlie led the team to victory in his last year before leaving (though it's possible that he left before finishing his NEWTs).< It would, unless you knew better, as everyone else on the team besides Harry may be presumed to do. It's a nice way for Wood to lay the blame for their dismal performance on losing Charlie instead of on the heads of the remaining players. Of course it also contributes to Harry's (and our) inflated idea of how good he'd have to be to beat Charlie, which I'm sure was Rowling's intention. Harry does tend to set ridiculously high standards for himself, and part of the reason is that he doesn't ask questions, like "How many Quidditch cups did Charlie win?" Possibly Jo also intended to spark speculation about the "Weasley gap" and make us think Ron might be the seventh son of a seventh son--but she doesn't need that hint any more since it is must be clear to even the pragmatic types among us that Ron does indeed have a decent shot at achieving his dreams despite lack of portents at birth. Pippin From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 00:35:25 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:35:25 -0000 Subject: The other 'interesting' answer / Percy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > Hannah writes: > I've just been re-reading JKR's amended answer to the 'what did DD > mean by 'remember my last'?' FAQ. This question had been chosen by > visitors to the site in a poll. She says that, of the three > options, two had interesting answers (including the one chosen), one > didn't. One of the other options was 'is Percy Weasley working for > a secret boss/ organisation. I can't remember what the other was, > but the answer to it is the 'interesting' one. I say this because > I'm sure JKR said somewhere that Percy was acting on his own > initiative, so I guess the answer to that would have been a fairly > boring 'no.' (snip) > > Hannah mhbobbin: Initially, I thought that the question about the whereabouts of Wormtail would be the other interesting answer. And I still wonder about that. But we haven't seen Voldemort at home much in Book Five, and like Sirius, Pettigrew has to hide--can't just show up in the Ministry--so maybe that's not the other interesting answer. Maybe there's a case to be made for the question on Percy. What JKR said in the World Book Day Chat (March 2004)" """Echo: Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the Phoenix? JK Rowling replies -> I'm afraid so."'" So, I thought that settled that. But now I question it again. Re-reading Percy's letter in Ootp (Scholastic Page 296-298) I'm intrigued to see that Percy uses words (out of context, of course) which JKR's answer seems to echo: Percy writes: "I must admit I have always been afraid..." "I feel bound..." "It may be that you are afraid..." "I am very sorry..." "I am sorry..." "It pains me..." "...but I am afraid..." and also "..read this away from prying eyes and avoid awkward questions..." If Percy is sending Ron helpful warnings, it is clumsy. But then so were Dobby's clues in CoS when he told Harry that it wasn't LV after Harry but Tom Riddle. A bit clumsy and counter-productive. Just like Real Life. But Dobby was sincere in trying to warn Harry. And then there is the intriguing "I urge you to speak to Dolores Umbridge, a really delightful woman, who I know will be only too happy to advise you..." which echoes Harry's earlier letter to Sirius where he tells him that Umbridge is just like Sirius' mom. Maybe Percy **IS*** under the Imperius Curse after all. There is that manic laughing of his as well. Well, I'm afraid that Percy is bound to be bumped off soon, perhaps in Book Six, and I'm afraid he may be under the Control of Fudge or other naughty wizards. I'm still bound to dislike him. So that is a Case for Percy being the other interesting answer. mhbobbin From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 02:49:01 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:49:01 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115310 At her website list elves this *is* canon!) JKR says in her posting on Petunia, Dumbledore and what turn out to be the *several* letters between just these two parties prior to GH: P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :) That last bit - sounds like a challenge doesn't it? She's enjoying baiting us (good for her). But who is us? Just where is she reading? because just before that she says "Now let the speculation begin, and mind you type clearly, I'll be watching " Well, (hoping I'm typing clearly since it gives me *such* a thrill to imagine that maybe, just maybe the great woman herself might *really* be watching), ... she hasn't yet 'done' HPfGU at her fan sites section, so do we figure at all? Or is it mugglenet we should be watching? or immeritus? or the lexicon - clearly she's seen the 'open letter' and some of the FAQ's that appeared recently (am so glad there were so many answered and in any case the entire Edinburgh transcript gave many more besides) suggests she's listening out (which of course is a reminder to be polite!!! please). Anyone got any views on which posts she's watching? Has anyone seen a 'Squidward'? (I jest). From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 02:57:54 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:57:54 -0000 Subject: FILK: Hop on a New Arrow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115311 Hop on a New Arrow (QTA, Chap. 9) To the tune of Open a New Window, from Jerry Herman's Mame THE SCENE: A century of aerodynamic broomstick progress is commemorated. LEONARD JEWKES: Hop on a new Arrow Hop on and then soar, Travel at such high speeds That no one has flown before Before you had just a Moontrimmer, Maybe an Oakshaft, Neither of which can cope With superior magic craft The broomstick you ought to fly has high velocity Touching the sky yet in control And flyers can now advance their virtuosity Here is the broom that you'll extol . BOB, BILL & BARNABY OLLERTON: ..And show 'em how to fly on a new Cleansweep Whiz on a new broom Swoop on a new standard Old models shall be consumed There's only one broom that evermore will bloom Simply leap on a new Cleansweep An Arrow is too narrow Savor the new Cleansweep's sonic boom! BILL OLLERTON If you play in a Quidditch team This is a vow I'm certain of That by the last game of the year You'll be swapping your old broomsticks For a Cleansweep that you will love, And you'll dodge the deadly Bludger And you always catch the Quaffle For I promise you your speed'll be A rate your foes call "awful " RANDOLPH KEITCH & BASIL HORTON Climb on a new Comet Come see how it brakes For we need not comment That it doesn't make mistakes So take your Cleansweep and old Arrow Straight to the pawn shop Our Comet will soar higher And than on a Knut could stop. The broomstick you ought to fly has high velocity Touching the sky yet in control The broomsticks of old are now mere curiosities We have the broom that you'll extol . NIMBUS MANUFACTURER And show 'em how to nimbly fly Nimbus Try it when you play Only a pure Nimrod Will disregard what we say There's only one broom that gives the rest no room, Simply fly it into the fray Smash all the old records Hop on a new Nimbus when you play! ALL: Hop on a new broomstick Hoping for success Innovation and risk Will bring about great progress Unless you find it's a dull failure, Like Ellerbie's Swiftstick, The Twigger of Flite-Baker And all of its trite gimmicks The progress of which you hear is irresistible, It is the swift, winning the race The genius which we possess is inexhaustible , We are the men setting the pace. And show 'em how to fly on a new broomstick Climbing to new heights Looking to a future Where everything's bold and bright To feel alive you need to truly strive So get airborne on your arrow, Sweep on a new Cleansweep Come to a new Comet Nimbly with Nimbus, Hire a Firebolt when you play! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today: 41 new filks, two new musicals!) From macfotuk at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 03:17:50 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:17:50 -0000 Subject: Book 6 progress Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115312 There have been significant updates at jkrowling.com recently. Are we to take this as meaning that like many of us (speaking only for myself here you understand), she is procrastinating from the task in hand and so has much yet to write on H-BP? Or alternatively has she finished the first draft? Twenty chapters (no less) proof-read which would mean 'done' for books 1-3, but just about only half way through for books 4 and 5. Lastly, she may just be feeling that she is enjoying the dialogue with fans through the web site and so is being caught up a little. She strikes me as being nearly as obsessive as some of the rest of us - you don't get a score below 100 on expert level of minesweeper without a LOT of practise - to say nothing of a very rare itellect, which, of course, we know she has from the quality of her writing. Perhaps in that case we should be less demanding in the hope she'll complete what we really want and need her to give us, i.e. book 6. Can't be easy, what with being pregnant and no pressing need financially or possibly otherwise for a deadline. That and finally having found what sounds like contentment: I think it's Mona's law in the Tales of the City book series by Armistead Maupin (which I also love and re-read frequently) that states that "You can have a hot lover, a hot job and a hot apartment, but you can't have all three at the same time." Seems JKR has managed to beat the odds so why wouldn't she take time to wallow in that? This from a scientist whose latest paper has been in 'near final form' for months now and is *still* procrastinating on the no doubt short (once it gets going!) task of finishing it to submit it for publication. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 04:48:49 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:48:49 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115313 Dharma: I'm under the impression that quite a bit of the personality conflict between Sirius/James and Snape will come down to the assumption that each party must adopt the other's value system to be a decent person. > How do other list members perceive the conflict between James/Sirus and Snape during their school days? Valky: I could not agree more, Dharma. Your impression is the image of my basic understanding of the canon. I tend to compound the nature of the issue with the fact that "Dark Magic" and "Lord Voldemort" were the bane of the very society that these boys existed in, making James and Sirius view of what was and wasn't decent quite the highground of the two. And is probably why Snape was unpopular and James/Sirius the opposite. Dharma; Do we adequate information on the topic to make specific determinations about their behavior? It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on this topic. Valky: There is a plethora of that in backposts if you like. MHO about our use of information on this topic is that a lot of information tends to be ignored in the debate, not least of all and of most dissappointment to me the fact that *Dark Wizards* called Death Eaters were killing people's family members and taking over the WW at the same time in the backdrop of the pensieve event. I find it eternally frustrating that people can ignore this backdrop and reduce the 'Snape up to his eyeballs in Dark Magic" canon to disproportionate teeniness when debating it. Fact is, Dark Magic wasn't just *an* issue of those days it was *the* issue. And do we adequate that enough when making specific determinations? NO I think not. Valky From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 10 04:58:15 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:58:15 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115314 Dungrollin: > PS ? I like SSSusan's idea that the eyewitness to the GH incident > was a painting. Remember reading something (though have > absolutely no recollection of when or where) about the possibility > of there being a painting of Godric Griffindor in DD's study. > Could have been You Know What contamination, though. SSSusan: Thanks, Dungrollin. Wish it were my original idea, but 'tis not, though I really like it. I can't imagine any other way that DD could have so quickly found out what was happening at GH. Hmmmmm... What impact does a Fidelius Charm have on a portrait's ability to communicate with an outside party? Could Phineas travel between GP & DD's office because DD told him GP was Order HQ, or does the Fidelius not affect a portrait at all? Siriusly Snapey Susan From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 10 06:02:03 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:02:03 EDT Subject: Book 6 progress Message-ID: <110.3a1557fc.2e9a2a5b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115315 macfotuk said: > Or alternatively has she finished the first draft? Twenty chapters > (no less) proof-read which would mean 'done' for books 1-3, but just > about only half way through for books 4 and 5. Of course, JKR didn't say it was the *first* twenty chapters. It could have been the middle twenty chapters, or the final twenty chapters. And even if she was proofreading the first twenty chapters, that doesn't necessarily reflect on whether additional chapters have also been written and she just hasn't gotten to proofreading those yet. As for which draft she might be working on... Basically, she really didn't give us enough information to even make a good guess how close she may be to finished with HBP. Darn it! Julie (hoping for the best, and trusting JKR will work as fast as she can to satisfy her impatient readers) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 06:03:07 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:03:07 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115316 >Valky (Re Neville standing up to Snape): > > > Maybe it will simply lead to Snape dropping one of his > > > guards and revealing a little more of his true self to us. > dzeytoun wrote: > > I can readily see defiance from Neville at least momentarily > leaving Snape afloat and not knowing what to do. That can then lead in at least two directions. It could undermine Snape's assumptions and easy confidence that he knows what he's doing, opening the way to change. Or, in that having your assumptions challenged is an acutely painful process, it could simply lead to a massive negative reaction creating a downward spiral in Snape's behavior. > > Either way, it would be interesting and extremely amusing to see. > > Carol: > To begin with, I'm wholly unable to imagine Neville defying any > teacher and I can't think of any form of defiance of a teacher by a > pupil which would be considered appropriate within the WW. It would be much better for Neville, IMO, simply to demonstrate competence in Snape's class (in the unlikely event that he finds himself in NEWT Potions). Follow directions, don't cringe or tremble, don't melt your cauldron, and you won't get picked on. Valky: Competence is not the deeper issue at all. Consider Crabbe and Goyle. They make pretty awful disasters themselves and don't get picked on. Not to mention that Hermione, oops I am mentioning it, is far more than competent and it is her high level of competence that is the problem for Snape rather than a lack of it. Carol: But assuming that Neville were to talk back to Snape or refuse to follow directions or some other uncharacteristic behavior that could serve no purpose except to annoy Snape and confirm his bad opinion of Neville, I can easily picture Snape's reaction. No tears, no wry grin, no confusion--just a cold, blank stare and a silky "Ten points from Gryffindor, Longbottom. And if you speak again, it will be detention." > Valky: Ahh but, Carol, you tar Neville with the wrong brush. Neville cannot confirm Snapes bad opinion of him for it is simply not in him to do so. Originally I posted that Nevilles defiance of Snape will constitute a defiance of Snapes preconceptions of weakness in Neville. Longbottom is stubbornly virtuous, his defiance won't be "uncharacteristic". And *that* will be its effectiveness. From spinelli372003 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 03:29:14 2004 From: spinelli372003 at yahoo.com (spinelli372003) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:29:14 -0000 Subject: Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115317 macfotuk wrote: > There have been significant updates at jkrowling.com recently. Are > we to take this as meaning that like many of us (speaking only for > myself here you understand), she is procrastinating from the task > in hand and so has much yet to write on H-BP? I am voting for her being almost done and the 20 chapters that she just finished proof reading are the ones for the new book Now that is me basing my hopes on the following: found in the JKR website under FAQ in the about the books section. Is every book going to be bigger than the previous one? No, definitely not, or book seven would be around the weight of a baby hippopotamus. According to the plan for book six, it will be quite a bit shorter than "Order of the Phoenix". I am not going to swear on my children's lives that that is going to be the case, but I am 99% certain of it. So here is me hoping for a new book soon. sherry From martyb1130 at aol.com Sun Oct 10 02:45:45 2004 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:45:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauders Map Message-ID: <1c2.1f42a6ff.2e99fc59@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115318 Alina wrote: > It's possible that Slytherin made the Chamber unplottable. After all, > he seems to have done everything else in order to hide the chamber > from everyone but a descendent, why not that? I think if the Chamber > was as easy to find as looking at the Marauder's Map, then DD and his > predecessors would've found it long ago as well. But Dumbledore is unaware of the map. it never states that he is even aware of it. Besides why wouldn't it even show Ginny's name? they might just have her name floating over the girls bathroom spot on the map. Why is it that Tom Riddles name did not show up on the map? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 07:26:27 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 07:26:27 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited - Portrait Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > Thanks, Dungrollin. Wish it were my original idea, but 'tis not, > though I really like it [magic portrait at Godrics Hollow]. I can't > imagine any other way that DD could have so quickly found out what > was happening at GH. > > Hmmmmm... What impact does a Fidelius Charm have on a portrait's > ability to communicate with an outside party? Could Phineas travel > between GP & DD's office because DD told him GP was Order HQ, or > does the Fidelius not affect a portrait at all? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: The portrait of Phineas in Dumbledore's office didn't have to be told about what was happening at Grimmauld Place because Phineas IS at Grimmauld Place; he has a protrait there. He had full access and full view because that house at 12-GP was his home; the home of his portrait that is. One confusing thing about these multiple protraits at multiple locations, is there only one character for /all/ the portraits, or one for each portrait? In other words, we have two known portraits of Phineas, does that mean that there are two of him wandering around out there in the portrait universe? And if there are two of him, are they of one mind, each fully knowing the experiences of the other? If there are two of them, and they are not of one mind, but live completely independent lives, do they occassionally get together and talk, and when they do, do they alway agree with each other, or do the get into disagreements? What if one is a portrait at age 16 and another at age 60, would they be of one mind, or would the portray their individual age-based personalities? If there is only one character for all portraits, how can that be? If one portrait is painted in January, it must have a life character in it, but then if another portrait is painted in October, it would seem to have it's own life character; different protraits, different times, different artist, different clothes, different settings, perhaps different sizes, etc.... It really doesn't seem possible for one /portrait life character/ to inhabit all versions of all his portraits. Enquiring minds want to know. To the main point of magical portraits at Godrics Hollow and some other strategic location to act as a messenger between Dumbledore and the Potters, that seems like a very reasonable and logical thing for them to have done. It's certainly what I would have done. And as SSSusan and others have pointed out, it does explain nicely how Dumbledore was able to be so informed and to act so quickly the night Voldemort visited Godric's Hollow. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 10 07:41:39 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:41:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauders Map Message-ID: <20041010.034151.1148.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115320 On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:45:45 EDT martyb1130 at aol.com writes: > But Dumbledore is unaware of the map. it never states that he is > even aware of it. Besides why wouldn't it even show Ginny's name? they might > just have her name floating over the girls bathroom spot on the map. Why is it > that Tom Riddles name did not show up on the map? I oft wondered if there weren't *any* Harry-generation students on the map, because the marauders "programmed" the map to recognize the students they went to school with. The map hadn't been "updated" in years (I doubt F&G knew how to do that), so it only showed the teachers -- or students, like Snape -- who had been at the school 20 years ago. Is there any canon mention of Harry watching one of his peers on the map? Aura ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 10 09:05:02 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 05:05:02 -0400 Subject: Marauders Map Message-ID: <001b01c4aea8$3b0a8360$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115321 Alina Chimanovitch said: "It's possible that Slytherin made the Chamber unplottable. After all, he seems to have done everything else in order to hide the chamber from everyone but a descendent, why not that? I think if the Chamber was as easy to find as looking at the Marauder's Map, then DD and his predecessors would've found it long ago as well." DuffyPoo: Plottable or not, since the map's manufacturers, MWPP, didn't know where it was, they could not include it on the map. It truly didn't need to be unplottable, IMO, as only the 'true heir of Slytherin' could gain access anyway. martyb said: "But Dumbledore is unaware of the map. it never states that he is even aware of it. Besides why wouldn't it even show Ginny's name? they might just have her name floating over the girls bathroom spot on the map. Why is it that Tom Riddles name did not show up on the map?" DuffyPoo: Ginny was no longer in the bathroom (btw, is Myrtle's toilet even on the MM?) she was in the chanber. Riddle wasn't real, he was just a memory, growing stronger. The Chamber wasn't on the map, only things on the map could be seen, remember Hagrid's hut isn't on there either - no trouble to be got into in there for the manufacturers. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Oct 10 09:05:30 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 05:05:30 -0400 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress Message-ID: <002101c4aea8$4b5dbe30$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115322 Macfotuk said; "P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :)" DuffyPoo: I'd say she's covering another error here. Remember, when that first book was published JKR had no idea how well scrutinized it would be. Just like it is Marcus Flint's stupidity, not her error, that kept him in Hogwarts an extra year. Macfotuk said: "Well, (hoping I'm typing clearly since it gives me *such* a thrill to imagine that maybe, just maybe the great woman herself might *really* be watching), ... she hasn't yet 'done' HPfGU at her fan sites section, so do we figure at all? " DuffyPoo: I often wondered if she lurked here, too. However, during the Edinburgh book thingy she said one of the questions she'd never been asked is why DD didn't kill LV when he had the chance in the MoM. We had JUST discussed that very issue on this list. So, while it may be true that we 'didn't ask her' the question was still out there. Macfotuk said: "Perhaps in that case we should be less demanding in the hope she'll complete what we really want and need her to give us, i.e. book 6. Can't be easy, what with being pregnant and no pressing need financially or possibly otherwise for a deadline. That and finally having found what sounds like contentment: I think it's Mona's law in the Tales of the City book series by Armistead Maupin (which I also love and re-read frequently) that states that "You can have a hot lover, a hot job and a hot apartment, but you can't have all three at the same time." Seems JKR has managed to beat the odds so why wouldn't she take time to wallow in that?" DuffyPoo: My dear Husband has told me for some time not to get too attached to these books as the last two may never make it to the store shelves. She's got all the money she and her children, probably her children's children could ever want there is no real pressing need to 'go to press' on the rest. I also have L.M. Montgomery's (Anne of Green Gables author) words in my head about how very much she hated writing the last few books because she wanted to get on to something else but fans kept pressing her for 'more Anne." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From patientx3 at aol.com Sun Oct 10 10:05:11 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:05:11 -0000 Subject: Who Saved Harry? ...NOT Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115323 dzeytoun wrote: > Let's turn all the arguments about Harry thanking Snape, or not, > around. A couple of people have pointed out that, while it is true > that Harry does not thank Snape for saving his life in PS/SS > ...edited... bboyminn replied: >>OK, let's straighten this out once and for all, Snape did not save Harry. At best, Snape assisted Hermione in saving Harry. Snape was muttering counter-jinxes against Quirrels jinx which at best were only marginally effective. The truth is Quirrel was winning and he had Harry hanging by one hand and losing ground quickly. [snip]If Harry should thank anyone, he should thank Hermione, which I'm sure he did. I seriously doubt that anyone Harry's age would feel even the slightest desire to thank a person who regularly seems to hate them, abuses them, and makes their life miserable.<< HunterGreen: How about later in the story when Snape referees the Hufflepuff / Gryffindor match? You could argue that he was doing it just to make Gryffindor lose, but hasn't done it since. However, I agree that it would be awkward to have Harry march over to Snape and thank him. I doubt that Snape cares either way, which might be why no adult has encouraged Harry to do so. (perhaps Snape would be offended by it in some way?) bboyminn: >>As far as Snape /saving/ Harry in PoA, one could interpret it that way, but he did so in the most mean-spirited, spitefull, vengefull, viscious, and self-serving way, so again, thanks but no thanks.<< HunterGreen: Unless its the action of putting Harry/Hermione/Sirius/Ron onto stretchers, I can't see how he "saved" Harry at all. For one thing, when Snape went after Lupin, he had no idea that Sirius or anyone else was out there, just a hunch. He was trying to catch Lupin in the act of doing something (I don't blame him at all for his suspicions though, Lupin did, after all, have knowledge about Sirius that he wasn't sharing, and that information *would* have aided in keeping Sirius out of the castle), not trying to save Harry. Once he was there, his main goal was catching Sirius and Lupin, and putting on a show of saving the trio, who weren't in any immediate danger anyway, which he knew because he stood behind the door for five minutes before revealing himself (just my take on the situation, anyway). Had Sirius *actually* been trying to kill Harry (ignoring the fact that he would have suceeded or been apprehended by Lupin by then), then I suppose Snape *could* be credited with saving Harry. However, there was nothing alturistic *at all* in his actions, and since he didn't end up saving Harry, I can't see why would need to thank him. As for thanking him for putting him on a stretcher, well, it would be rather neglectful of Snape to just leave three students passed out in the woods with a werewolf running around (its *Sirius* who needed to thank Snape in this situation, but of course Sirius would *never* see that). From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 10 10:22:12 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:22:12 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > snip> > That's a verrry good question. How the hell was DD so sure? Sorry > to quote the barmy old codger again, but: > snip> >...... and I was sure, too, knowing him as I have done, that > he would not rest until he killed you.' > > `Knowing him as I have done'? What's that all about? Is this his way > of saying that he knows exactly what steps Voldemort took to protect > himself from death? But then... the answers to the two questions > JKR said we *should* be wondering about might be the same... And she > didn't think anyone would guess them. Well, perhaps I'll come back > to that later, once we've figured out what happened at GH. (Ahem - > nothing like na?ve optimism, is there?) > Kneasy: Good question. He knew him as a schoolboy, of course, but the phrase seems to suggest something more recent and of greater depth. He will have had the experience of fighting his organisation and of information gleaned by spies and informers, but - I don't know, this sounds to me as if he knows Voldy's mind rather than his strategy. Unless.... another of my wild ideas - that Voldy is TR + Sally Slyth, or rather the essence thereof. A more or less immortal spirit that DD has cause to know from previous encounters with evil. No canon, but I can draw inferences with the best of 'em. (108664 - 'Shared Minds') This line of thinking could also make one pause and ask "Just what/who is DD?" - a fertile field for theorists with vivid imaginations. > By the way, Kneasy, I'm in agreement that DD's not ESE, but > unquestionably somewhat selective when it comes to the truth (he > says something to this effect at the end of PS ? `I will not, of > course, lie'). Do you think he *does* lie, or do you think he's > super-careful with his phraseology? I keep coming back to JKR's > words about him being the epitome of goodness, so I'm somewhat loath > to think he lies directly. > Caveat: Or, at least, that he *frequently* lies directly without a > very good reason. Any ideas (even if it's only in one or two > instances from canon) how we can distinguish between the two? Kneasy: "The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution..." I've come across one instance where (to my own mind at least) what DD says doesn't comply with his own explanation of how things are. It's the Mirror and his tale of why Quirrell couldn't find the Stone but Harry could: "It was one of my more brilliant ideas.[...]...only one who wanted to find the Stone - find it but not use it - would be able to get it..." But that's exactly what Quirrell was up to; he does not intend to use it, in fact he sees himself giving it to Voldy. Whether this was JKR having an off-day on the plot front or if it's DD obscuring what the Mirror is *really* about is open to question. But the immediate addition of: "Now, enough questions." tends me towards the latter. (I've long suspected that DD controls what viewers see in the Mirror and since DD states that it doesn't give "truth or knowledge" it adds to my doubts about his total truthfulness. DD is a fixer, a manipulator; he'll do what is necessary - and that doesn't make him ESE.) > Dungrollin: > *But*... > Why possess a toddler? My understanding (limited though it may be) > of possession, is that it's about forcing someone to do something > they don't want to do. Or forcing them to do something that the > possessor can't do themselves. Or else, forcing them to do something > that's a smidge dangerous, and the possessor would rather someone > else snuffed it if the plan goes pear-shaped. > > What could he gain from possessing baby Harry? 15 month-old Harry > was filling nappies and gurgling in his cot, he can't have been in a > position to do anything useful. And what was there to do? Voldy's > already knocked off James and Lily. If he wants to read Harry's mind > to check whether he's a potential competitor for the > EvilBastardoftheMillenium cup, he should use Legithingy, shouldn't > he? Can you read a wizard's powers like that? What could he gain > from *possessing* Harry? Means and opportunity granted in spades, > but where's the motive? Kneasy: Not sure that Legilimancy would be the right tool for the job - it accesses memories, reads thoughts - and Harry is unlikely to have used his power yet so he'll have no memories of it. Not sure it can measure power, magical potential. To find out about that I'd think that you would have to get in there and use it to see what it can do. Could be wrong, but that's my take with the information available as of now. > Dungrollin. > PS ? I like SSSusan's idea that the eyewitness to the GH incident > was a painting. Remember reading something (though have absolutely > no recollection of when or where) about the possibility of there > being a painting of Godric Griffindor in DD's study. Could have > been You Know What contamination, though. Kneasy: It's a popular theory. Don't go for it myself - not because it couldn't happen that way, but because it reduces drastically the opportunity for unknown person(s) to be at GH, hidden agendas, dirty doings at the crossroads - that sort of thing; you know - the fun stuff. Compulsive theorisers have to have something to get twitchy about and "It was Grannie's portrait" would be feasible - but boring. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 11:03:10 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:03:10 -0000 Subject: Who Saved Harry? ...NOT Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115325 > bboyminn replied: > >>OK, let's straighten this out once and for all, Snape did not save Harry. At best, Snape assisted Hermione in saving Harry. Snape was muttering counter-jinxes against Quirrels jinx which at best were only marginally effective. The truth is Quirrel was winning and he had Harry hanging by one hand and losing ground quickly. > [snip]If Harry should thank anyone, he should thank Hermione, which I'm sure he did. > HunterGreen: I agree that it would be awkward to have Harry march over to Snape and thank him. I doubt that Snape cares either way, which might be why no adult has encouraged Harry to do so. (perhaps Snape would be offended by it in some way?) > Valky: I agree with you both about POA. Snape is owed nothing for that. I also agree, Steve and Huntergreen, That essentially Hermione did the saving in PS/SS and that either way Harry has far too little to be grateful for in case of Snape. Apart from that I think that Harry was taken by surprise at the end of PS/SS in discovering that Snape was "Trying to save him" and I *do* believe it would be in Harry's character to feel some small measure of gratitude. This is how I read the short passage at the end of PS/SS where Harry deliberately makes eye contact with Snape in the Great Hall, then deciding for himself that Snapes feelings haven't changed Harry shrugs it off. I think it's in character for Harry that, at that moment, he may have been intending to offer Snape some manner of pleasantry in response to the revelation that Snape had protected him from QuirrelMort earlier in the year. So to say, despite that I agree with you Steve, I still think Harry *was* grateful. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 11:49:26 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:49:26 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: <002101c4aea8$4b5dbe30$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > DuffyPoo: > My dear Husband has told me for some time not to get too attached to these books as the last two may never make it to the store shelves. She's got all the money she and her children, probably her children's children could ever want there is no real pressing need to 'go to press' on the rest. I also have L.M. Montgomery's (Anne of Green Gables author) words in my head about how very much she hated writing the last few books because she wanted to get on to something else but fans kept pressing her for 'more Anne." > mhbbobbin: Alas, there are needs other than financial. The series has brought financial success to her, beyond anything she (or anyone) could have imagined. I think her literary legacy matters greatly to her. Will the books stand the test of time or be seen as a fad? And she cares greatly for her fan base, not to mention that it might be time to be done with it. That kind of pressure can be paralyzing, so I hope it is a spur to her to keep writing. (Was she answering questions on the website as pre-announcement hype--she's great at the marketing-- or was she answering questions as procrastination, like I'm doing now.) But I worry that she can not please everyone. She has got to start tying up loose ends, eliminating beloved characters, revealing true motivation. Part of the joy of the series comes from her ambiguous writing style and deliberate misleading of the reader. We enjoy trying to decipher her clues, trying not to be blindsided, spinning theory after theory about the remaining story. THe slow release of the novels have made this series inter-active. Did Dickens have to cope with that? Book Six will likely be less ambiguous than the preceding five. Book Seven will have much to answer for. We must all brace for the elimination of favorite theories, in addition to favorite characters. I, for one, have faith in her. Meanwhile, it's probably wise to keep in mind what a poster wrote a few weeks ago: Theories about the remaining story are strongest when they simplify the story rather than rely on information or characters not yet revealed. mhbobbin From claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 12:40:28 2004 From: claphamsubwarden at yahoo.com (Chris) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:40:28 -0000 Subject: Half-Blood Prince/MoM Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115327 Just had a flash of (hopefully) brilliance. Did every-one read the snippet JKR posted in the safe behind the DND door on her website? What if that was the half-blood prince she was describing? But to go even further, we know there is going to be a new MoM in the next book, so why shouldn't he be the half-blood prince? It would especially wind up Tom Riddle, even more so if he is capable of doing his job. On a less sound note, maybe its Aberforth? ChrisT From patientx3 at aol.com Sun Oct 10 12:42:43 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:42:43 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115328 Carol wrote: > To begin with, I'm wholly unable to imagine Neville defying any > teacher and I can't think of any form of defiance of a teacher by a > pupil which would be considered appropriate within the WW. > It would be much better for Neville, IMO, simply to demonstrate > competence in Snape's class (in the unlikely event that he finds > himself in NEWT Potions). Follow directions, don't cringe or > tremble, don't melt your cauldron, and you won't get picked on. Valky replied: >>Competence is not the deeper issue at all. Consider Crabbe and Goyle. They make pretty awful disasters themselves and don't get picked on. Not to mention that Hermione, oops I am mentioning it, is far more than competent and it is her high level of competence that is the problem for Snape rather than a lack of it.<< HunterGreen: Snape doesn't work fairly. He doesn't pick on *everyone* who is incompetent, but if Neville suddenly started doing fine in class, he would have no reason to bully him (its the same solution people are suggesting with Harry: he stops breaking rules and talking back around Snape, and doesn't rise to Snape's bait and Snape will -- in theory -- stop bothering him so much. Ideally, Snape wouldn't be acting like this, but Neville and Harry are more likely to change than him). As for Hermione, although her penchant for *always* knowing the answer competes with his superiority fix, he gives her trouble when she speaks out of turn, not when she simply does her potion correctly, or hands in a correct paper. Yes, its unfair for him to not call on her when she knows the answer (and is raising her hand), but *many* RL teachers do this on occasion when they have one student dominating the class (even Lupin does it in his own way). When it comes to Neville, I have to agree with Carol in this situation, I can't see him being the type to defy a teacher, nor do I think it would be appropriate. However, a scene where Neville stands up to Snape (beyond the Boggart!Snape scene in PoA), would be interesting, and good for him. I think it would work better if it happened in a non-classroom scene (however, Snape has little reason to bully Neville beyond potions class). From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 13:22:33 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:22:33 -0000 Subject: Marauders Map In-Reply-To: <20041010.034151.1148.2.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115329 Aura wrote: > I oft wondered if there weren't *any* Harry-generation students on the > map, because the marauders "programmed" the map to recognize the students > they went to school with. The map hadn't been "updated" in years (I doubt > F&G knew how to do that), so it only showed the teachers -- or students, > like Snape -- who had been at the school 20 years ago. > > Is there any canon mention of Harry watching one of his peers on the map? Ginger replies: Only one that pops into my head. He sees Neville on p. 276 in the US paperback edition. Actually, he sees Neville in Hogwarts, and it is recorded in the book. Bad sentance structure there. Sorry. It is on his second trip to Hogsmead. Ginger, trying to get dressed, wrap persents, and do this at once. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 10 14:06:29 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:06:29 -0000 Subject: Who Saved Harry? ...NOT Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115330 > > bboyminn replied: > > >>OK, let's straighten this out once and for all, Snape did not > save Harry. At best, Snape assisted Hermione in saving Harry. Snape > was muttering counter-jinxes against Quirrels jinx which at best > were only marginally effective. The truth is Quirrel was winning and > he had Harry hanging by one hand and losing ground quickly. > > [snip]If Harry should thank anyone, he should thank Hermione, > which I'm sure he did. > Hannah: I know Hermione meant well, but in actual fact it was lucky she didn't *kill* Harry. If she hadn't *accidentally* knocked Quirrel over as she rushed towards Snape, she would have caused Snape to stop his countercurse while Quirrel was still performing the jinx. That would have enabled Quirrel to have him off his broom, or whatever it was he was trying to do exactly. Snape's countercurse may have been not terribly effective, but at least he was doing something. There were other teachers there, including McGonagall, and Madam Hooch who was supposed to be refereeing, and they didn't appear to be doing anything. He also refereed the second game (and I genuinely think he did do that to protect Harry, and not to skew the results), and tried to keep an eye on Harry (he seems to 'follow Harry around'). PoA is a different matter. Snape isn't acting out of a desire to protect Harry, rather to get revenge on his childhood enemies. Even as a Snape fan I can't really give him much credit for saving Harry here. But I hope that *someone* gave him some praise for his efforts in PS, even if it was DD and not Harry himself. Hannah From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 14:17:37 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:17:37 -0000 Subject: Marauders Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Aura wrote: > > I oft wondered if there weren't *any* Harry-generation students on > the > > map, because the marauders "programmed" the map to recognize the > students > > they went to school with. The map hadn't been "updated" in years (I > doubt > > F&G knew how to do that), so it only showed the teachers -- or > students, > > like Snape -- who had been at the school 20 years ago. > > > > Is there any canon mention of Harry watching one of his peers on > the map? mhbobbin: The map seems to update itself. It shows a little Harry Potter hitting the statue to go into the passage. Lupin watches the map to see the Trio leave the castle to go to Hagrid's on the fateful night in PoA. Crouch!Moody uses the map to see his father enter the grounds, and sneak up on Viktor Krum and so forth. > > > Ginger replies: Only one that pops into my head. He sees Neville on > p. 276 in the US paperback edition. Actually, he sees Neville in > Hogwarts, and it is recorded in the book. Bad sentance structure > there. Sorry. It is on his second trip to Hogsmead. > > Ginger, trying to get dressed, wrap persents, and do this at once. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 10 15:03:03 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 10 Oct 2004 15:03:03 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1097420583.15.53974.m21@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115332 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 10, 2004 Time: 11:00AM CDT (GMT-05:00) Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change 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 Hope to see you there! From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 15:05:15 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:05:15 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115333 (again, can't preview - apologise for paragraphing) Gosh, I'm sooo easily distracted. I sat down intending to reply to Kneasy's last post (which I'm going to have to put off until tomorrow now), and ended up writing something entirely different. (Well, truth be told, I intended to ignore HPfGU for today and get on with my thesis... Ah well.) I've managed to waste a load of time on this little distraction so I'd really appreciate some replies. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------- So, Nagini. What is she? Is she a made-up snake, or can we trace her to a real species? I've trawled the back posts right up to the release of OotP (there's dedication for you), and people appear to have speculated about her a bit, but to my mind, not nearly enough. So I'm digging deeper. Here's some selected snippets of what others have said: Lori (74978) "... she [JKR] word played this one, Naga is Sanskrit for `snake'." Dan (75683) "Nagini, I believe, is just a biggish snake with venom that prevents blood from clotting and stopping up wounds." Anne (88564) wonders if Nagini *is* in fact a Naga. Sen (90712) thinks she's another basilisk. Amey (107126) "In Hindu Mythology, *Nag* are the magical race of snakes. They possess some very powerful magic and may live for thousands of years (some are immortal). They are alternatively associated with black magic and white magic. So I think, Nagini is one of the Nagas and her venom is the thing which keeps LV in the current form. It is something like Unicorn blood in that respect." Iggy McSnurd (84032) after some comments about mythology says: "Thus indicating that Nagini is the name of a female Naga, and as the name originates from an area known to revere cobras, King Cobras in particular, it can be logically deduced that Nagini is most likely a female King Cobra." Then Kneasy (88591) almost stealing my thunder, but (*thank goodness*) not coming up with my reasoning, says: "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)." Only possible clue, eh? Right. The clues are as follows: 1. Nagini is a biter not a squeezer, (she's quite clearly venomous, as wormtail has to milk her venom ? not a job I'd fancy, and Arthur... well, you've all read that bit). 2. She is (at least) 12 feet long. 3. "... a man was sitting on the floor ahead, his chin drooping on to his chest, his outline gleaming in the dark ..." Arguably, she can see through invisibility cloaks. 4. "...the tip of it's diamond patterned tail had vanished through the gap." GoF chapter 1. (Ooh, I'm feeling *smug* about that one!) Now, I'm going to start with #3, because I remembered something the other day, (which sparked this whole thing off) and have just checked it up in my handy encyclopaedia of snakes (which is unfortunately not nearly as encyclopaedic as I would like, but such is life). There is a subfamily of the Viperidae called the Crotalinae (in uncouth common English [spits], called `pit vipers'), which includes rattlesnakes, copperheads and water moccasins. Members of this subfamily have things called loreal pits, between the eye and nostril, which contain *infrared* detectors. As one would expect, this is a talent mostly found in nocturnally hunting snakes. A-ha! So, no need to postulate that Nagini can see through invisibility cloaks, if she can see infrared! Actually it's not *that* unusual in snakes ? AFAIK lots of pythons and boas can too ? but according to #1, she's not a squeezer, so she must be a Crotaline, right? So we're looking for a 12 foot long Crotaline with a diamond patterned tail. By the way, Cobras are in the subfamily Viperinae, and can't see infrared (AFAIK). And the King Cobra's not patterned. Many people have hypothesised that, due to the origins of her name, she must be a species from India. So... I spent a while trawling the web for pictures of Indian Crotalines. Didn't manage to find all the species that are known to occur in India, but the vast majority of them appear to be green and definitely not with diamond- patterns. The few that do have patterning which (at a stretch) could be described as rhomboid, are not nearly big enough. Anyway, it's not necessarily the case that she must come from India, is it? JKR has fun with her names, `Nagini' is certainly a reference to the Naga, but doesn't need to be a direct postal address, if you see what I mean... Let her play. So what about the rest of the world? Well, Crotalines are found only in Asia and the Americas. The Diamond-backed rattlesnake ? this is the most obvious choice of course, but several things make me doubt it. Firstly, if Nagini was a rattler, I reckon we'd know. I don't think that JKR could have hidden it from us this long, the snake circling Harry and Voldy during the graveyard scene, the tail disappearing through the door... it would be far too tempting to have some sinister rattling going on in those scenes, but we hear nothing. Secondly, the tails of (even diamond-backed) rattlers are striped, *with a rattle on the end*, not something that's easy to miss. Thirdly, they only get up to 7 feet long. There are a number of other rattlesnakes with similar patterning, but the arguments for the diamond-backed are just as applicable. The only decent fit I can come up with is the Bushmaster. (Bows most humbly to Kneasy). Five reasons: 1. Bushmasters produce an enormous amount of venom. The average yield of dried venom from a bushmaster is 411 mg (which is apparently a lot compared to other species), allowing frequent milking whilst Voldy is sick. 2. Their heat-sensitive pits allow a bushmaster to detect a heat difference of just 0.0036 degrees F (0.002 degrees C). 3. They get up to 12 feet long. 4. Their patterning is most definitely diamond-shaped. 5. Quoting Kneasy (bows again, for good measure) "the Bushmaster ... can strike hard enough to break ribs." Here's where it starts to get fun. The Latin (scientific) name for the Bushmaster is Lachesis muta. Lachesis is one of the fates - The Disposer, one of the three Moirae. She measures the length of the thread of human life spun by Clotho and determines its destiny. Ooo-er. muta ? here I need a bit of help from you clever people, as my Latin's rubbish. I think it comes from mutare, which means to shift, change or alter. It is of course, entirely possible that Nagini is a made-up magic snake, and thus all this speculation has been in vain. Let me just mention briefly, though a couple of other creatures that appear to be magical, though don't appear in FBAWTFT. Hedwig is quite clearly a snowy owl (Nyctea scandica) yet also magical. The rats in The Magical Menagerie are `black rats' (Rattus rattus) yet clearly showing off their magic (can't quote that properly, as someone's pinched my copy of PoA). Er... I'm sure there are more, but you get my meaning. Oh damn, I really ought to do some real work now... Can someone else take this and run with it? Cheers, Dungrollin (who solved the chocolate problem, but is now in search of biscuits) From averyhaze at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 15:44:08 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:44:08 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115334 Dharma: I'm under the impression that quite a bit of the personality conflict between Sirius/James and Snape will come down to the assumption that each party must adopt the other's value system to be a decent person. > How do other list members perceive the conflict between James/Sirus and Snape during their school days? Valky: I could not agree more, Dharma. Your impression is the image of my basic understanding of the canon. I tend to compound the nature of the issue with the fact that "Dark Magic" and "Lord Voldemort" were the bane of the very society that these boys existed in, making James and Sirius view of what was and wasn't decent quite the highground of the two. And is probably why Snape was unpopular and James/Sirius the opposite. Dharma; Do we have adequate information on the topic to make specific determinations about their behavior? It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on this topic. Valky: There is a plethora of that in backposts if you like. MHO about our use of information on this topic is that a lot of information tends to be ignored in the debate, not least of all and of most dissappointment to me the fact that *Dark Wizards* called Death Eaters were killing people's family members and taking over the WW at the same time in the backdrop of the pensieve event. I find it eternally frustrating that people can ignore this backdrop and reduce the 'Snape up to his eyeballs in Dark Magic" canon to disproportionate teeniness when debating it. Fact is, Dark Magic wasn't just *an* issue of those days it was *the* issue. And do we adequate that enough when making specific determinations? NO I think not. Dharma replies: This is one of the points that is unclear to me. What level of awareness did the Marauder's have about Voldemort's actions in those early years? They would have been quite young when the rise to power started. During those 11, years marked with "disappearances" and "increasing violence," I can imagine numerous possibilities. And I could imagine their opinions changing as they grew up. Did James, who seems to have come from a family with progressive views about bloodlines, really have a great disdain for the Dark Arts at age 11? Or, is this something that became increasingly important to his value system between first year and fifth year? Did his family suffer huge losses during another ideological battle, thus giving Mr. and Mrs. Potter a reason to raise him with such strong ideals that he would be set in a particular moral stance at 11? All, or none of these things could be true. Was Sirius just the black sheep of his family? Did he arrive at Hogwarts for his first year ready to reject large parts of his parents value system? Did he ask the Sorting Hat to not put him into Slytherin? Or, did Sirius develop his view through having to have relationships outside of the pureblood sphere being in Gryffindor House? Did he always feel that something was amiss with his family, or did he start seeing the effects of prejudice on his Housemates lives and decide to reject his upbringing? Again all or none of these things could be true. Snape could have been going through any number of things. Was he abused in his home? Was he learning all of these hexes and jinxes to defend himself from his father, or did his family instruct him in the Dark Arts as part of their value system? Was he at a young age a truly invested in the Dark Arts as part of an ideology? Did he hear rumors of Voldemort, and assume the he (Voldemort) had the right idea? Did his family pressure him into accepting the "Dark Order" as the "right" path as he got older? Again, I'm not clear that any of this is true or untrue. Theses kids could have known quite a bit or almost nothing about Voldemort at age 11, when to tension between James and Snape started, and then had radical changes in knowledge and opinion by their fifth year. So I could go either way on this one. How many families sent their kids to school with little or know knowledge of what Voldemort was up to? One thing I do feel certain about is the idea that, these 3 kids were in positions to hear quite a bit of the whispering and discussion of Voldemort's plans. James and Sirius were from pureblood families, and Snape was at least in the company of kids who would have heard the rumors and political talk from their families, if not from his own. From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 10 15:49:00 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:49:00 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115335 Trawling through The Leaky Cauldron's fascinating site "Everything there is to know about HP & theHalf Blood Prince (unless you're JKR..) I was surprised to read this quote from the Scholastic Chat of October 2000: "Occasionally I will use something that people used to believe was true - for example, the Hand of Glory which Draco gets from Borgin & Burkes in The Chamber of Secrets." But Draco DIDN'T get the Hand, Lucius is none too pleased when Borgin described it as "Best friend of thieves and plunderers!" "I hope my son will amount to more than a thief or a plunderer, Borgin" said Mr. Malfoy coldly and Mr. Borgin said quickly, "No offence, sir, no offence meant -" Lucius then goes on to trash Draco for falling behind Hermione and proceeds to haggle with Borgin about his list of items he has for sale. Nothing more is said about the Hand of Glory. Draco, however, drifts off to examine the objects for sale. Is it possible that he managed to pocket the Hand of Glory while his father was busy with Mr. Borgin? But wouldn't Harry have seen him. Perhaps not, if Draco's back was to him. It might, of course, just be a slip of the tongue on JKR's part, but I feel sure the Hand of Glory is going to re-appear in either Book 6 or Book 7. Sylvia (apologising if this has been thoroughly worked over before) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 16:37:06 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:37:06 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115336 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: > > Trawling through The Leaky Cauldron's fascinating site "Everything > there is to know about HP & theHalf Blood Prince (unless you're JKR..) > I was surprised to read this quote from the Scholastic Chat of > October 2000: > "Occasionally I will use something that people used to believe was > true - for example, the Hand of Glory which Draco gets from Borgin & Burkes in The Chamber of Secrets." > > snip snip > It might, of course, just be a slip of the tongue on JKR's part, but I feel sure the Hand of Glory is going to re-appear in either Book 6 or Book 7. > >mhbobbin: I hope we see it again. There's alot you can do with a creepy independent-minded hand. Dean Thomas' boggart is a severed hand. Dean is also, I believe, a Half-Blood. And an artist who offers to forge Harry's permission slip in PoA. Interesting quote about Draco **getting** the hand from B&B. mhbobbin From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Sun Oct 10 16:43:50 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:43:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416966C6.4090500@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115337 > >mhbobbin: > I hope we see it again. There's alot you can do with a creepy > independent-minded hand. Dean Thomas' boggart is a severed hand. > Dean is also, I believe, a Half-Blood. And an artist who offers to > forge Harry's permission slip in PoA. > > Interesting quote about Draco **getting** the hand from B&B. > > mhbobbin Gabriel: Actually, a Hand of Glory shouldn't have an independent mind - I don't know where the moving came from in the CoS movie, and Dean's severed-hand-boggart was probably from some nightmare he had. I wouldn't be terribly surprised, however, if Draco *had* snatched the Hand of Glory. It's a useful sort of a thing. Morbid -_-, but useful. If I remember this correctly, a Hand of Glory in its traditional use holds a candle, and can light the way for a thief without the thief being seen. I also know a variation on the Hand of Glory spell (actually, I've got a copy of it) that makes use of the Hand to *protect* the caster from evil. More the sort of thing Harry would need, I'd say. (Another variation, found in _The Iron Dragon's Daughter_, by Michael Swanwick, uses the Hand as a homing device - a person's credit cards are rubber-banded onto it, and it tugs towards where the person keeps their money.) Personally, although I'd love to know if Draco actually has it, I'm more interested in whose hand it is. Any thoughts, anyone? ^_^ - Gabriel Fey From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 17:59:13 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:59:13 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115338 >dungrollin wrote: > > So, Nagini. What is she? Is she a made-up snake, or can we trace > her to a real species? > Neri: As someone with formal training in zoology I was most impressed by the level of your zoological research! Just one (not zoological) comment: there is actually no canon that Nagini can see through invisibility cloaks, with IR or without it. When Harry sees Arthur through the snake's eyes we are told: (OotP, Ch. 21) "But the man was stirring . . . a silver cloak fell from his legs as he jumped to his feet" Arthur clearly fell asleep on his watch and the invisibility cloak slipped to its legs, from which it fell when he jumped to his feet. Neri From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Sun Oct 10 18:18:02 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:18:02 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > dungrollin asked: > > > > So, Nagini. What is she? Is she a made-up snake, or can we trace > > her to a real species? Neri pointed out: > > As someone with formal training in zoology I was most impressed by the > level of your zoological research! > > Just one (not zoological) comment: there is actually no canon that > Nagini can see through invisibility cloaks, with IR or without it. > When Harry sees Arthur through the snake's eyes we are told: > > (OotP, Ch. 21) > "But the man was stirring . . . a silver cloak fell from his legs as > he jumped to his feet" > > Arthur clearly fell asleep on his watch and the invisibility cloak > slipped to its legs, from which it fell when he jumped to his feet. Yb: Ahh, yes, but from OotP: "he could see objects shimmering around him in strange, vibrant colors..." "a man was sitting on the floor ahead... his outline gleaming in the dark." OotP, AmVer, p. 462 dungrollin mentioned pit vipers being able to see infrared light, which would account for the strange vibrant colors. With or without the invisibility cloak, there's no way Arthur could have hidden from /this/ snake. ~Yb, who needs to do some work. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 18:19:38 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:19:38 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > >dungrollin wrote: > > > > So, Nagini. What is she? Is she a made-up snake, or can we trace > > her to a real species? > > > > Neri: > > ..edited... > > Just one (not zoological) comment: there is actually no canon that > Nagini can see through invisibility cloaks, with IR or without it. > When Harry sees Arthur through the snake's eyes we are told: > > (OotP, Ch. 21) > "But the man was stirring . . . a silver cloak fell from his legs as > he jumped to his feet" > > ...edited... > > Neri bboyminn: Not quite, you missed one very important part. -Ootp AM ed, HB, pg 462- "...It was dark, yet he could see objects around him shimmering in strange, vibrant colors. ..." That implies Infra-red seeing to me. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 18:41:08 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:41:08 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115341 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: > > I was surprised to read this quote from the Scholastic Chat of > October 2000: > "Occasionally I will use something that people used to believe was > true - for example, the Hand of Glory which Draco gets from Borgin & > Burkes in The Chamber of Secrets." > > But Draco DIDN'T get the Hand, ...edited... > > Sylvia (apologising if this has been thoroughly worked over before) bboyminn: Actually, I'm not sure anyone has ever brought up that particular point before. That said... It's important that we don't take casual conversation as absolute truth. People don't speak in absolutes; there are always things like context, restrains of time, and generalizations that come into play. When JKR says "gets", she is making a generalization which we could interpret as "insert a whole lot of details here that I don't have time for because 10,000 other people are waiting on-line with more questions". In addition, the context of the question and answer are not about Draco and what he does or doesn't 'get'. It's about the fact that the Hand of Glory is an example of something that people used to really believe in. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 10 18:42:27 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:42:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: <416966C6.4090500@superluminal.com> Message-ID: <20041010184227.19163.qmail@web52006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115342 Probably an ancestor of Mundungus! snip: Personally, although I'd love to know if Draco actually has it, I'm more interested in whose hand it is. Any thoughts, anyone? ^_^ - Gabriel Fey Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 19:30:08 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:30:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry & Seamus (Was: Harry not a Prefect & his Inner Voice) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115343 Finwitch says: >Actually, I'm not at all annoyed with Harry. They *do* share a dorm. >They *do* share classes. This means that > >1) Seamus must have seen enough to know that Harry is NOT insane, or >at least enough for reasonable doubt, and never mind what his mother >who has never so much as met Harry says based on hearsay of others who >don't know Harry either. I believe Seamus's mother did meet Harry at the Quidditch World Cup when Harry and the others were walking around and noticed the shamrock-covered campsite where the Irish fans were. Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 10 19:55:09 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:55:09 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > The only decent fit I can come up with is the Bushmaster. > (Bows most humbly to Kneasy). > Five reasons: > > 1. Bushmasters produce an enormous amount of venom. The average > yield of dried venom from a bushmaster is 411 mg (which is > apparently a lot compared to other species), allowing frequent > milking whilst Voldy is sick. > > 2. Their heat-sensitive pits allow a bushmaster to detect a heat > difference of just 0.0036 degrees F (0.002 degrees C). > > 3. They get up to 12 feet long. > > 4. Their patterning is most definitely diamond-shaped. > > 5. Quoting Kneasy (bows again, for good measure) "the Bushmaster ... > can strike hard enough to break ribs." > You forgot to look at Arthur's clinical picture - don't worry, that matches L. muta muta too: significant tissue damage around the site of envenomation and coagulopathy - messed up blood clotting in other words. That'd explain his bleeding problems *and* the difficulty of getting the (necrotic?) wound to heal. Now where would Voldy get one of these things? IIRC there were rumours over a year ago about HP and the Pyramids of something or other as a proposed book title. Most started thinking of Egypt, naturally enough. But pyramid structures are also found in Central and S. America. And if Nagini's identification is right...... Hmm. I wonder. Kneasy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 20:07:44 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:07:44 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115345 > > Neri: > > Just one (not zoological) comment: there is actually no canon that > > Nagini can see through invisibility cloaks, with IR or without it. > > When Harry sees Arthur through the snake's eyes we are told: > > > > (OotP, Ch. 21) > > "But the man was stirring . . . a silver cloak fell from his legs as > > he jumped to his feet" > > bboyminn: > > Not quite, you missed one very important part. > > -Ootp AM ed, HB, pg 462- > "...It was dark, yet he could see objects around him shimmering in > strange, vibrant colors. ..." > > That implies Infra-red seeing to me. > Neri again: Just to clarify my meaning, I didn't say Nagini doesn't see in infra red. It certainly seems likely from the description (although the last time I looked into a military IR device the view was in black and white, but admittedly it was more than ten years ago). We also don't know if invisibility cloaks block IR frequencies or not. All I say is that we don't have canon here that Nagini sees through Invisibility cloaks. Had JKR wanted to imply it she would have written the cloak falling from Arthur's body, not his legs. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 20:19:58 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:19:58 -0000 Subject: Petunia's secret/ was Petunia and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115346 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > For some reason, when I read this scene, I'm more, not less, convinced that Petunia has indeed heard from or about Lily lately. Petunia answers "stiffly" and "sharply" and she "snapped" at Vernon when he spoke to her. Given Petunia's behavior in the rest of the books (she seems to fawn over Vernon and Dudley), her posture here seems suspicious. Of course, she could be upset at having to talk about her hated witch sister, and I think this is what JKR wants us to think. But I wonder if there's not something more to it? Petunia's sharp retorts make me think of someone who is lying and is very uncomfortable doing it. So, her telling Vernon that she hasn't heard from/about Lily in a while isn't, to me, convincing enough to suggest that she's telling the truth. > (snip)> Seriously though, I am suspicious of this scene. Is anyone else? I also think the fact that JKR told these events through Vernon's POV, and not Petunia's, is telling. Petunia has secrets to keep from us; Vernon does not. > > Sophierom, who is shuddering once again at thinking of Vernon as > husband! Tonks here: I have been thinking about Petunia and the fact that JKR says the person she dislikes the most is Vernon. Why would that be when we have people like Bella, LV and others? Why Vernon? So here is an idea that fits with your idea of what isn't been said. It is so easy to overlook the silences. Here I am also speaking of Petunia's silence when it comes to "stamping out the magic in the boy". If I remember correctly most of the "stamping out" of magic from Harry comes from Vernon. Now that might be because he is the man of the house, but there might be more to it. Maybe the reason JKR doesn't like Vernon is that he does not allow a person to be who they are. He doesn't allow a person to develop the talents that they have. Unlike those in the WW who just hate and maybe want to kill mudbloods and Muggles, Vernon's form of prejudice cuts even deeper. Not allowing a person to be fully what and who they were meant to be is in someway worst than just killing their body; it is killing their soul, in a sense. As I have said before, I think Petunia is a witch that chose to live as a Muggle. Maybe because she knows Vernon would not have married her otherwise. Tonks-op (looking forward to the day I can say *see I told you so*) From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 10 21:48:09 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:48:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... Message-ID: <20041010.174912.3300.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115347 Kneasy said: > That'd explain his bleeding problems *and* the difficulty of getting > the (necrotic?) wound to heal. Yeah, venom bites do hella tissue damage. Rattler bites necratize the surrounding tissue, so if Nagini's related to that family of snakes, he could have easily killed Arthur. (I watch the learning channel.) > Now where would Voldy get one of these things? Pet store? Zoo? Or there's the animagus theory, which I think makes quite a bit of sense, despite it being repedative and redundant and repedative. I thought I was being very clever to check and see what kind of snake Harry released in PS/SS, but, alas, it was a boa constrictor. Aura Who's so creeped out by this convo, she has her feet pulled up off the floor (in case there's something slithering under the desk) and freaked when she saw the cat's stripy tail out of the corner of her eye. ~*~ "I have a high self-esteem problem." - Carson, QE Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 22:37:41 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:37:41 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115348 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Not quite, you missed one very important part. > > > > -Ootp AM ed, HB, pg 462- > > "...It was dark, yet he could see objects around him shimmering in > > strange, vibrant colors. ..." > > > > That implies Infra-red seeing to me. > > > Neri again: > Just to clarify my meaning, I didn't say Nagini doesn't see in infra > red. It certainly seems likely from the description .... We also > don't know if invisibility cloaks block IR frequencies or not. All I > say is that we don't have canon here that Nagini sees through > Invisibility cloaks. Had JKR wanted to imply it she would have > written the cloak falling from Arthur's body, not his legs. bboyminn: OK, vaild point about seeing through the invisibility cloak. In the strictest sense I don't think the snake can see through the cloak but because it has infrared/heat sensing capability, it can still 'see' Arthur Weasley, but not necessarily /see/ in the most common visual sense. It seems the room is dark and the torches are out, but the snake can finds it's way and can see what is happening to Mr. Weasley. So, I suspect it can detect heat throught the cloak; I don't see any reason why it couldn't. The cloak is gossamer thin which logically wouldn't block much heat. Of course, it not always easy to apply common logic to the world of magic. For the record nightvision goggles are typically in gradients of black and white or black and green. However, scientific heat sensing equipment usually shows a gradient of heat as a range of colors. I think it gets down to how much you want to spend on the equipment. How a biological entity like a snake uses heat sensing is probably something we can never know, but the color gradient is a common image associated with visual heat detection, and I think as an author JKR was playing off of that common image. So, in the common normal visual sense, I don't think the snake could see through the cloak, but from the perspective of heat detect, I'm sure the snake can detect heat gradients under the cloak. Can't prove it, but none the less, that's were I stand. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 22:44:18 2004 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:44:18 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, "but" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115349 dungrollin wrote: The Latin (scientific) name for the Bushmaster is Lachesis muta. Lachesis is one of the fates - The Disposer, one of the three Moirae. She measures the length of the thread of human life spun by Clotho and determines its destiny. Ooo-er. muta ? here I need a bit of help from you clever people, as my Latin's rubbish. I think it comes from mutare, which means to shift, change or alter. Leah does a bit of Tonks-like derusting of her Latin: A great bit of research here. Muta- I think might mean silent, mute in fact. Lachesis is also given as 'the apportioner, the drawer of lots' As an aside, the Fates were also known as "The Weird Sisters" - perhaps Nagini is the animagus form of Celestina Warbeck! Leah From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 23:14:14 2004 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:14:14 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, "but" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > > dungrollin wrote: > The Latin (scientific) name for the Bushmaster is Lachesis muta. > > Lachesis is one of the fates - The Disposer, one of the three > Moirae. She measures the length of the thread of human life spun by > Clotho and determines its destiny. > > Ooo-er. > > muta ? here I need a bit of help from you clever people, as my > Latin's rubbish. I think it comes from mutare, which means to > shift, change or alter. > > > Leah does a bit of Tonks-like derusting of her Latin: > > A great bit of research here. Muta- I think might mean silent, mute in fact. Lachesis is also given as 'the apportioner, the drawer of lots' > Valky: I like both interpretations, it rings true that if Jo chose Nagini species as carefully as we assume that her 'Lord Voldemort' would own a Snake with such a sinister connotations in it's species name as "Creeping Death" or "Destiny Changer". Leah: > As an aside, the Fates were also known as "The Weird Sisters" - > perhaps Nagini is the animagus form of Celestina Warbeck! > Valky: Cute! *chuckle*, I am just thinking that perhaps Jo introduced us to the Weird Sisters to get us thinking about the fates. If Lachesis is the third sister what are the names of the other two? From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 20:22:03 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:22:03 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115351 First of all, hi everyone. I'm a new member of this group and may I say this is exactly what I've been looking for as a huge HP fan. I have a theory regarding DD's sparks when Harry tells him that LV took some of his blood. In SS when Hagrid first meets Harry and tells him about LV he says he doesn't think LV dead for he is not enough human. What if by taking Harry's blood he becomes "more human"? This would mean that as a human he could be killed for good. jlnbtr From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 23:22:35 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:22:35 -0000 Subject: Another death? In-Reply-To: <001901c4ad44$3847d6b0$4562d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > jcb54me wrote: > "Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me." > > DuffyPoo: > Straight from the recent bout of FAQ on jkrowling.com: > > "Are you going to kill any more characters? > > Yes, sorry." > Doddiemoe: I just had an awful thought...what if everyone Molly Weasley saw dead in the bogart scene in OOP actually died in subsequent books? They would definitely be a target due to Harry's relationship with them.(look at how LV used Sirius). Not to mention Ginny's having been possessed by the memory of Tom Riddle in COS. Doddie (who doesn't know if the ww world could ever from the loss of Fred and George) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 23:32:00 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:32:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... References: Message-ID: <001801c4af21$57bea530$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115353 From: "nkafkafi" > > > Neri: > > > Just one (not zoological) comment: there is actually no canon that > > > Nagini can see through invisibility cloaks, with IR or without it. > > > When Harry sees Arthur through the snake's eyes we are told: and > > Neri again: > Just to clarify my meaning, I didn't say Nagini doesn't see in infra > red. It certainly seems likely from the description (although the last > time I looked into a military IR device the view was in black and > white, but admittedly it was more than ten years ago). We also don't > know if invisibility cloaks block IR frequencies or not. All I say is > that we don't have canon here that Nagini sees through Invisibility > cloaks. Had JKR wanted to imply it she would have written the cloak > falling from Arthur's body, not his legs. charme: Forgive me, however I do need to ask this question: is everyone theorizing Nagini was the snake that bit Authur Weasley in the DoM? I'm confused, since in that same scene the bites are described as follows: "He reared high from the floor and struck once, twice, three times..." (I have a US Scholastic edition of OoP) Maybe it's coincidence, but wouldn't the "three bites" possibly mean a Runespoor (Fantastic Beasts) instead? Or is there canon I missed which says Nagini did it? Help me here... charme From hautbois1 at comcast.net Sun Oct 10 23:06:36 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:06:36 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115354 bboyminn: > So, in the common normal visual sense, I don't think the snake could > see through the cloak, but from the perspective of heat detect, I'm > sure the snake can detect heat gradients under the cloak. > > Can't prove it, but none the less, that's were I stand. Patrick: I agree that's probably the case, but though Nagini is a snake, we can safely say she has some inherent magical ability. Whether imbibed through Voldy or not, it's there (I don't think the name relation to the Hindu Nag was an accident.) That said, I think the possibility that Nagini (and possibly other animals...Mrs. Norris?) can see through the cloth. Remember that the Invisibility Cloak is not some cloth that's been charmed, it's woven from the hair of the Demiguise, a creature that can become invisible if threatened. If you check out Fantastic Beasts, it says this "ape-like creature" is from the Far East. Perhaps the Nag, as one magical creature, like to feast on the Demiguise, another magical creature. That would explain why she can see through the cloaks...they'd need some way to hunt! That's my two cents... Patrick From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Oct 10 23:46:20 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:46:20 -0000 Subject: Another death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" > wrote: > > jcb54me wrote: > > "Just ran across a report on the news that Rowlings says another > character is going to die in the Half-Blood Prince. Has anyone else > heard of this or is it old news to everyone but me." > > > > DuffyPoo: > > Straight from the recent bout of FAQ on jkrowling.com: > > > > "Are you going to kill any more characters? > > > > Yes, sorry." > > > > Doddiemoe: > > I just had an awful thought...what if everyone Molly Weasley saw > dead in the bogart scene in OOP actually died in subsequent books? > They would definitely be a target due to Harry's relationship with > them.(look at how LV used Sirius). Not to mention Ginny's having > been possessed by the memory of Tom Riddle in COS. > > Doddie (who doesn't know if the ww world could ever from the loss of > Fred and George) mhbobbin: A Weasley massacre (plus Harry)! I suspect that she'll spread it around a bit.I'm looking for her to end story lines that aren't going anywhere but that's impossible as prior to OotP, I would have thought Sirius was going to be important in the final battles. (Actually I still think so but that's another post.) If Fred and George encounter Death Eaters (as likely they will) my money would be on Fred and George. Good grief, the DEs were having trouble defeating ordinary students. I'm more concerned about Ron sacrificing himself as he does in the Chess Game, and his divination joke about "Die Ron Die!" But I suspect Ron is a Book 7 death as it would throw off the balance of the Trio if he was a goner in 6. mhbobbin From dzeytoun at cox.net Sun Oct 10 23:54:34 2004 From: dzeytoun at cox.net (dzeytoun) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:54:34 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > > HunterGreen: > Snape doesn't work fairly. He doesn't pick on *everyone* who is > incompetent, but if Neville suddenly started doing fine in class, he > would have no reason to bully him (its the same solution people are > suggesting with Harry: he stops breaking rules and talking back > around Snape, and doesn't rise to Snape's bait and Snape will -- in > theory -- stop bothering him so much. Ideally, Snape wouldn't be > acting like this, but Neville and Harry are more likely to change > than him). I second Siriusly Snapey Susan. Let's please not get THAT argument started again. > As for Hermione, although her penchant for *always* knowing the > answer competes with his superiority fix, he gives her trouble when > she speaks out of turn, not when she simply does her potion > correctly, or hands in a correct paper. Yes, its unfair for him to > not call on her when she knows the answer (and is raising her hand), > but *many* RL teachers do this on occasion when they have one student > dominating the class (even Lupin does it in his own way). > > When it comes to Neville, I have to agree with Carol in this > situation, I can't see him being the type to defy a teacher, nor do I > think it would be appropriate. However, a scene where Neville stands > up to Snape (beyond the Boggart!Snape scene in PoA), would be > interesting, and good for him. I think it would work better if it > happened in a non-classroom scene (however, Snape has little reason > to bully Neville beyond potions class). I also don't see how a scene outside potions could be arranged. I guess if Snape became advisor of the DA, it might work. I certainly hope Dumbledore wouldn't be that silly, however. He's caused enough problems with his idealistic illusions about Harry and Snape working together. Dzeytoun From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Sun Oct 10 23:53:41 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:53:41 -0500 Subject: Fates (Was: Re: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, "but") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115357 Valky wrote : Cute! *chuckle*, I am just thinking that perhaps Jo introduced us to the Weird Sisters to get us thinking about the fates. If Lachesis is the third sister what are the names of the other two? Lady Macbeth replies: Clotho and Atropos. Clotho spins the thread of fate, Lachesis measures its length and Atropos cuts it off. The three also share the "Goddess Triad" of Maiden, Mother and Crone. Clotho is young, Lachesis is middle aged, and Atropos is old. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From macfotuk at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 00:09:54 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:09:54 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115358 Two wizards (apart from Barman Tom who reappears in PoA and P-p-p- Professor Quirrel, whose presence it turns out later has huge significance) approach Harry in the Leaky Cauldron on the occasion of him first visiting it with Hagrid: one of whom is Doris Crockford. Who *is* she? Is she an authorial device to depict a representative example of the 'average' witch/wizard? or someone much more significant? (she almost won't let him go .... cannot thank you enough (and all that). Especially remarkable since by the time of OotP Harry has *no* fans whatsoever, it seems, in the WW whereas in PS/SS he is a celebrity written up into several 'history' books and recognised where'er he goes. The other wizard present is, of course, Daedulus Diggle - Member of OoP and hugely indiscreet eccentric person (sounds like DD with his hair properly let down and beard unfurled). co-incidence or what? Just who IS Dorid Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter? From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 00:13:21 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:13:21 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115360 Gabriel Fey wrote: Personally, although I'd love to know if Draco actually has it, I'm more interested in whose hand it is. Any thoughts, anyone? ^_^ vmonte responds: I think the hand of glory belongs to Voldemort. It's probably what was left of LV after the Godric's Hollow attack. vivian From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 00:16:22 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:16:22 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > > Duffypoo writes: > > There has been lots of speculation the last few days about the 'previous' letters Petunia received from DD prior to 'the last' which was left with Harry. Speculation that one of these letters was about what really happened to Lily and James the night they were killed. This letter would have had to arrive (by owl?) in the 30 hour period between the attack and the time Petunia found HP on the doorstep "not knowing he would be woken in a few hours' time by Mrs Dursley's scream as she opened the front door." > > In the first chapter of PS there is quite a conversation between > Vernon and Petunia that would, I think, squash the speculation on a letter of this kind: > > "Er -- Petunia, dear -- you haven't heard from your sister lately, > have you?" > "No," she said sharply, "Why?" >snip snip > "What's his name again? Howard, isn't it?" > "Harry. Nasty common name, if you ask me." > "Oh, yes," said Mr. Dursley, his heart sinking horribly. "Yes, I quite agree." > ..... "Mrs. Dursley fell asleep quickly but Mr. Dursley lay awake, turning it> all over in his mind." > > Petunia, although she would have known all about this IF she had > received the letter from DD, certainly doesn't appear to know anything about it, and drops off quickly to sleep. > > Sophierom: >> For some reason, when I read this scene, I'm more, not less, convinced that Petunia has indeed heard from or about Lily lately. Petunia > answers "stiffly" and "sharply" and she "snapped" at Vernon when he spoke to her. Given Petunia's behavior in the rest of the books (she seems to fawn over Vernon and Dudley), her posture here seems suspicious. snip snip So, her telling Vernon that she hasn't heard from/about Lily in a while isn't, to me, convincing enough to suggest that she's telling the truth. > mhbobbin: I forget some times that every time a volume is release, we must go back and read all the previous volumes. I just did that as these posts intrigued me. The chapter is rich. I agree that Petunia is hiding something. She has been in communication with Lily at least once in the past 15 months --how does she know what her nephew's name is? And her behavior is unusually sharp. The falling asleep quickly is odd. What do you make of the Tawny Owl that flutters by unnoticed on the second page. Where was that Owl going? Was that Owl leaving a message for Petunia that she finds after Vernon heads for work? Or was that Owl going to Mrs Figg's (did she live in the neighborhood pre-Harry?) or to a yet undisclosed wizard on Privet Drive? And what was the short wizard (possibly Flitwick) who hugs Vernon doing outside of his work building? Very odd. Was it Flitwick--could he have been spying on Vernon? Were Hogwarts' classes cancelled for the day? And was Ted the newscaster Ted Tonks? mhbobbin From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 00:17:16 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:17:16 -0400 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? Message-ID: <011e01c4af27$ab9858d0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115362 charme: Has anyone else noticed the references to Harry's glasses being "missing" when he experiences something mental I'd loosely coin "unusual?" For example, a recent event was in OoP where Harry awoke from the LV's possession in the DoM: "Harry was lying facedown on the floor, his glasses gone..." I also note where several times Harry awoke after having a dream or other more "vivid" likewise experience and had to put ON his glasses. Note this from JKR's 2000 Reader's Digest Article: "She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" I wonder when Harry got glasses? Maybe that "missing time" from when he was taken from GH and deposited on Petunia's doorstep? charme From amycrn4230 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 01:27:13 2004 From: amycrn4230 at yahoo.com (amycrn4230) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:27:13 -0000 Subject: Im confused...Petunia's letter. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115363 JKR: P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :) ****************************************************************** So, It sounds as if JKR is saying that the letter left for Harry was to PETUNIA alone, BUT..... On page 12 of the American Edition, ... "It's the best place for him," said Dumbledore firmly." His aunt and uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older. I've written THEM (emphasis mine) a letter." Did he leave two letters in that basket? One in which Petunia did not share with Vernon? Wonder what it said? Amy C. From ejblack at rogers.com Mon Oct 11 01:54:22 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:54:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: <011e01c4af27$ab9858d0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115364 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > charme: > > Has anyone else noticed the references to Harry's glasses being "missing" > when he experiences something mental I'd loosely coin "unusual?" > Very very good catch! And it could be important; after all think of the stress Rowlings keeps putting on the fact Harry has his mother's eyes. I can't think of how it might work at the moment but I really think you are on to something. Perhaps a play on everyday vision verus mental or magical vision. Harry does seem to be showing hints of vision that goes beyond the physical. Jeanette From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 11 02:15:49 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:15:49 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited - Portrait Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115365 SSSusan: >> Thanks, Dungrollin. Wish it were my original idea, but 'tis not, though I really like it [magic portrait at Godrics Hollow]. I can't imagine any other way that DD could have so quickly found out what was happening at GH. Hmmmmm... What impact does a Fidelius Charm have on a portrait's ability to communicate with an outside party? Could Phineas travel between GP & DD's office because DD told him GP was Order HQ, or does the Fidelius not affect a portrait at all?<< bboyminn: > The portrait of Phineas in Dumbledore's office didn't have to be > told about what was happening at Grimmauld Place because Phineas > IS at Grimmauld Place; he has a protrait there. He had full access > and full view because that house at 12-GP was his home; the home > of his portrait that is. SSSusan: Oh, yeah. Duh! :-| Steve: > One confusing thing about these multiple protraits at multiple > locations, is there only one character for /all/ the portraits, or > one for each portrait? > > In other words, we have two known portraits of Phineas, does that > mean that there are two of him wandering around out there in the > portrait universe? > > And if there are two of him, are they of one mind, each fully > knowing the experiences of the other? > > If there are two of them, and they are not of one mind, but live > completely independent lives, do they occassionally get together > and talk, and when they do, do they alway agree with each other, > or do the get into disagreements? SSSusan: I thought that there was only one of each "character" but I guess now that you ask directly, I'm not sure. I keep thinking of how there was an *empty* frame in the bedroom where Harry was staying at GP, and I took that to mean Phineas was absent, visiting one of his other frames. BUT there were also times when Harry heard sniggering or other sounds, weren't there? As if Phineas was actually there but just didn't want to show himself, perhaps? So I guess I don't know! Siriusly Snapey Susan From feklar at verizon.net Mon Oct 11 02:22:47 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:22:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... References: Message-ID: <006b01c4af39$334d5800$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115366 Something to add to the stew: In Riki Tiki Tavi by Kipling (something which I would bet JRK has read herself or to her kids), the snakes in his stories also had names similar to Nagini: Nag and Nagaina. Feklar From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 11 02:32:45 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:32:45 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115367 DuffyPoo: > > My dear Husband has told me for some time not to get too > > attached to these books as the last two may never make it to the > > store shelves. She's got all the money she and her children, > > probably her children's children could ever want there is no > > real pressing need to 'go to press' on the rest. I also have > > L.M. Montgomery's (Anne of Green Gables author) words in my head > > about how very much she hated writing the last few books because > > she wanted to get on to something else but fans kept pressing > > her for 'more Anne." mhbbobbin: > Alas, there are needs other than financial. The series has brought > financial success to her, beyond anything she (or anyone) could > have imagined. I think her literary legacy matters greatly to her. > Will the books stand the test of time or be seen as a fad? And she > cares greatly for her fan base, not to mention that it might be > time to be done with it. That kind of pressure can be paralyzing, > so I hope it is a spur to her to keep writing. > But I worry that she can not please everyone. She has got to > start tying up loose ends, eliminating beloved characters, > revealing true motivation. Part of the joy of the series comes > from her ambiguous writing style and deliberate misleading of the > reader. We enjoy trying to decipher her clues, trying not to be > blindsided, spinning theory after theory about the remaining > story. THe slow release of the novels have made this series inter- > active. Did Dickens have to cope with that? SSSusan: Did you see the A&E hour-long show on JKR from last year? If you see/hear her talk about who she's writing these books for, I don't think you'd worry quite so much. Yes, she cares about her fans, but this is *Harry's* story -- stated another way, *her* story -- and she has made it pretty clear that no one is going to influence her to alter what she's already determined is coming. Here were her words in that A&E show, which came as she talked about a woman who'd written her, telling her she needed to change her books so they weren't so disturbing. She said she wrote the woman and told her not to read the rest of the books. "I'm not taking dictation here. Do I care about my readers? Absolutely, profoundly. But do I think they should dictate a single word of what I write? No. I am the only one who should be in control of that." This is a story that I believe JKR feels "needs telling." THAT'S what she's working on, and while--who knows?--she might think about what all these millions of people are going to think about X or write about Y, I just believe she really means it when she says she's writing this story for herself. So much of the essentials were already plotted out when she got SS/PS published, and she had no inkling of the following she would acrue. I have no doubt that mhbbobbin is correct that there will be some who won't be pleased with the outcome. But I really don't think she cares *that* much. From the things that she's said [including how she feels about Book 6--how much she's enjoying it], I don't think she's seeing this as drudgery at this point. I really think she wants to tell this story. JMHO Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 11 02:47:22 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:47:22 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115368 HunterGreen: > > When it comes to Neville, I have to agree with Carol in this > > situation, I can't see him being the type to defy a teacher, nor > > do I think it would be appropriate. However, a scene where > > Neville stands up to Snape (beyond the Boggart!Snape scene in > > PoA), would be interesting, and good for him. I think it would > > work better if it happened in a non-classroom scene (however, > > Snape has little reason to bully Neville beyond potions class). Dzeytoun: > I also don't see how a scene outside potions could be arranged. I > guess if Snape became advisor of the DA, it might work. I > certainly hope Dumbledore wouldn't be that silly, however. He's > caused enough problems with his idealistic illusions about Harry > and Snape working together. SSSusan: Yikes! Snape as DA advisor?!? My first reaction was, "Oooooh, bad idea!" Is there anybody out there who could argue that it would be a GOOD idea, though? Just curious, Siriusly Snapey Susan From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 05:37:32 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:37:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115369 > > Patrick chimes in here... > > This is very interesting. In CoS, during the scene where Dumbledore > finds Harry at the Mirror of Erised, Dumbledore mentions > (paraphrase) "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." > > Perhaps in the same way Skeeter becomes "invisible" (as a beetle) > Dumbledore could become "invisible" as a bumblebee. I think it's a > very fitting name, considering his personality, but maybe we SHOULD > be looking a bit harder at his name. > Finwitch: Still, in COS, shortly after the Dual Club, Harry, in search for Justin, hears two Hufflepuffs discuss - they think Harry had *sent* that snake on Justin (while he really did just opposite) - he's hidden in the Invisibility Section of the Hogwarts Library. In POA, a book called the Invisible Book of Invisibility is mentioned. (Shop-keeper complains: cost a fortune and we were never able to find them). So I *don't* think that Dumbledore's ability to become invisible without a cloak has anything at all to do with animagi. With a whole *section* of books about invisibility, I'd say there are *plenty* of other ways. I think Dumbledore casts an invisibility charm on himself to wander around the hallways unseen... Finwitch From greatraven at hotmail.com Mon Oct 11 06:34:42 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:34:42 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Snip> This is a story that I believe JKR feels "needs telling." THAT'S > what she's working on, and while--who knows?--she might think about > what all these millions of people are going to think about X or > write about Y, I just believe she really means it when she says > she's writing this story for herself. So much of the essentials > were already plotted out when she got SS/PS published, and she had > no inkling of the following she would acrue. > > I have no doubt that mhbbobbin is correct that there will be some > who won't be pleased with the outcome. But I really don't think she > cares *that* much. From the things that she's said [including how > she feels about Book 6--how much she's enjoying it], I don't think > she's seeing this as drudgery at this point. I really think she > wants to tell this story. > > JMHO > Siriusly Snapey Susan Sue: Quite right! (Also MHO!) And isn't this what makes the best novels so very good? That the author is essentially writing for him/herself, because it's a story they need to get out of them? This one cares about her story and her characters and she is going to write the story till it's told. She has told her fans, in advance, that there will be seven books, no more, no less, and that it's been planned out since the start. It's not going to be re-written because someone complains. And IMHO, the series will become a classic, not a fad. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 06:34:41 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:34:41 -0000 Subject: Im confused...Petunia's letter. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amycrn4230" wrote: > So, It sounds as if JKR is saying that the letter left for Harry was > to PETUNIA alone, BUT..... > On page 12 of the American Edition, ... > "It's the best place for him," said Dumbledore firmly." His aunt and > uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older. I've > written THEM (emphasis mine) a letter." > > Did he leave two letters in that basket? One in which Petunia did not > share with Vernon? Wonder what it said? > > Amy C. bboyminn: The letter is for Petunia because it is Petunia who shares common blood with Harry, therefore it is Petunia that must be convinced to take Harry in and thereby seal the protection charm. Petunia may have shared the information with Vernon, but ultimately the letter is about and to Petunia. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From greatraven at hotmail.com Mon Oct 11 06:42:08 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:42:08 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, "but" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > -> > > Leah: > > As an aside, the Fates were also known as "The Weird Sisters" - > > perhaps Nagini is the animagus form of Celestina Warbeck! > > > > Valky: > Cute! *chuckle*, I am just thinking that perhaps Jo introduced us to > the Weird Sisters to get us thinking about the fates. > If Lachesis is the third sister what are the names of the other two? Sue: Hi, Valky! The Weird Sisters (as in Wyrd, Fate, of course) were the three witches in MACBETH. This is quite probably the reason for the name of the WW rock group. One of the things I love about the HP series, all these cultural references which children will either go and look up or will, eventually, come across and say, "Hey, I read this ages ago in HP! Great!" From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Sun Oct 10 23:19:08 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:19:08 -0400 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, "but" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4169C36C.4080608@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115373 > Valky: > Cute! *chuckle*, I am just thinking that perhaps Jo introduced us to > the Weird Sisters to get us thinking about the fates. > If Lachesis is the third sister what are the names of the other two? The other two Fates are Clotho, who spins the thread of life, and Atropos, who cuts it. And, since we're on the subject of fate and I'm feeling silly, perhaps Nagini is the animagus form of Professor Trelawney. (Somehow I can just see Nagini slithering up to Harry and hissing "WOOO! Death! Destruction! I'm all freaky and cosmic!") - Gabriel Fey From hautbois1 at comcast.net Sun Oct 10 23:45:45 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:45:45 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: <001801c4af21$57bea530$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115374 > charme: > "He reared high from the floor and struck once, twice, three > times..." (I have a US Scholastic edition of OoP) > > Maybe it's coincidence, but wouldn't the "three bites" possibly > mean a Runespoor (Fantastic Beasts) instead? Or is there canon > I missed which says Patrick here... If Harry were seeing through the eyes of a Runespoor, wouldn't we have gotten 3 views of the bites? I think it's have to be Nagini...why would Harry have a mental attachment to another snake (one without an attachment to LV) Patrick From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 07:00:40 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:00:40 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Two wizards (apart from Barman Tom who reappears in PoA and P-p-p- > Professor Quirrel, whose presence it turns out later has huge > significance) approach Harry in the Leaky Cauldron on the occasion > of him first visiting it with Hagrid: one of whom is Doris Crockford. > The other wizard present is, of course, Daedulus Diggle - Member of > OoP and hugely indiscreet eccentric person (sounds like DD with his > hair properly let down and beard unfurled). co-incidence or what? > > Just who IS Doris Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter? Geoff: Remember that Dedalus Diggle got a previous (rather disparaging) mention in PS from Professor McGonagall and is also revealed in OOTP as a member of the order; he is one of the group who come to Privet Drive to take Harry to Grimmauld Place. He doesn't get much more of a mention (so far) but there are also Elphias Doge and Hestia Jones who seem to be in this kind of situation. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 11 00:17:22 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:17:22 -0400 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) References: Message-ID: <004701c4af27$b02952a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115376 >>Doddiemoe: I just had an awful thought...what if everyone Molly Weasley saw dead in the bogart scene in OOP actually died in subsequent books? They would definitely be a target due to Harry's relationship with them. (Look at how LV used Sirius.) Not to mention Ginny's having been possessed by the memory of Tom Riddle in COS.<< Kethryn - Well, if JKR does kill off the Weasley children, not only will I be upset that she killed off some of the best characters in the book, but I will be hugely upset at what I will see as a cop out. Ho - hum, kill the hubby and most of the children...funny, doesn't Saving Private Ryan start something along those lines? Or, in other words, that's a plot that's been dragged through the mud a couple thousand times. I will agree, however, that the odds are stacked against the Weasley family surviving intact (which sucks cause I do like them, even that git, Percy) simply because there are so many of them floating around, either in the Order, working for the Ministry, or being Harry's friend (and all sundry combinations therein). How wrong would it be to start a pool on who survives and who doesn't? Personally, I have this feeling that McGonagall is a goner but it could also be Lupin or one of the elder Weasley children. You know, removing Harry's support group one person at a time... Kethryn who is rather shocked at herself for thinking like Voldemort for even half a second there... From hautbois1 at comcast.net Mon Oct 11 01:31:41 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 01:31:41 -0000 Subject: I'm confused...Petunia's letter. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115377 > JKR: "However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters > sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia > ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject." Amy says: > Did he leave two letters in that basket? One in which Petunia did > not share with Vernon? Wonder what it said? I think what JKR is saying is that the letter about Harry that was in the basket was the last letter DD sent to BOTH Dursleys. Since the, however, it seems DD has been in communicado with Petunia... Patrick From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Oct 10 22:31:30 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (karen_lvssr) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:31:30 -0000 Subject: Pureblood (was Snape and Malfoy related? (was: Snape and Lucius ages) In-Reply-To: <41674C6A.2060003@superluminal.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Fey wrote: > > Sandy wrote: > >snip> > > I know that at some periods/places in U.S., they even had > > specific words for people with various proportions of black blood in > > them, but even if it was only 1/32, they were still considered to be > > black (or so Mark Twain tells us in Pudd'nhead Wilson), and I think > > the pureblood maniacs have a similar mindset, they just don't bother > > to do the math to figure out the fraction. > > Gabriel now: > > You're quite correct about words for people of any African descent. I've > never heard them used in real life myself, but as someone with an > obsessive love of both Anne Rice books (which have portions set in the > time when the words were used) and language, I tend to remember them. > They're rather ridiculous words, like "quadroon" (1/4) or "octoroon." (1/8) > > I doubt that, in the WW, they go to such an extent as to coin multiple > terms for what is basically the same prejudice - "mudblood" seems like a > general enough term to use on anyone, and we haven't really seen any > others in the books, unless I've missed something. However, it does seem > like the blood obsession is virulent enough to make someone half-blooded > if, as you suggested, their great*5 grandfather was a Muggle. > snip> > > Karen trying to jump into this conversation: Gabriel, the term that was used for persons of mixed parentage in the Southern U.S. was Mulatto...and it was used as late as the late 60's. The two examples you gave "Quadroon" and "Octoroon", were very, very old terms, used mostly in the deep south. I am from Virginia and never heard the terms you used, but I did hear mulatto. Anyway....I wanted to jump in here and ask a question that has been floating around in my brain for a while. Some posters keep dancing around about Lucius Malfoy being full blood or not, and I am wondering if he could have himself, or his father, fathered a child out of wedlock from an affair with either a muggle woman or a half-witch? We do know that these relationships do happen via canon, and I know there is no canon to support this, but because of the great pains that JKR went about explaining how rich and snobbish the Riddles were, I can't help think that she may be giving us a clue about something . "Nobody wasted their breath pretending to feel very sad about the Riddles, for they had been most unpopular. Elderly Mr. and Mrs. Riddle had been rich, snobbish and rude, and their grown-up son, Tom, had been even more so." (GoF, UK ed., pgs. 7-8) The one very rich wizarding family that we the readers know about are the Malfoys, and they are also, 'most unpopular, rich, snobbish and rude.'--this is the connection I see between the two. It hit me that if we didn't know she was writing about the Riddles, we would have thought that she was writing about the Malfoys in the passage above. Now, we know, or think we know that TMR's father left his mother because he found out she was a witch. But how does he (TMR) know that? He was placed in an orphanage without knowing either of his parents. Could he have come up with that scenario on his own? And why would a woman whose husband had left her because of who or what she was, name her only child after the scoundrel? I would want to wipe him off the map, not burden my only child with such a person's name. And why would she give birth at a muggle hospital if she was a witch, why not go to the nearest wizard hospital? If he left her before she gave birth she had time to get to the wizard hospital. It doesn't make since to me that she would have hung around if she was a witch, she could have apparated anywhere she needed to go. My thoughts on this matter comes from the Jane Austin book, Sence and Sensibilities, It's listed on JKR's web site, so I think I may be on to something. In the book there are a number of "upper class" males who like to fool around with the "lower class" females. One of the characters even falls in love with someone "below" his social standing and is forced by his family to turn away from her or else lose his inheritance. Now, what if this very same thing happened to TMR's parents? What if TMR senior's parents threatened to disinherit Tom if he didn't leave his wife? What if these two were actually in love at one time? That would explain why she would have hung around in the muggle world and named her baby after the man she was in love with. It just seems to fit. Now if this same or a similar scenario happened with one of the senior Malfoy's; threat of losing inheritance because of relationship with someone "unsuitable", that could give us a HBP aka HB Malfoy, but the Malfoy's have kept this "dirty"secret hidden. No canon, I know, I know. Some posters heads may explode because of my theory, but I would like to hear back from others on this. From hautbois1 at comcast.net Mon Oct 11 06:28:32 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:28:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115379 > Finwitch: > So I *don't* think that Dumbledore's ability to become invisible > without a cloak has anything at all to do with animagi. With a whole *section* of books about invisibility, I'd say there are *plenty* of other ways. I think Dumbledore casts an invisibility charm on himself to wander around the hallways unseen... Patrick here... Though I think it's likely that there are ways to become invisible without a cloak (that section of the library probably has many.) it seems too convenient that we've already seen Rita Skeeter "become invisible" by becoming a beetle (she's now set the precedent). JKR seems to have carefully thoughtout nomenclature in these books. Dumbledore means "bumblebee". Also, if becoming invisible by charms was so easy/popular that there are books enough to fill a section of a library, why bother with an invisibility cloak? They're rare and expensive. Who needs that hassle when many learned wizards could probably perform the charm on themselves. Granted, Dumbledore is probably the best wizard, but I can't believe that EVERY "possible charm" in the books is out of the reach of most wizards. Unless Dumbledore's invisibility charm plays some big role later, I don't think that will be the case. It's seems like a major deus ex machina. We've seen animagi, we've been warmed up to them, and now "Woops, Dumbledore's an animagus!". That just seems more likely to me. My 2 knuts... Patrick. From cherlouize at aol.com Mon Oct 11 06:13:01 2004 From: cherlouize at aol.com (cherlouize at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:13:01 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's animagus, invisibility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115380 Finwitch: <> Greetings - I'm a long-time lurker who, for some odd reason, felt like chiming in. I've been wondering about Dumbledore's invisibility myself. Specifically, I wonder if there are any methods of invisibility available that would prevent detection by means other than direct visual contact, e.g. the Marauder's Map. We know that Animagi show up on the map with their human names. So even if DD were a bumblebee Animagus, he'd show up as himself. And we know that Harry shows up on the MM, even while wearing his cloak. Perhaps it's possible to make oneself unplottable (as has been mentioned vis a vis Sirius & owl post), thereby also rendering onself invisible. On a related note, how common do you suppose magical devices like the Map are in the WW? The MM was unique in that it plotted Hogwarts, its environs, and its inhabitants. But similar devices may be commonly used by Magical Law Enforcement, for example. Or by the mothers of far-roaming youngsters. Perhaps DD is in possession of such a device that tells him what Harry is up to. I've always wondered what he meant when he told Harry that he had been "watching [him], more closely than [he] can have imagined." (Sorry, don't have my books here, can't give page reference). Any theories on this? Pax et bonum, Cher From watersign21 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 04:08:51 2004 From: watersign21 at yahoo.com (laura) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:08:51 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115381 SSSusan: > Yikes! Snape as DA advisor?!? My first reaction was, "Oooooh, > bad idea!" Is there anybody out there who could argue that it > would be a GOOD idea, though? As a member of the OotP Snape is in essence a member of DA, he has just not yet been "cordially invited", so why not advise? I don't think it is that much of a far-fetched idea. I say it could happen. The man is trusted by DD, he is a part of the OotP. Snape is serving a higher purpose than has yet been written out. As for right now Snape and DA are are on the wrong sides of the same side. Perhaps at some time in the near future, they will heed DD advice and stand united. Just a Thought... Laura B. From redlena_web at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 03:12:22 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:12:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: <011e01c4af27$ab9858d0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115382 << > charme: > > I also note where several times Harry awoke after having a dream or other > more "vivid" likewise experience and had to put ON his glasses. >> RedLena: Many of Harry's dreams from which he awakes are dreams he's had while sleeping in bed at night. Most people who wear glasses remove their glasses when they go to bed. As such, if they awake from a dream, they must put their glasses back on again if they wish to see anything. I think you're really reaching if you're trying to find any deeper meaning than that. << > charme: > Note this from JKR's 2000 Reader's Digest Article: > > "She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that > an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand > that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" >> RedLena: Harry's glasses are a primary part of his characterization. They are a visible reminder that in many ways he's just a normal boy with flaws, in this case weak eyesight. I can understand why JKR would be upset that the dust jacket didn't depict them. --RedLena From lady_tenou_haruka at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 11 03:16:09 2004 From: lady_tenou_haruka at yahoo.ca (Tenou) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 03:16:09 -0000 Subject: Im confused...Petunia's letter. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115383 Amy C. thus spoke: > So, It sounds as if JKR is saying that the letter left for Harry > was to PETUNIA alone, BUT..... On page 12 of the American Edition, > ... "It's the best place for him," said Dumbledore firmly." > His aunt and uncle will be able to explain everything to him when > he's older. I've written THEM (emphasis mine) a letter." > > Did he leave two letters in that basket? One in which Petunia did > not share with Vernon? Wonder what it said? Hi, before I state my reply, just want to say hi and that I just joined, so please, be tolerant and if not tolerant, kind. The quote 'It's the best... I've written them a letter.' (pg 15 UK edition) may refer only to the Dursleys filling Harry in on who/what he is. There may have been another letter addressed to Petunia alone with the letter to 'The Dursleys' in the basket. The sentence is written so that it could mean that there were a dozen letters in the basket but only one telling the Dursleys to explain everything to Harry. At least, that's how I read it. However, is it possible that, for example, when Harry was, say, five-years-old, Vernon and/or Petunia decided that they didn't want to keep Harry with them? Getting ready to ship Harry off to an orphanage, Petunia receives a letter - possibly containing some dire threat - from Dumbledore which made her reconsider her plans for Harry and convinces Vernon to do the same. Vernon (pg 40 UK ed.) does not hide the fact that he 'should've done this a long time ago' and that they had considered sending him to an orphanage. Sounds like they've been considering these possibilities for some time now. So there may have only been one letter in the basket and later, when circumstances changed, another letter was sent to Petunia alone containing what I assume was some sort of threat - or more likely, in Dumbledore's case a promise - of what would happen to them if they didn't heed him. So that's my theory, and I hope it wasn't too painful for everyone. Ten'ou From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 11 02:36:54 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:36:54 -0400 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? References: <011e01c4af27$ab9858d0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <005701c4af3b$2e2c4140$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115384 >>charme: Has anyone else noticed the references to Harry's glasses being "missing" when he experiences something mental I'd loosely coin "unusual?" For example, a recent event was in OoP where Harry awoke from the LV's possession in the DoM: "Harry was lying facedown on the floor, his glasses gone..." I also note where several times Harry awoke after having a dream or other more "vivid" likewise experience and had to put ON his glasses. Note this from JKR's 2000 Reader's Digest Article: "She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" I wonder when Harry got glasses? Maybe that "missing time" from when he was taken from GH and deposited on Petunia's doorstep? << Kethryn now - Speaking from the viewpoint (no pun intended) of someone who is cursed with glasses (actually contacts, thank you modern science!), being without my contacts or glasses leaves me excessively vulnerable. I literally cannot see without them...not unless whatever I am looking for is less than 3 inches from my nose which makes it a real pain in the butt to find my glasses or contacts when I loose them. And when I loose my glasses or contacts, I tend to go a bit mental til I find said objects. That is a part of the curse of myopia, I am afraid. Of course, since I bear that particular burden, I can sympathize and relate to Harry a lot. I do tend to wonder, however, why they don't call him "four eyes" ~represses a shudder from the horrid memories that particular phrase conjures up... Again, speaking as a myopic person, I got my glasses in the third grade (both my parents have myopia as well) so I always took it for granted that Harry would have gotten them at about the same time. That means he would have been about...uhhh math is so not my strong suit...8 I think. So 8 to 11, three years to get used to it but lessee for me it's been contacts/glasses for 20 years and I am still not used to it. Circling back to the original point, though, I do think that his glasses emphasize his vulnerability, especially as he has not yet had his glasses long enough to learn to ignore the debilitating effects, to set aside that particular vulnerability...but it is odd that he is not all that self-conscious of having glasses...I still am and I am an adult, for crying out loud. Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lavaluvn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 07:40:17 2004 From: lavaluvn at yahoo.com (lavaluvn) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:40:17 -0000 Subject: Book 6 death/ War mode/ Another "husband's theory" In-Reply-To: <002101c4aea8$4b5dbe30$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115385 Having seen a couple other HPFGU members mention their "dear husband's" theories, I had to pass along my own's recent pronouncement, spurred by the media hype of a Book 6 death. It is apparently, based on the war movie model (a la John Wayne WWII), a genre I'm not much into myself, but I thought it might be an interesting addition to the discussions,(if only to chuckle). Anyway, it goes as follows: The next major death will be McGonagall. The characters and their model counterparts: Dumbledore=battle-tested general/colonel, loved by his troops, but somewhat remote McGonagall= strict sergeant that distills order in his/her troops, keeps them together as a unit Snape= whinging lieutenant that may or may not be passing secrets to the Nazis/enemy. So the theory goes, McGonagall dies at the end of 6, leaving the world looking bleak and disorganized. Kids (troops) must begin take control of their own destiny until mid Book 7 when Dumbledore dies (from a plot of Malfoy and Voldemort) and Snape and Harry must in the end must work together to defeat VOldemort. Various sidekicks may also buy it along the way. Snape ascends to take over leadership of Hogwarts. So whad do you think? Too much wine and too many bad movies? I personally think Snape could only be redeemed through death /self- sacrifice, but maybe that's a little harsh.... -Andromeda From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 08:13:51 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:13:51 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115386 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: As much as I understand him, I still think that we should dare > putting the blame on his shoulders when he deserves it. > > Del Finwith: Now let's see this - now that I really had time to think it trough. (I think I could do with a reread as well, but I need to visit library first...) I'll try this approach of subjective perception: First of all, I'm not even certain Harry even was angry at Seamus, just the mother. So first Seamus tells (Dean) that 1) His mother believes all those lies/rumours of Harry. 2) His mother tried to keep Seamus from coming to Hogwarts. (an act before knowing the truth, and this is the OWL year) 3) Apparently she also refers to the Daily Prophet rather than her own son. Now, how does Harry interpret this? He has lots of experience about people who believe nasty lies about him/others. Most obvious example is Aunt Marge. (When Harry finally lost control, he *corrected* all the lies Marge believed about his parents!). Other Dursleys at least seem to do the same, and pay no heed to Harry - not so much as giving the chance to explain. Wizarding World also has lots of people who have stamped Harry as a liar (just like Aunt Marge, refusing to believe Harry who IS telling the truth), so much so that 'story worthy of Harry Potter' means a BIG lie (says Hermione), but apparently at least Cornelius Fudge and Percy Weasley have that on him - refusing to believe Voldemort's return. In addition, Dursleys also try prevent Harry from coming to Hogwarts. (they do, however, take Dudley's say over just about ANYTHING). So in Harry's mind, this testimony from Seamus makes his mother as bad if not *worse* than Dursleys. In effect, very much like Dursleys are to Harry. Since Seamus defies his mother, Harry assumes he now feels the same about her as Harry has felt about Dursleys all his life. Empathy question: How would Harry take it if someone insulted the Dursleys? Answer: Possibly make him very happy. It DID happen when Hagrid gave Harry his letter (belittling Vernon and giving Dudley a pig-tail), and the memory of *that* was the first one happy enough to produce *something* from his wand during his Patronus-lessons. Harry's not about to let Dementor take Dudley though! So in effect, Harry - by insulting Seamus' mother IS answering the question: His anger over such belief should tell it's not true. It's also anger for her to treat Seamus so - (attempting to prevent his coming to Hogwarts). Harry doesn't see how defying parents/guardians in order to come to Hogwarts could be a problem once you get there (he's ALWAYS doing it and having only a 'how to get out of Dursleys and into Hogwarts' as a problem). Now let's get back to the Question Seamus asks Harry: He, as *everyone* in Hogwarts (except for the first years) know that Cedric Diggory died during the third task. Dumbledore told them of the matter: a) Voldemort murdered Cedric. b) Harry brought Cedric's body back to Diggorys at the risk of his life. The question is: Do you believe Dumbledore or not? If you do, you need not ask about Voldemort's return. NOW, question for Fudge&others: if you don't believe Dumbledore, how are you going to explain Cedric's death? Blame Harry, perhaps, just like Dursleys do with just about everything going WRONG? While Harry blames himself for suggesting they take the prize together for Hogwarts, he's no more guilty than Sirius for persuading James to switch Secret-Keepers... While it is proper to ask before acting even if you believe the other party is guilty (as Harry does for Draco and for Sirius) - well, considering Sirius' response and the result, I'm not so sure if answering is the best action. Besides, with most WW considering Harry a liar, how could he *ever* convince anyone he's not, except by getting angry at anyone who wrongly accuses him, and correcting these lies whenever there's someone to confront about it (namely Umbridge)? And really, Harry can't answer, because he doesn't know what to say. While he has perfect right to expect at least to be given a chance to speak for himself, he doesn't expect it. Conclusion: Harry and Seamus both misunderstood each other. Mind you, as far as i can see, Seamus is the only one of Harry's Dorm-mates who believed ANY of those rumours. (Enough to be confused, not enough to be set in it, I'd say). Dean says he never told his parents and they don't know anything, being Muggles. He's not saying anything about what *he* thinks. (still, between the lines I read this: Hey Ron, it's Seamus' *mother* who has the problem, not Seamus - and I believe Harry). Neville then: First he says what his Grandmother thinks of those rumours. (Between the lines he says to Ron: It's Seamus' *mother* with the problem and to Seamus: How can your mother believe such rubbish? I understand very well if Harry insults such person.) Then he states firmly: "We believe Harry". (How come you two didn't come to think of saying out loud what YOU think? Don't you think Harry needs to be told after all that nasty stuff in the papers?) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 08:35:40 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:35:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: <005701c4af3b$2e2c4140$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115387 "Kethryn": > Circling back to the original point, though, I do think that his glasses emphasize his vulnerability, especially as he has not yet had his glasses long enough to learn to ignore the debilitating effects, to set aside that particular vulnerability...but it is odd that he is not all that self-conscious of having glasses...I still am and I am an adult, for crying out loud. Finwitch: They also serve to emphasize how badly Dursleys treat him, considering he had *taped* them instead of Dursleys having them fixed at an optician. I need to *change* my glasses about every second year, and while I am able to see without them, I'd get a headache or at least become very tired - either because I need to change the lenses or wasn't able to find them! In my case, having the lenses properly attached and the frames keeping their shape is *also* important... oh and at least once I've experienced that the lense fell off the frames... can you imagine the scene of Harry's other lense falling off and into his potion or some other inconvenient place? Finwitch From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 11 08:59:28 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:59:28 -0400 Subject: Im confused...Petunia's letter. Message-ID: <002e01c4af70$9dfedca0$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115388 JKR: P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :) ****************************************************************** Amy C. "So, It sounds as if JKR is saying that the letter left for Harry was to PETUNIA alone, BUT..... On page 12 of the American Edition, ... "It's the best place for him," said Dumbledore firmly." His aunt and uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older. I've written THEM (emphasis mine) a letter." Did he leave two letters in that basket? One in which Petunia did not share with Vernon? Wonder what it said?" DuffyPoo: My Canadian version says "he took *a* letter out of his cloak, tucked it inside Harry's blankets." This was just after Hagrid had given Harry to DD. So, unless there were to letters inside of one envelope?! I do find it interesting though, IIRC, that the letter in the medium-not-to-be-named the address on the envelope I think was clearly Mr. and Mrs. V. Dursley. As I said before, I think this is a cover-up answer because she knows she is wrong - forgot that letter about the flying car and any other 'bad Harry' letters tha may have been sent - and wants us to believe the original letter was addressed only to Petunia because it now serves her purposes better, for the rest of the story. Just to question...several have mentioned Harry in a basket when he was placed on the doorstep. My version has no basket just a bundle of blankets. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 11 08:59:06 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:59:06 -0400 Subject: Dean Thomas (was Re: The Hand of Glory) Message-ID: <002a01c4af70$910f8d50$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115389 >mhbobbin: " I hope we see it again. There's alot you can do with a creepy independent-minded hand. Dean Thomas' boggart is a severed hand. Dean is also, I believe, a Half-Blood. And an artist who offers to forge Harry's permission slip in PoA." DuffyPoo: Dean Tomas is Muggle-born, as far as the books are concerned, at least, as far as the end of book five. We know that JKR intended for him to be half-blood, but it was never brought into the story. As the story stands (for those who only read the books not all the rest of the blather) he is Muggle-born. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 11 08:58:48 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:58:48 -0400 Subject: Doris Crockford Message-ID: <002601c4af70$8782a2e0$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115390 Macfotuk asked: "Just who IS Dorid Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter?" DuffyPoo: Dedalus Diggle is a member of the OotP is he not? He was there in the picture of the original order and was part of the Advance Guard that brought HP to GP. I think Doris Crockford is in the Madam Marsh camp. Nobody really, just someone HP sees a couple of times that is used to show just how small the WW is. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 09:09:13 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:09:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115391 > > Patrick here... > > Though I think it's likely that there are ways to become invisible > without a cloak (that section of the library probably has many.) it > seems too convenient that we've already seen Rita Skeeter "become > invisible" by becoming a beetle (she's now set the precedent). JKR > seems to have carefully thoughtout nomenclature in these books. > Dumbledore means "bumblebee". Finwitch: Either he is or he isn't. Personally, I'd be surprised for a great wizard and ex-transfiguration teacher NOT to be animagus. I'm just saying that his ability to become invisible without a cloak does NOT point to that. Patrick: > Also, if becoming invisible by charms was so easy/popular that there > are books enough to fill a section of a library, why bother with an > invisibility cloak? They're rare and expensive. Who needs that > hassle when many learned wizards could probably perform the charm on > themselves. Granted, Dumbledore is probably the best wizard, but I > can't believe that EVERY "possible charm" in the books is out of the > reach of most wizards. Finwitch: Some, if not most of those charms have to do with *objects*, I'd say. You know, like the invisibility booster in the Weasley car? (Keeps getting broken, doesn't it?) Seems like a common thing to do in order to hide from Muggles. There's also invisible ink: how to make it, how to reveal it, how to make writings show only if you have the correct password etc. Some of them would have to do with invisible animals (like Thestrals that are invisible to all but those who have seen death, or those of whose hair they make those invisibility cloaks of). And some books may well have to do with invisibility cloaks. And then those untraceable/unplottable things, what ever charms there are to keeping Hogwarts hidden. Few Charms probably in books of that section: Fidelius Charm (Very important already, and we know that you can peek in and NOT see anyone protected by this unless the Secret Keeper tells you they're there!) The spell Moody put on Harry as they were leaving for the flight. Not exactly invisible, but unnoticed anyway. --- Also, I'd say it's also important to know how to become visible again! After all, if you're invisible, you're NOT going to get any shopping done etc. And the invisibility spell most likely isn't easy. (Maybe it's exclusively in the Invisible Book of Invisibility? You'd have to find the BOOK first, and THEN learn to read it!) And if Moody's eye can see trough most of these, there's probably a difficult spell to charm glasses to show you invisible things... And while a charm was first thing to mind (potion would be too troublesome, but I think invisible ink goes for that manner) it's also possible to be a special ability - like animagi, or parseltongue - something Dumbledore simply can do. (Imagine two young brothers, the other one, with his born ability to become invisible keeping going on hide, whereas the other is set with a duty to find him... or maybe they both could become invisible and hid from their parents after breaking a window or something?) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 09:14:28 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:14:28 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: <002601c4af70$8782a2e0$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115392 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > Macfotuk asked: > "Just who IS Dorid Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter?" > > DuffyPoo: > Dedalus Diggle is a member of the OotP is he not? He was there in the picture of the original order and was part of the Advance Guard that brought HP to GP. > Finwitch: He's also the one who a) bumbs into Vernon (I think it was him) and then *hugs* him, b) bows to Harry in a shop and later at the Leaky Cauldron. If I recall, he's the one setting up those fireworks as well, much to McGonagalls annoyance. Wearing violet and being happy, mostly. Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 09:52:21 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:52:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: <005701c4af3b$2e2c4140$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115393 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: Kethryn: > Of course, since I bear that particular burden, I can sympathize and relate to Harry a lot. I do tend to wonder, however, why they don't call him "four eyes" ~represses a shudder from the horrid memories that particular phrase conjures up... > Geoff: Perhaps a bit OT, but with reference to name calling, the term "four eyes" has dropped a bit out of fashion in the UK. I think the wearing of glasses is now equated a little bit with being a "geek". From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 10:12:31 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:12:31 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > > First of all, hi everyone. I'm a new member of this group and may I > say this is exactly what I've been looking for as a huge HP fan. > > I have a theory regarding DD's sparks when Harry tells him that LV > took some of his blood. In SS when Hagrid first meets Harry and tells > him about LV he says he doesn't think LV dead for he is not enough > human. What if by taking Harry's blood he becomes "more human"? This > would mean that as a human he could be killed for good. > > jlnbtr mhbobbin: Do you mean his "triumphant gleam"? (Or tell me about "sparks" so to be sure I'm on the same page.) I think that you are on to something. Hagrid says early in SS that " ...he [LV] didn't have enough human left in him to die" which supports that theory. On the other hand, Hagrid is best at being a source of repeating general views of the WW rather than real knowledge. Now, why didn't DD try to kill LV in his duel with him in the MoM-- (not obviously when Harry was possessed by LV) if he thought that LV might now be slightly mortal? Does DD really put that much faith in a prophecy that indicates Harry must be the Vanquisher? Hasn't DD worked to that point to convince Harry (and us) that predicting the future is at best an inexact skill? mhbobbin From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 11 10:30:39 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:30:39 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115395 Vmonte wrote: I think the Hand of Glory belongs to Voldemort. NOt possible, I'm afraid.The Hand of Glory had to be the right-hand of a murderer, which would fit Voldy. However, it had to be severed from the corpse while still hanging from the gallows, preferably during the the eclipse of the moon. Various other unpleasant things were then done to it and when it was ready, candles were fitted between the fingers, or the fingers were themselves lit. The hand then had the effect of rendering the bearer invisible and also opened all locks, however strong. It can cast a spell over the inhabitants of a place, rendering them insensible and motionless. Rather a nasty thing to have in Draco's hands, if he has indeed gotit. Could be a means of V. getting into Hogwarts without a fight. And sorry to disagree with Steve, but I think that when JKR said "Draco got the Hand" that was a Freudian slip on her part. She could just as easily have said "Draco saw the Hand". Sylvia (who would recommend reading The Nurse's Story in The Ingoldsby Legends for a really scary description of the Hand in use. From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 11 11:52:45 2004 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:52:45 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416A740D.1030900@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115396 ladyramkin2000 wrote: > The hand > then had the effect of rendering the bearer invisible and also opened > all locks, however strong. "digger" (short and to the point...apologies in advance to list elves for brevity) Ah HA! So thats how Harry will get into the locked room in the MoM....... We all know he is going to go there at some time, and we know the hand is more than passing scenery. Lets hope it works better than Sirius's knife. Thanks! From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 12:16:19 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 6 death/ War mode/ Another "husband's theory" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041011121619.15396.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115397 lavaluvn wrote: Having seen a couple other HPFGU members mention their "dear husband's" theories, I had to pass along my own's recent pronouncement, spurred by the media hype of a Book 6 death. It is apparently, based on the war movie model (a la John Wayne WWII), a genre I'm not much into myself, but I thought it might be an interesting addition to the discussions,(if only to chuckle). Anyway, it goes as follows: The next major death will be McGonagall. The characters and their model counterparts: Dumbledore=battle-tested general/colonel, loved by his troops, but somewhat remote McGonagall= strict sergeant that distills order in his/her troops, keeps them together as a unit Snape= whinging lieutenant that may or may not be passing secrets to the Nazis/enemy. So the theory goes, McGonagall dies at the end of 6, leaving the world looking bleak and disorganized. Kids (troops) must begin take control of their own destiny until mid Book 7 when Dumbledore dies (from a plot of Malfoy and Voldemort) and Snape and Harry must in the end must work together to defeat VOldemort. Various sidekicks may also buy it along the way. Snape ascends to take over leadership of Hogwarts. So whad do you think? Too much wine and too many bad movies? I personally think Snape could only be redeemed through death /self- sacrifice, but maybe that's a little harsh.... -Andromeda Griffin782002 now: I have little idea about old war movies, but I can't imagine M.G. dying in the sixth book. I am really worried about Ron. After the O.W.L. exam in Divination that joke "die Ron die" seemed to me not very innocent. And I also worry about his family, he nearly lost his father in OotP. It sounds cruel but she already done that (assuming that Sirius has gone for good). Griffin782002 who is not so sure if we should use other movies or books to make predictions about H.P. (I thought D.D. would die in OotP) :-\ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tinainfay at msn.com Mon Oct 11 12:20:44 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:20:44 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" > wrote: > > Macfotuk asked: > > "Just who IS Dorid Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter?" > > > > DuffyPoo: > > Dedalus Diggle is a member of the OotP is he not? He was there in > the picture of the original order and was part of the Advance Guard > that brought HP to GP. > > > > Finwitch: > > He's also the one who a) bumbs into Vernon (I think it was him) and > then *hugs* him, b) bows to Harry in a shop and later at the Leaky > Cauldron. > > If I recall, he's the one setting up those fireworks as well, much to > McGonagalls annoyance. > > Wearing violet and being happy, mostly. > > Finwitch Tina now: Diggle, of course, sounds like giggle. He is a giggle personified! I just love him. I agree that he is the one to hug Vernon Dursley (ick). He and Doris are both so giddy - it is cute. Not sure we'll see much action from them but they dear. Although their roles have been small I would hate to see either checked off of LV's list. In PS/SS Harry is portrayed as such sad, lonely, desperate thing (early in the book, that is) that we naturally love them because they love Harry. Have a great day! ~tina From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 12:29:12 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:29:12 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115399 >jlnbtr wrote: > > First of all, hi everyone. I'm a new member of this group and may I > say this is exactly what I've been looking for as a huge HP fan. > > I have a theory regarding DD's sparks when Harry tells him that LV > took some of his blood. In SS when Hagrid first meets Harry and tells > him about LV he says he doesn't think LV dead for he is not enough > human. What if by taking Harry's blood he becomes "more human"? This > would mean that as a human he could be killed for good. Neri: Welcome jlnbtr! I like the simplicity of your theory very much, and this is why I'm going to complicate it a bit ;-). First, your theory doesn't answer JKR's second question in the Edinburgh Book Festival ? Why didn't DD try to kill LV in the MoM battle? So let me suggest an improvement: LV can now be killed because he took human blood into his veins, but he can be killed only by the human of which his blood he had used, namely Harry. So this explains nicely the gleam in DD's eyes: he realized that LV had just fulfilled the prophecy by his own actions. Again! Hmm. I've always suspected it would be a newbie in his first post who will finally give a satisfying explanation for the gleam in DD eyes ;-) Another thing I like in your theory: in the end of SS/PS (Ch. 17) Harry asks DD: "Yes, sir. Well, Voldemort's going to try other ways of coming back, isn't he? I mean, he hasn't gone, has he?" And DD answers: "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. Nevertheless, Harry, while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time ? and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power." Personally I always assumed when reading this passage that LV cannot be killed because he is vapor. But your theory suggests a different explanation: LV could not be killed even BRFORE he became vapor, because in one of his "experiments" he traded his humanity for immortality, and this is why the rebound AK didn't kill him in Godric's Hollow, thought it should have done it. And this explains another thing that has bugged me: why does DD say here that the only way to stop LV is to delay his return to power again and again? This doesn't fit with the prophecy, which claims that LV can be eliminated for good. But your theory makes it fit: in this stage DD knows LV is immortal, so he can't see how he would ever be killed, and delaying his return to power is the only strategy he can think of. But once LV made himself human and mortal again, DD regained his belief in the prophecy. And how did DD know what experiment LV had conducted and what had he traded for what? Well, maybe his alchemistry set told him, but I like a different explanation better: Severus Snape, the young and na?ve Dark Arts expert, was LV's assistant in this experiment. Or, a more horrible thought, what if Severus was LV's guinea pig, in a pilot experiment that went very wrong? This explains why Snape hates LV so much that he switched sides. Yes, I like this theory better the more I think about it. It still needs a lot of work, like explaining the connection with the sacrifice protection and the mind link and the power that the dark lord knows not (humanity?) but I think it's defiantly worth the effort. Do you have more ideas, jlnbtr? Neri From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 11 13:19:30 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:19:30 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115400 SSSusan: > > Yikes! Snape as DA advisor?!? My first reaction was, "Oooooh, > > bad idea!" Is there anybody out there who could argue that it > > would be a GOOD idea, though? Laura B.: > As a member of the OotP Snape is in essence a member of DA, he has > just not yet been "cordially invited", so why not advise? I don't > think it is that much of a far-fetched idea. I say it could > happen. The man is trusted by DD, he is a part of the OotP. Snape > is serving a higher purpose than has yet been written out. As for > right now Snape and DA are are on the wrong sides of the same > side. Perhaps at some time in the near future, they will heed DD > advice and stand united. SSSusan: Well put, Laura--I like that "wrong sides of the same side." My question would be, how would the students in DA take having Snape as their advisor? I agree with all the other points you've made -- DD trusts him, he's in the Order, and he also presumably knows the Dark Arts well. But these kids have had a really good time with Harry as their leader. I wonder how they would react if ol' Severus showed up to take charge? (Would be an interesting scene to read, wouldn't it?) Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 11 13:36:48 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:36:48 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115401 > SSSusan: > Well put, Laura--I like that "wrong sides of the same side." > > My question would be, how would the students in DA take having Snape > as their advisor? I agree with all the other points you've made -- > DD trusts him, he's in the Order, and he also presumably knows the > Dark Arts well. But these kids have had a really good time with > Harry as their leader. I wonder how they would react if ol' Severus > showed up to take charge? (Would be an interesting scene to read, > wouldn't it?) > Potioncat: Will the DA need to continue now that Umbridge is gone? Or will it continue as a sort of club? I can see it now, Professor Snape says, "And now let me introduce my assistant...Professor Dumbledore..." You know, actually, it's the sort of crazy thing DD might do...assigning Snape to oversee the DA.....Poor Snape. Potioncat who is somewhat hampered in her current ability to defend Snape due to the RL battle she is having with an unreasonable coach at her daugher's school. The coach however has the communication skills of a flesh-eating slug. Whoa, that felt good! Potioncat, now going off to punish herself by having a nice mug of chocolate... From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 13:45:16 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:45:16 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: <004701c4af27$b02952a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115402 > >>Doddiemoe: > > I just had an awful thought...what if everyone Molly Weasley saw > dead in the bogart scene in OOP actually died in subsequent books? > They would definitely be a target due to Harry's relationship with > them. (Look at how LV used Sirius.) Not to mention Ginny's having > been possessed by the memory of Tom Riddle in COS.<< > > > > Kethryn - > > Well, if JKR does kill off the Weasley children, not only will I be upset that she killed off some of the best characters in the book, but I will be hugely upset at what I will see as a cop out. Ho - hum, kill the hubby and most of the children...funny, doesn't Saving Private Ryan start something along those lines? Neri: As you say, it would be a huge cop out if everybody Molly saw dead will indeed be killed (especially as it includes Harry also), and if it is only one or two of them who die then this whole scene was a rather bad clue. This is why I'm afraid that the dead Weasley will be one that the boggart did NOT change into. This can be either Ginny (which is suspiciously absent from this vision) or Molly herself, or both. I sure hope I'm wrong in this. Neri From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 11 14:09:24 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:09:24 +0100 Subject: Almost normal Message-ID: <27CE19FE-1B8F-11D9-8889-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115403 Youngest of six brothers but with a younger sister. An awkward position in the family structure, likely to be put-upon by his brothers but usurped from the position of 'favourite' which often attaches to the youngest in a large family. And certain to be out-fitted with cast-offs and hand-me-downs outgrown by his elders. Some consider this as possibly a sign of indifference or lack of care by Molly, but if there's one thing you practice in such situations it's the old-fashioned virtue of thrift - scrape and save, make do and mend. The WW seems to be a cash society - no chance of putting it on your card, hoping to pay it off sometime, somehow. Austerity rules; no Galleons for frivolities at chez Weasley. But when he does have an apparent windfall (the Leprechaun gold) what does he do with it? Gives it to Harry as repayment for omnioculars - and more importantly has the grace to make a joke about it - "Now you'll have to buy me a Christmas present!" As if the usual exchange of boxes of Chocolate Frogs somehow equated to something as expensive as the glasses. It's a not-so-subtle indication that money isn't what he wants most - but he does wish he could be as generous to his friends as he'd like to be. Ron understands the need for his parents to be careful with the cash. He doesn't like it, but he does understand it; he knows things are tight - as evidenced by his tentative request for a new broom in OoP. But wonder of wonders! Yes! Apart from a new wand (a necessity and bought with the competition prize money) it may well have been the first big present he's ever had that was new. Even though the model isn't the best available it's the best that Molly can afford - and he's *proud* of it. This tells us an awful lot about Ron. He's a realist. Settle for what's possible rather than pining for the unobtainable. Though he does have his dreams, his reaction to the images in the Mirror shows us that - even if they were generated by DD. It's worth noting that the images were not related to wealth or power but to what could be achieved by his own efforts - and so maybe not so unattainable after all. All he needs is some inspiration, a little application, a touch of incentive; and isn't that what the Mirror provided? All his life he's followed in his brothers footsteps - and with five of 'em it's going to be difficult to step out of the shadows and not be 'the second (or more) to do it'. Head Boy, Prefect, Quidditch star - it's been done, but in Quidditch at least there's an opportunity to be an original - Charlie was a Seeker, Gred and Forge were Bludgers, but Ron will be a Keeper. A role all his own where he won't be compared to those who went before. He's the archetypal Griffindor; not too bright but brave and loyal. And IMO bravery is much more than swanning off to rescue whoever, it's suppressing your fears and *then* going out and rescuing whoever. This is one of the main differences between Ron and Harry - when has Harry been afraid for his own skin before embarking on one of his escapades? Ron is often apprehensive and on one occasion downright petrified - but he goes. And sacrifice (when necessary) is not beyond him; even when he didn't know what the outcome would be he sacrifices himself on the chessboard. Loyalty matters too; he's loyal to Harry, to Hermione (even to the extent of trying to hex Malfoy with a broken wand), to DD and to his family. And he expects it to be reciprocated. His anti-Percy sentiment is IMO because Percy isn't being loyal and has probably been edging away from his family for some time; now he's finally broken ranks and gone over to the 'enemy'. Unforgiveable. And Ron's loyalty to Harry is tested in GoF; he's upset and angry because he believes that Harry doesn't trust him enough to tell him that he was going to put his name into the Goblet and afterwards to tell him how he did it, not because of feelings of jealousy or envy. The realisation that it wasn't down to Harry at all brings instant rapprochement. Harry didn't mistrust him after all. So what does the future hold for Ronald Bilius Weasley? Can you ever imagine such a character becoming ESE? I can't; not if Harry doesn't become even more self-centred than he was at the start of OoP. That could test any friendship to destruction. Not ESE then - or at least not voluntarily. He did seem to be worryingly susceptible to the Imperius Curse in Crouch!Moody's class - something to look out for in the future maybe. There are those that hope for Ron as Seer. Certainly there have been times when he's made an apparently scathing or dismissive comment, only for it to come to pass in one way or another. Don't see it myself - Swami!Ron is a touch too fanciful for my taste; I prefer to see it as a sort of running joke slipped in by JKR, with the possibility that at some stage it'll backfire on us when we don't expect it. Will he survive? Hmm, difficult. I think one of Ron and Harry will make it, but not both. Somebody's got to be left behind for Hermione to boss around and two would be one too many. And so far in the course of the 5 books he has collected more than his fair share of injuries and hexes - bitten by Norbert, crunched on the chessboard, zapped by his own wand, arm broken by Sirius, hexed by a DE, attacked by brains. Is Jo trying to tell us something? R.B.Weasley - walking disaster area with a target on his back? I hope not; he deserves a break - even if it's because he's the only kid in his year that reads as half-way close to being your average teenager. The rest are a right collection of wierdos and misfits. Personally I'd rather see Ron survive than Harry. And if he can escape death maybe he can escape Hermione too. Now that's what I'd call a happy ending. Kneasy From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 14:22:45 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:22:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: <005701c4af3b$2e2c4140$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: snip > Of course, since I bear that particular burden, I can sympathize and relate to Harry a lot. I do tend to wonder, however, why they don't call him "four eyes" ~represses a shudder from the horrid memories that particular phrase conjures up... > > Again, speaking as a myopic person, I got my glasses in the third grade (both my parents have myopia as well) so I always took it for granted that Harry would have gotten them at about the same time. That means he would have been about...uhhh math is so not my strong suit...8 I think. So 8 to 11, three years to get used to it but lessee for me it's been contacts/glasses for 20 years and I am still not used to it. Meri: There was posting on this subject a while back, and someone from the UK informed me that there is eye screening and free glasses for kids entering school (am I right?), so his eye problem could have been caught at a much younger age, say four or five. But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make that he hasn't gotten used to them? I got my own pair of glasses at four (no contacts for me) I am now in my twenties and I can't remember a time when I wasn't used to them. > Circling back to the original point, though, I do think that his glasses emphasize his vulnerability, especially as he has not yet had his glasses long enough to learn to ignore the debilitating effects, to set aside that particular vulnerability... Meri: What debilitating effects is he ignoring? That he can't see without them? IIRC Harry has woken up in the hospital wing several times and instantly known he was without his specs. He's also nearly lost them in CoS after the Floo travelling and needed them to be waterproofed during Quidditch. I think he is well aware of them. >but it is odd that he is not all that self-conscious of having >glasses...I still am and I am an adult, for crying out loud. Meri: Harry's just an average kid. He's got glasses, and to me that makes him far more average. We didn't get to see Harry at all in primary school, but again IIRC Harry's thoughts at the end of Chapter 2 in SS tell us that he had no friends at school because no one wanted to disagree with Dudley's gang and befriend that weird Harry Potter with his baggy clothes and glasses. But at Hogwarts he's got plenty else to be concerned about. And let's face it, if you're Draco Malfoy do you make fun of Harry because he's got specs, or because he's friends with Weasley's and muggleborns, faints at the sight of Dementors, nearly swallows golden snitches and has to take remidial potions? Meri - who over the last sixteen years has gotten to love my glasses, so much so that I won't get contacts...I don't look right without me specs and neither does Harry! From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 11 14:41:29 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (duffypoo) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:41:29 -0000 Subject: JKR in the News Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115405 During some blather on CNN this morning about more deaths in the last two books heard that HBP is due out next year. Can anyone confirm this? I'm still not holding my breath for anything much before Christmas. DuffyPoo - pardon me List-Elves but I had to ask. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 15:04:09 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:04:09 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: <416A740D.1030900@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115406 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, digger wrote: > ladyramkin2000 wrote: > > > The hand > > then had the effect of rendering the bearer invisible and also opened > > all locks, however strong. > > "digger" (short and to the point...apologies in advance to list elves > for brevity) > > > Ah HA! > So thats how Harry will get into the locked room in the MoM....... > > We all know he is going to go there at some time, and we know the hand > is more than passing scenery. Lets hope it works better than Sirius's > knife. Thanks! Doddiemoe here: Or it may be how Draco gets Dad and his cronies out of Azkaban. Even if Draco did not get the hand of glory that particular day--he knows where it is and has the money to purchase said hand. Doddie--who wonders who guards Azkaban prison these days. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 11 15:04:53 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:04:53 -0000 Subject: JKR in the News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115407 DuffyPoo: > During some blather on CNN this morning about more deaths in the > last two books heard that HBP is due out next year. Can anyone > confirm this? I'm still not holding my breath for anything much > before Christmas. > > DuffyPoo - pardon me List-Elves but I had to ask. SSSusan: Kind of doubt it myself. JKR's site hasn't been updated w/ a release date, nor does The Leaky Cauldron have an announcement, and likely they & HPANA will be first with it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 15:33:34 2004 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Two-way mirror at GH Message-ID: <20041011153334.17367.qmail@web42101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115408 I've been reading the posts about what happened at GH and how it became known. JKR has said that the Two-way mirror will make another appearance in a later book, so in the illustrious tradition of AKH half-baked theories, I propose that the Two-way Mirror had some role in revealing the events of Godric's Hollow on that Fateful Night. We have it established that Sirius and James used the TWM frequently at school, so we could presume it continued to be a useful communication tool after school, especially as times became more dangerous. Sirius establishes that it's safer than the Floo Network, which can be monitored, and it's not affected by the Fidelius charm, as far as we know (yes, I've already thought about the fact that both Sirius and Harry know the whereabouts of GP, but I'm on a roll here!). If Sirius was going into hiding, as he states, he might have handed his mirror over to Dumbledore, who could be in regular contact with the Potters without knowing who became the Secret-Keeper. DD might even be able to get a gist of the activities at GH, if the mirror was out and in use when LV arrived. While we don't see this demonstrated with Harry, we also have no reason to presume that Sirius' mirror was in plain sight when Harry tried to reach Sirius through it at the end of OOP. If it was sitting in a drawer, it would only reflect silence. Of course, James's mirror would have to have been confiscated by someone after the house was destroyed, but then we've determined that there was ample time between the events at GH and Hagrid's appearance at Privet Drive with Harry to have moved much of the house's contents to various parts of Britain. This tidbit doesn't eliminate the portrait theory or other means of acquiring information, but it might have allowed DD to get some real-time scoop on the situation. akh, who hopes to have a fully-cooked idea some day --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 16:44:38 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:44:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Meri: Harry's just an average kid. He's got glasses, and to me that > makes him far more average. We didn't get to see Harry at all in > primary school, but again IIRC Harry's thoughts at the end of > Chapter 2 in SS tell us that he had no friends at school because no > one wanted to disagree with Dudley's gang and befriend that weird > Harry Potter with his baggy clothes and glasses. Annemehr: Just looked it up, and it says "broken glasses." I think it's the "broken" part that's important, it goes with the baggy clothes. He's not-cared-for. I think kids have an innate aversion to uncared for kids -- "what's wrong with you that your parents (guardians) don't even dress you properly?" Now that his glasses are fixed, I figure that takes him from sub-average (in primary school) up to average (at Hogwarts, apart from that little complication of the connection with ol' Voldy-thingy). He'll never be Superman or Spiderman, 'cause he'll always need *his* glasses. > Meri - who over the last sixteen years has gotten to love my > glasses, so much so that I won't get contacts...I don't look right > without me specs and neither does Harry! Annemehr, who got her glasses and braces in the early '70s and was never teased about either of them, because both were so common among average kids...and who has little use for Lois Lane because she could never really see Clark Kent... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Oct 11 17:44:04 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:44:04 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115410 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > As you say, it would be a huge cop out if everybody Molly saw dead > will indeed be killed (especially as it includes Harry also), and if > it is only one or two of them who die then this whole scene was a > rather bad clue. This is why I'm afraid that the dead Weasley will be > one that the boggart did NOT change into. This can be either Ginny > (which is suspiciously absent from this vision) or Molly herself, or > both. I sure hope I'm wrong in this. > > Neri Carolyn: Oh no, I have to disagree; Molly's would be an *excellent* death. First off, we are likely not looking at a massacre apparently in these books, just a selection of corpses, carefully chosen for maximum impact. And what better candidate than Molly? I'd recommend it to occur in the autumn term, in the run-up to Christmas. With a bit of luck, she won't have finished next year's jumpers either; there's always an upside to everything. How will it happen? Pretty easy to envisage her throwing herself in the way of an AK to protect her brood isn't it? Let's see: - twins are now WW adults; they join the Order, get sent on some mission or other without her knowledge, she storms after them to try and get them back and... - Arthur gets visited at home by some DEs intent on extracting some information.. she gets in the way, and.. - she goes to London again to try to reason again with Percy, who is skulking at his lodgings after the Fudge dismissal; unfortunately she calls at the same moment as Umbridge, who is attempting to recruit together some of the ex-MoM employees who are not happy about DD's resurgence. Umbridge doesn't want to be seen, panics, and... - Lupin is every bit as ESE! as Pippin insists; [flashback to the touching scene where Molly falls on his shoulder after that Boggart vision for extra oomph]. At some Order meeting he says xxx, and Molly says in a puzzled voice, 'but I thought you were yyyy'. Lupin realises, in best detective novel fashion, that he has to take her out before she blows his gaff, and ... - she goes with Arthur to get Harry from Privet Drive this year, her role to talk to Petunia; unfortunately, Voldie is a bit sharper on the uptake in Book 6, he stages an attack, and.. So, dead Molly; lots of angst for WW and worldwide fans (well, not all of them ). Lots of plot development opportunity: - Harry has yet another maternal support figure cut from his life; bet it makes him plenty angry, plenty sad, and we know he's not good at thinking straight at the best of times.. - Weasley brood exceptionally enraged and intent on vengeance; twins totally out of the Order's control.. Percy thrown back into the family perforce, but everyone very suspicious of him. - Arthur desolated; no idea how to use the washing machine; living on muggle canned food; takes to drink just like Sirius did. Various females, starting with Hermione, then Bill's girlfriend, Fleur move in to try and Help. Ginny not pleased. Grim comic potential. - the Order are bereft of their cleaner-upper, chief cook and bottle- washer. They are also possible no longer at Grimmauld Place after Sirius's death, as it may have been inherited by the Malfoys. Tonks attempts to fill the position, extremely badly (fans argue furiously as to whether she should or should not be expected to cook anyway). Morale slumps. - DD makes various apparently Meaningful and Philosophical remarks about No One Dying In Vain, and We Will Never Forget, but everyone is getting fairly p***d off with these cryptic remarks by now, and no one listens much. Yet another thing he didn't anticipate; he retreats to his tower to fiddle with his silver balls. His plan has gone wrong again. - Voldie rubs his hands with his glee. He just can't believe that one little AK could cause so much trouble. Maybe he should have realised that the ultimate solution is to cut all the women out of the plot..he starts eyeing Bonkers Bella very thoughtfully.. - the rat wonders if anyone would believe him if he betrayed the DE who killed Molly, and attempts to contact Harry - Snape (who didn't like her cooking anyway), continues on his own personal plan regardless And so it goes on. I can't think of a better Death to kick off with myself. Carolyn More enthusiastic the more she mulls it over. From daughterofthedust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 12:48:48 2004 From: daughterofthedust at yahoo.com (daughterofthedust) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:48:48 -0000 Subject: Rowling's Death Prediction: Thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115411 Okay, so Rowling has divulged that another main character will meet his/her end in book six... And here are my thoughts: I don't think it's going to be Dumbledore, because that would just be too predictable. The death of an old mentor where folks keep saying "He's the only one Voldemort's afraid of"? Ehh, nah... Not many people predicted the other characters' demises (in Goblet and Order, respectively). For some reason I'm leaning towards two characters: Neville and Percy. Neville, because his importance has been hinted at and I could definitely see him doing something daring (mirroring what many thought Peter Pettigrew had done). Percy because I think the time will come when he will have to make a decision and choose sides. I think that choice could lead to his death. I have a feeling he may make the wrong choice and then regret it...My mind keeps wondering about the significance of the last name "Weasley". Could Percy embody it's implications? And then there's the wild-card that's been thrown around the fandom... Ron..Though I doubt it, it is possible that some kind of power-struggle/rift could develop, indirectly causing his death. Ron his already demonstrated his penchant for holding grudges and a riotous temper. Though quieted because of his recent achievements, could definitely see somthing possibly developing along those lines. @)--/--- daughter From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 18:03:32 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:03:32 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <27CE19FE-1B8F-11D9-8889-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115412 Kneasy wrote near the end of a really great analysis of Ron: > Is Jo trying to tell us something? R.B.Weasley - walking disaster area with a target on his back? I hope not; he deserves a break - even if it's because he's the only kid in his year that reads as half-way close to being your average teenager. The rest are a right collection of wierdos and misfits. Personally I'd rather see Ron survive than Harry. And if he can escape death maybe he can escape Hermione too. > > Now that's what I'd call a happy ending. Sophierom: Ah, if only you could be as sympathetic to Hermione's character as you are with Ron's! Delightful analysis of Ron, by the way. But, I feel compelled to stick up for Hermione. So, please, forgive me for this poor imitation of your analysis, applied instead to Hermione Granger: An only child of apparently loving muggle dentists (though JKR toyed with the idea of a younger sister for HG, she apparently decided to drop the idea -Lexicon), Hermione has probably been given a great deal of support for her mental and intellectual development, but not necessarily for her social development. She comes to Hogwarts knowing about but not understanding the wizarding world. Unable to rely on anecdotal or personal experience about wizards and witches (unlike Ron with his large pureblood family), she goes to books to help her adjust. But she quickly learns that books alone cannot tell her what she needs to know in order to adapt. They may tell her how to fix Harry's glasses or how to answer her teachers' questions (even on the first day of class), but they do not teach her how to interact with others. During her couple years at Hogwarts, she has to learn these lessons the hard way: she learns that friendship, loyalty, and courage are more important and bigger than grades, knowledge for its own sake, and school standing (troll incident, search for stone, speech to Harry just before he faces Quirrell!Mort). She doesn't learn to let go of her obsession with achievement and rules, but she has at least learned to a bit more about her priorities in life. She also learns that for some people, her birth and family are more important than her abilities (Malfoy calling her a mudblood in CoS). This understanding puts Hermione in a difficult situation. She knows that she is smart and capable, but others refuse to acknowledge this fact simply because of who her parents are. As JKR put it on her web site: "I think I was seen by other people as a right little know-it-all, but I hope that it is clear that underneath Hermione's swottiness there is a lot of insecurity and a great fear of failure" (web site, Extra Stuff, Characters). Although she learns important social lessons in the first few books, she's still learning about how to interact with others. When she sees the poor treatment of house elves in the early part of GoF, she wants to help. As someone who's faced discrimination herself, as someone who knows what it's like to be treated like dirt because she was, quite simply, born, Hermione cannot stand to see the house elves mistreated. Yet, she doesn't know how to approach the matter in a constructive way. She tries to force others to accept her values, and while I believe that she really does have something to teach the wizarding world (racism and discrimination are stupid and cruel, whether it comes in the form of muggle-killings, mistreatment of house elves, or epithets like mudblood), she does it in the wrong way. She seems to realize that the forced approach won't work by OotP, but she goes on another wrong path by trying to manipulate the house elves. She obviously has more to learn in this matter, but she is, after all, a socially awkward 15 year old. I'd be surprised if she had it all figured out. She is, however, starting to understand a little more about human nature. She knows she's smart and has some good ideas, but she also knows she doesn't have the charisma to lead people. Hence, the birth of DA. She works with Harry to get it started, providing him with the idea, the encouragement, and the role of leader. DA would be nothing without Harry - he's the one people want to follow and learn from. But it would never have begun without Hermione, who is not only the "brains" behind the idea, but the organizer, as well. Of course, as Lupin points out, she has some things to learn about being sneaky (I think it's Lupin who points out that the Hogs Head was not hte best place for a first meeting). But, her good ideas (not only to start the DA, but also the coin communication) insure that DA is a success. And why does she do this? Not to be a show-off, but in order to prepare for what she knows is coming - the war. She may be a bossy little know-it-all during classes; she may nag Ron and Harry about studying for OWLs; but she's learned enough about herself to know that defense is too important to follow some arbitrary authority (Umbridge), and it's too important for pride (she's relatively modest and subdued in the DA, making sure that Harry is the authority in that situation; not the bossy girl we see in Book I.) One of Hermione's best traits is the flip side of one of her worst. Her willingness to tell people what they need to hear (namely Harry) is really the better face of her social awkwardness. In this respect, she's rather like Ron's foil. Ron makes Harry feel comfortable: his family becomes Harry's extended family; Ron is sympathetic to Harry's troubles, whether they be trivial - like finishing Divination homework - or serious ?Ron never questions Harry about stopping Occlumency, and when Harry wants to rush off to save Sirius, Ron doesn't try to get him to calm down and think before acting. Indeed, when Harry begins shouting at Hermione, Ron's response is a "quietly" said, "He's got a point." (OotP, Am. ed., 732) Hermione, on the other hand, rarely allows Harry to fall into that comfort zone. This can be annoying - homework planner - or it can be insightful - don't give up on Occlumency, don't rush to action before thinking about why this is happening. Even when her advice upsets Harry (firebolt, POA or cautioning about Sirius, OotP), she says it because she Harry needs to hear it. By OotP, she's not throwing this advice in his face; she's actually trying to tell him politely, even timidly: "Looking frightened yet determined," Hermione tells Harry, "This isn't a criticism, Harry! But you do sort of I mean ? don't you think you've got a bit of a ? a ? saving people thing [italics]?" (OotP, Am. ed., 733). Bossy Hermione has turned timid! But only in her speech patterns. In her message, she's "determined." She's not being self righteous here, she's not trying to force Harry into accepting her point of view. She's only trying to get him to listen, to calm down and think about things. Although Hermione isn't successful in getting Harry to realize what LV is up to, she does at least get him to take a little time before he rushes off to the MoM. Imagine if Hermione hadn't stopped Harry early on. He'd have rushed off to the MoM with only Ron and Hermione at his side. No one would have known where they went, not even Snape, so he couldn't have alerted the Order. True, Sirius wouldn't have died, but Harry would have, and that, my friends, would be the end of the story. Hermione's thinking during this section isn't flawless; her forbidden forest idea almost backfires on them. But she makes sure that a completely disaterous situation was only mostly disaterous. I think, as Harry matures, he's going to come to appreciate both Ron's easy acceptance and willingness to follow and Hermione's tough advice and questioning nature. The two friends provide balance, so long as he learns to realize when to think and when to act. Hermione is not a perfect character, by any means. But, like all of the main characters in this series, she is dynamic and she is evolving. She's not the same bossy girl we saw in the first book. She's slowly learning to interact with others, and I think she's going to learn when and what battles to fight and how to fight them without alienating her support base. I'm not a major shipper, but IMHO, we should hope Ron does not escape Hermione, as Kneasy suggests. These two have some things to teach each other, just as they both have things to teach Harry. Ron would be fortunate to have someone like Hermione at his side, especially as she matures and grows as a character; likewise, I think Hermione would benefit from having someone like Ron as a partner. Sophierom, who admires Hermione a great deal because I was once a smart, bossy girl; but unlike Hermione, who's toning it down without losing her identity, I completely folded under social pressure during middle and high school and am only now learning to assert myself again. From vidarfe at start.no Mon Oct 11 13:39:58 2004 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:39:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus, invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115413 Cher: > On a related note, how common do you suppose magical devices like the Map are in the WW? The MM was unique in that it plotted Hogwarts, its environs, and its inhabitants. But similar devices may be commonly used by Magical Law Enforcement, for example. Or by the mothers of far-roaming youngsters. Perhaps DD is in possession of such a device that tells him what Harry is up to. I've always wondered what he meant when he told Harry that he had been "watching [him], more closely than [he] can have imagined." (Sorry, > don't have my books here, can't give page reference). Any theories on this? > vidar_fe: Actualy we know of such a device: IIRC, the magical clock at the Weasleys tells where all family members are at all time (I don't have the books at university, correct me if I'm wrong). Granted, it isn't as specific as the Map, it only shows the persons general location. Still, it is a very valuable tool. We don't know how rare such a clock is, but I imagine it being farly common. Personally, I have a shrewd suspicion that DD's mystical watch works in a similar way, though I have absolutely no proof. Maybe one of the arms shows Harrys whereabouts? From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 11 14:28:51 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:28:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another death? (in HBP) References: Message-ID: <003001c4af9e$a32f5be0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115414 Doddiemoe: > > I just had an awful thought...what if everyone Molly Weasley saw > dead in the bogart scene in OOP actually died in subsequent books? > They would definitely be a target due to Harry's relationship with > them. (Look at how LV used Sirius.) Not to mention Ginny's having > been possessed by the memory of Tom Riddle in COS.<< Kethryn - > > Well, if JKR does kill off the Weasley children, not only will I be upset that she killed off some of the best characters in the book, but I will be hugely upset at what I will see as a cop out. Ho - hum, kill the hubby and most of the children...funny, doesn't Saving Private Ryan start something along those lines? Neri: As you say, it would be a huge cop out if everybody Molly saw dead will indeed be killed (especially as it includes Harry also), and if it is only one or two of them who die then this whole scene was a rather bad clue. This is why I'm afraid that the dead Weasley will be one that the boggart did NOT change into. This can be either Ginny (which is suspiciously absent from this vision) or Molly herself, or both. I sure hope I'm wrong in this. Kethryn again - Again with the shudders!!! I like Ginny and I like what JKR has done with her in the last book in particular; moving her gracefully from a 2D character into a 3D, something I never thought she attained in the previous books. And I really like the apparent "offscreen" relationship that Hermione shares with her. Even though the story is told from Harry's PoV, we still get some sideline commentary from both Hermione and Ginny which only adds, deepens and strengthens the whole. Not to mention, it adds a interesting sidebar to say the least and gives greater insight to a lot of people's characters. Of course, I also like Molly. She is the next best thing to a mom that Harry has but I do wonder if that maybe is sealing her fate. Voldemort, after killing James, Lily, and Sirius (indirectly, of course, but the end result is the same) could hardly resist going after Harry's surrogate mother, if only to complete the set. No! I got it! It will be their cousin who is the accountant who bites the big one! Yeah, ok, right. That I can deal with *G*. Kethryn From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 16:17:54 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:17:54 -0000 Subject: Almost normal In-Reply-To: <27CE19FE-1B8F-11D9-8889-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115415 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Youngest of six brothers but with a younger sister. ... I found your post most insightful, I'd like to take issue with just one small point. I don't find Ron to be the only almost normal student at Hogwarts. I didn't go to a boarding school, I did go to a private school though and quite frankly I see parallels to almost all the characters (including Fred and George, justnot as red headed twins) from my life at that time. I think most of these students which have been drawn by JKR can be termed "normal middle/high school" students. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 18:10:34 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041011181034.36500.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115416 --- carolynwhite2 wrote: > Oh no, I have to disagree; Molly's would be an *excellent* death... > - Arthur desolated; no idea how to use the washing machine; living > on muggle canned food; takes to drink just like Sirius did.... > And so it goes on. I can't think of a better Death to kick off with > myself. > > Carolyn > More enthusiastic the more she mulls it over. I agree. Let me rephrase that: I AGREE!!!!! (Although I have a niggling suspicion that JKR means for this death to be something readers would feel bad about so maybe it's going to be someone else...) I'm not sure that Arthur wouldn't get over it in time. Emmeline Vance-Weasley (even in the WW professional women are keeping their own names or merging them) might play a part in the final battle at the end of Book 7. Magda (who personally thinks we're going to lose Dumbledore in Book 6 and wonders if the Elves will set up a poll or a pool so we can make predictions) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 16:50:41 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:50:41 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115417 Jlnbtr: >I have a theory regarding DD's sparks when Harry tells him that LV took some of his blood. In SS when Hagrid first meets Harry and tells him about LV he says he doesn't think LV dead for he is not enough human. What if by taking Harry's blood he becomes "more human"? This would mean that as a human he could be killed for good. mhbobbin: >Now, why didn't DD try to kill LV in his duel with him in the MoM-- (not obviously when Harry was possessed by LV) if he thought that LV might now be slightly mortal? Does DD really put that much faith in a prophecy that indicates Harry must be the Vanquisher? Hasn't DD worked to that point to convince Harry (and us) that predicting the future is at best an inexact skill? Neri: >First, your theory doesn't answer JKR's second question in the Edinburgh Book Festival ?Why didn't DD try to kill LV in the MoM battle? So let me suggest animprovement: LV can now be killed because he took human blood into his veins, but he can be killed only by the human of which his blood he had used, namely Harry. So this explains nicely the gleam in DD's eyes: he realized that LV had just fulfilled the prophecy by his own actions. Again! >Personally I always assumed when reading this passage that LV cannot be killed because he is vapor. But your theory suggests a different explanation: LV could not be killed even BRFORE he became vapor, because in one of his "experiments" he traded his humanity for immortality, and this is why the rebound AK didn't kill him in Godric's Hollow, thought it should have done it jlnbtr now: LV though a brilliant wizard forgets many thing, like for exemple when Lily died to save Harry, he completly forgot the protection that such sacrifice grants. That same night he AK Harry, anyone else would have died, but not Harry, all because the before mentioned protection. This curse turned out to be Harry's and LV's union, their link through which they'll always be connected. What if the only way to break this connection is when either one dies? As LV tells his DE, he's tried more than anyone to achieve inmortality, what if he didn't become inmortal, but just can't be killed by regular means? As I've said before, when LV took some of Harry's blood and his father's bone (lots of muggle blood there) he may have become more human than he was before the AK, therefore he could be killed BUT as Trelawney's profecy clearly states the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord forever will be born at the end of July... it's clear that it's not Neville, so Harry can (and hopefully will) kill LV for good, he couldn't have done it 15 years ago, but maybe he could do it now. The reason DD didn't even tried to kill LV is because he's aware of the profecy, he knows only Harry can kill him, so what's the point of trying to do something that'll never work? His only interest for now is to save Harry and "teach" him how he can kill LV. How I have no idea, we already know their wands can't fight each other because of the priori incantem, maybe Harry will use someone else's wand? I don't think so. So this "power" whatever it is is what's going to kill him. I guess we'll just have to wait until book 6 and find out. Have a great day everyone Juli/jlnbtr From hautbois1 at comcast.net Mon Oct 11 17:10:19 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:10:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115418 Patrick: My bet is he is. And for your reasons, it seems far-fetched that he would NOT be given his ability and former post. Though, then we should take into account whether or not he's registered. Did Hermione actually see the register of Animagi? If so, why didn't she mention Dumbledore...unless he became one BEFORE the register existed...a thought... Finwitch: > And while a charm was first thing to mind (potion would be too > troublesome, but I think invisible ink goes for that manner) it's also possible to be a special ability - like animagi, or parseltongue -something Dumbledore simply can do. Patrick agian: I actually like this most of all. We were "surprised" in OotP by Tonks as a Metamorphmagus--an ability with which one is born. Perhaps we will be introduced to a MUCH rarer inherent ability...Oooo, yes, I like this possibility VERY much. Well played, Patrick From watersign21 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 15:00:04 2004 From: watersign21 at yahoo.com (laura) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:00:04 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115419 SSSusan: > My question would be, how would the students in DA take having Snape > as their advisor? I agree with all the other points you've made -- > DD trusts him, he's in the Order, and he also presumably knows the > Dark Arts well. But these kids have had a really good time with > Harry as their leader. I wonder how they would react if ol' Severus > showed up to take charge? (Would be an interesting scene to read, > wouldn't it?) To right it would... but I agree, there is no need for Snape to interfear with DA or any of its members... as of yet. Unless DD see some reason to take their "extra curricular actvities" to a higher level or purpose, let them have DA to their selves. If there is a reason for the teachers to interject... it will be done, if not... let them have their fun. Hey, I'm a poet and didn't know it! Happy Posting! Laura B. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 11 18:23:06 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:23:06 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > > Ah, if only you could be as sympathetic to Hermione's character as you > are with Ron's! I thought I had been in 114679 "Constant as the Northern Star". Nothing untoward in that so far as I know. But I have to admit I have an aversion to bossy females. Most men do. It's as irritating as hell to have someone who has decided that they know what's best for you to be constantly 'advising' you that you ought to do this, that or the other, even if it is well meant. It's your mother Mk II, and you left home to get away from Mk I. In the old days of course, there was the Scold's Bridle..... Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 18:33:24 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:33:24 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115421 Finwitch wrote : " First of all, I'm not even certain Harry even was angry at Seamus, just the mother." Del replies : It started like that, but unfortunately Harry did get angry at Seamus too *before* Seamus ever said he believed his mom. Seamus later called Harry's testimony rubbish, but one could argue that it was just out of reciprocal anger towards Harry. Finwitch wrote : " So in Harry's mind, this testimony from Seamus makes his mother as bad if not *worse* than Dursleys. In effect, very much like Dursleys are to Harry. Since Seamus defies his mother, Harry assumes he now feels the same about her as Harry has felt about Dursleys all his life. Empathy question: How would Harry take it if someone insulted the Dursleys? Answer: Possibly make him very happy." Del replies : And how does Harry react when anyone insults his *parents* ? He's NOT happy... Finwitch wrote : " So in effect, Harry - by insulting Seamus' mother IS answering the question: His anger over such belief should tell it's not true. It's also anger for her to treat Seamus so - (attempting to prevent his coming to Hogwarts)." Del replies : You might be right about Harry thinking that anger is a proof of innocence. I remember being a teenager and thinking the same as far as *I* was concerned. In other words, I expected people to realise that I got angry because I was right. *However*, and that's where it gets interesting, I usually reacted in the complete opposite way where other people were concerned : if they got angry, it was because I had hit a sore spot, because I had caught them in their lies, because they felt *guilty*. The more they got angry, the more I would deny their point of view. I'm afraid that might have happened with Harry too : we have no proof that Seamus shared his mother's opinion before Harry got mad, but we do know that he refuses the truth right after Harry's outburst. In Seamus's mind, it could very well be that he was ready to believe Harry, but that Harry's anger proved that he had something to hide. As for Harry being angry at Seamus's mom for the way she treated her son, I don't think it fits with the way he talks about her. He calls her a liar, and he suggests that Seamus change dormitory, to "stop his mommy from worrying". Finwitch wrote : " Now let's get back to the Question Seamus asks Harry: He, as *everyone* in Hogwarts (except for the first years) know that Cedric Diggory died during the third task. Dumbledore told them of the matter: a) Voldemort murdered Cedric. b) Harry brought Cedric's body back to Diggorys at the risk of his life. The question is: Do you believe Dumbledore or not? If you do, you need not ask about Voldemort's return." Del replies : That's a dangerous path to tread, *blind* acceptance and obedience. That's *Percy's path* ! Percy blindly obeys authority figures, without trying to figure things out for himself. So I think it's not something we should expect the other kids to do, to just accept DD's second-hand testimony without any proof or explanation. If it were me, I don't think I would believe in something of that magnitude and gravity just because the Headmaster says that a kid says he's seen those things happen and we should all believe him. And I don't think I would want my kid to believe it blindly either. Finwitch wrote : " with most WW considering Harry a liar, how could he *ever* convince anyone he's not, except by getting angry at anyone who wrongly accuses him, and correcting these lies whenever there's someone to confront about it (namely Umbridge)?" Del replies : As long as Harry stuck to that method, he almost didn't get any results. This method simply doesn't work. If you shout loud enough, you might *scare* people into *apparently* accepting your word, but anger never brought about any real conviction. However, when Harry stopped trying to keep everything for himself and decided to *testify*, he actually managed to convince some people. And testify is exactly what Seamus was asking of him. I'm pretty sure that if Harry had done just that, Seamus would have supported him completely right from the beginning. Del From sophierom at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 19:38:21 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:38:21 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sophierom" wrote: > > > > Ah, if only you could be as sympathetic to Hermione's character as you > > are with Ron's! > > I thought I had been in 114679 "Constant as the Northern Star". > Nothing untoward in that so far as I know. Sophierom: So sorry to have not read that post before writing my own; "Constant as the Northern Star" was another very good analysis. Still, my first inclination after reading the post was to disagree with you (because I'm contrary by nature, yes, but also because I do see her as a dynamic character). But, after rereading the post, I think I can agree with the idea that Hermione's function in the series is "constant" even if her character is more fluid. Hermione is not likely, as you point out, to be at the center of a wild theory or on the top of JKR's kill list. But I do read her as quite a different young woman in OotP than in PS/SS. And hey, if she does manage to "cast her beady eye on Ron and nail the poor unsuspecting bugger to the floor," as you so colorfully put it, I say, all the better for Ron! :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 19:40:37 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:40:37 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > > jlnbtr now: > > ...edited... > The reason DD didn't even tried to kill LV is because he's aware of > the prophecy, he knows only Harry can kill him, so what's the point > of trying to do something that'll never work? ...edited... > > Have a great day everyone > > Juli/jlnbtr bboyminn: Well, I think you are on the right track but I think it goes deeper than that. I think Dumbledore is uncertain as to whether or not he can kill Voldemort. Because he can not predict the outcome, he can't risk trying. More importantly at this point Voldemort doesn't really know whether Dumbledore can kill him or not, and to Dumbledore that is a vital and critical uncertainty; an uncertainty which give Dumbledore a strategic advantage. Imagine what would happen if Dumbledore cast his most powerful Death Curse at Voldemort, made a direct hit, and nothing happened. That would tell Voldemort that the most powerful wizard in the world, the one wizard that Voldemort truly feared most was in fact powerless to harm him. Voldemort would realize that he was truly invincible, nothing could harm him, and nothing could stop him; he reign of terror would be unrestrained, brutal, and ruthless. He would sweep through the wizard world like a cyclone/tornado through a trailer/caravan park. Dumbledore simply couldn't take that chance. Maybe he could kill Voldemort, maybe he couldn't, but he absolutely could not risk trying and failing. Therefore, he absolutely could not risk trying. I think the same is true of Harry and Voldemort. Voldemort would like to think he can AK Harry, and probably says so with confidence to anyone who will listen, but given what happened the last time he tried, he must certainly have doubts about it. We see Voldemort enter the Atrium of the Min'o'Mag and immediately attempt to kill Harry, but I think that was in a fit of anger and frustration. When prevented from doing so, he continues to battle with Dumbledore, but, in my view, has opportunities to try to kill Harry again, but he doesn't seize them. Why? Because now he has had a chance to cool down, and that old uncertainty has creeped back in. If Voldemort had time to possess Harry, then it would seem that he also had more than enough time to curse him, but he didn't. Of course, that may have had to do with Dumbledore's present. He many have believed that it would be the ultimate coup to make Dumbledore kill Harry, and there was very like NOTHING to protect Harry from Dumbledore's curse. Also, we must consider the degree to which Voldemort would lose face, if it became know to the other Death Eaters and to the wizard world the Harry Potter was invulnerable to harm by Voldemort. So, in both cases, I think we are seeing an uncertainty by these character as to whether they truly have the power to kill other critical character, and neither of them can afford the strategic consequences of trying and failing. Just adding an addition point to the discussion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 20:02:27 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:02:27 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > ,,,edited,,, > > Finwitch wrote : > " Now let's get back to the Question Seamus asks Harry: > He, as *everyone* in Hogwarts (except for the first years) know that > Cedric Diggory died during the third task. > > Dumbledore told them of the matter: > a) Voldemort murdered Cedric. > b) Harry brought Cedric's body back to Diggorys at the risk of his > life. > > The question is: > Do you believe Dumbledore or not? If you do, you need not ask about > Voldemort's return." > Del replies : > That's a dangerous path to tread, *blind* acceptance and obedience. > That's *Percy's path* ! Percy blindly obeys authority figures, > without trying to figure things out for himself. So I think it's not > something we should expect the other kids to do, to just accept DD's > second-hand testimony without any proof or explanation. If it were > me, I don't think I would believe in something of that magnitude and > gravity . > > ...edited.. > > Del bboyminn: HITLER ALIVE!!! STUDENT DEAD!!! Imagine picking up you local newpaper and reading this headline, then discovering that there was no corresponding article in the newspaper. You would never accept that as fact without the details being presented. I don't think Seamus necessarily believes the paper or his mother. I think he is inclined to believe Harry but would like to hear the details so he can either make up his own mind and confirm his faith in Harrry. But Harry, knowing what the wizard world has been saying about him, is a little defensive (understatment) and clearly overreacts to Seamus inquiry, and that's all it was was a simple inquiry as to the facts, not an accusation. Harry, overreacting, blows up at Seamus, Seamus overreacts at what he preceives as a slight to his mother, and the whole thing cascades from there. I don't think Seamus is alone in this position, I think the wizard world is frustrated by Dumbledore's repeating of /headlines/ without the details to back them up. Dumbledore may have valid strategic reasons for doing so, but to the wizard world at large, that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I think this position is clear when you see how fast the wizard world and the students turn their opinions around once Harry's interview is published. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From riberam at glue.umd.edu Mon Oct 11 20:06:14 2004 From: riberam at glue.umd.edu (Maria Ribera) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:06:14 -0400 Subject: Cuaron and the graveyard In-Reply-To: <1097516725.55209.51482.m23@yahoogroups.com> References: <1097516725.55209.51482.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <00ECEC3D-1BC1-11D9-BC1A-000393BA8C1A@glue.umd.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 115425 No, this is not about the movie. I hope i'm staying on topic with what follows. I am wondering about the comment that Alfonso Cuaron has made about a graveyard at Hogwarts. The way he said it (or the way it's written he said it) is that he wanted to film a scene in a graveyard, and JK told him not to because there was a graveyard at Hogwarts that we would see later on. And i am wondering the following: did JK really meant a graveyard at Hogwarts that we will see either in book 6 or book 7, or if she told him that there was another graveyard in the books (referring to the one in GoF, not in the Hogwarts grounds directly, but accessed through the portkey from the grounds) and that it would be better not to add a fictitious one in the 3rd movie so that it's not confused with the one in GoF. I suspect that Cuaron got it wrong, and he said Hogwarts when she meant books. However, a graveyard at Hogwarts opens the field for predictions and suggestions. Here is mine: i think that the Hogwarts Founders (minus SS) are buried in the Hogwarts grounds, only a bit outside what we have seen so far (on the opposite side of the castle, for instance). And i think that probably early on the book Dumbledore will take Harry there for a walk, and will start telling him things he should know (and that we are dying to know), which might include a lot about Godric Gryffindor, my bet for the Half-Blood Prince. The BBC Newsround article about the DVD also mentions a map that JK drew for the movie people of how she imagines everything is located at Hogwarts. I am really looking forward to seeing this map, and wonder if it will reveal any new bit of canon. Also, i do wonder if there will be a graveyard in it.... Maria From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 11 20:17:29 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:17:29 -0000 Subject: Rowling's Death Prediction: Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "daughterofthedust" wrote: > > > Okay, so Rowling has divulged that another main character will meet > his/her end in book six... Hickengruendler: That's what the media said. But in truth, her quote was a bit different (see the FAQ-Poll on her website). She was asked, if more characters will die, and she confirmed it. She did not say in which book this will happen, she did not say if it is really a major character, nor did she say that there will be only one death of a major character in book 6. All she said is that there will be more deaths in the future books, and I don't think that this is surprising. > > And here are my thoughts: > > I don't think it's going to be Dumbledore, because that would just be > too predictable. The death of an old mentor where folks keep saying > "He's the only one Voldemort's afraid of"? Ehh, nah... Hickengruendler: No matter how obvious it might be, it always happened. Right now I can't remember a single story in which the mentor survived (some came back, like Gandalf. But still Frodo couldn't rely on him anymore, since they were separated). The point has to come, on which Harry has to stand-up to Voldemort alone, without Dumbledore to help him. Of course they might simply be separated, but there are three other reasons why I think that Dumbledore indeed will die: The famous quote in book 1, where he said that "Death is nothing but the next great adventure," which I see as foreshadowing. The quote in book 2 where he said that he will only truly leave the castle, when there's nobody left who is loyal to him. I think that is another foreshadowing that he might be able to help even from the grave, if the Hogwarts students and teachers remain loyal to him. The third reason is, that I'm convinced that Voldemort will attack Hogwarts in book 7. And for this, "the only one he ever feared" has to be gone. > > Not many people predicted the other characters' demises (in Goblet and > Order, respectively). Hickengruendler: I think before book four, it was impossible to predict Cedric's death, since nobody even paid attention to Cedric. However, around the middle of book four, it was pretty obvious, IMO. He was way to perfect to live. > For some reason I'm leaning towards two characters: Neville and Percy. > > Neville, because his importance has been hinted at and I could > definitely see him doing something daring (mirroring what many thought > Peter Pettigrew had done). Hickengruendler: Might be. It pains me to say it because he is my second-favourite character after McGonagall, but I think he's a likely candidate. However, I don't see him dieing in book 6. Not because I think Dumbledore will go, IMO it's very well possible that more than one of the main characters will die, but Neville, like Harry, Ron and Hermione, also has a storyline that contains him growing up and finding a place in society. And for this, I think it would fit better, if he lives through all seven books and if his storyline comes full-circle (for the better or for the worse) during the climax of book 7. Like I already said, I think it's very possible that he'll die then, but my hope is, that he's the student who'll become a teacher. With Harry, Ron and Hermione out of the run, and Malfoy being evil, Neville seems like the most important classmate of Harry left. > Percy because I think the time will come when he will have to make a > decision and choose sides. I think that choice could lead to his > death. I have a feeling he may make the wrong choice and then regret > it...My mind keeps wondering about the significance of the last name > "Weasley". Could Percy embody it's implications? Hickengruendler: I see him as one of the least likely candidates. It would be too easy a way out for both, Percy and JKR. I like Percy not because he is sympathetic (if I met him in real life, I would love to kick him), but because of what he adds to the storyline, especially concerning the Weasleys. I like the Percy/Weasley family conflict, and I want to see it resolved. And Percy dieing to save a Weasley wouldn't satisfy me. I want Percy to live with the fact, that he was mistaken and to learn from his mistakes. And I want to see how the other Weasleys react to a Percy who's alive. I'm sure they all would forgive Percy the martyr, but it wouldn't be half as interesting, IMO. > > And then there's the wild-card that's been thrown around the fandom... > > Ron..Though I doubt it, it is possible that some kind of > power-struggle/rift could develop, indirectly causing his death. > > Ron his already demonstrated his penchant for holding grudges and a > riotous temper. Though quieted because of his recent achievements, > could definitely see somthing possibly developing along those lines. Hickengruendler: I am sure the Trio will survive the sixth book. They are the strongest if they are united, and if some of them would die before book 7, there would be something missing in the story. From feklar at verizon.net Mon Oct 11 20:29:32 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:29:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) References: Message-ID: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115427 > woman in OotP than in PS/SS. And hey, if she does manage to "cast her beady eye on Ron > and nail the poor unsuspecting > bugger to the floor," as you so colorfully put it, I say, all the better for Ron! :-) Feklar: But that would be utterly disasterous for Hermione. Everytime I read JKR's hints that they will end up together, I shudder. Hermione is ambitious, liberal and pro-active. Ron may be likeable enough, but he is hidebound and a slacker and proud of it. By hidebound, I mean he takes his understanding of the world (house elves want to be slaves, all slytherins are evil, Harry purposely put only his name in the goblet of fire, etc.) as the only understanding of the world. He has demonstrated no interest in even hearing about the alternatives, much less in reaching compromise. This means they will almost always be in conflict or they will simply be ignoring each other and doing their own thing -- neither makes for a good relationship. I also have to wonder how someone as money-conscious as Ron would deal with dating someone who not only came from a wealthier background, but who also has the skills and drive to be successful and highly paid in whatever career she chose. How would Ron react to having his wife promoted above him and earning more money? Another way I think it will affect whatever poor sucker Ron ends up with is that when it comes down to it, Ron has been taken care of his entire life by his mother or HG house elves. He doesn't appear to have any house keeping, cooking or cleaning skills and I bet he would be utterly disgusted or at least confused if someone suggested he learn them. Given his tendency to think the things he learned growing up are the way things are, I really think he would expect to be taken care of much as his mother took care of him and his father. Feklar From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 11 20:38:27 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:38:27 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115428 Feklar: > Another way I think it will affect whatever poor sucker Ron ends up > with is that when it comes down to it, Ron has been taken care of > his entire life by his mother or HG house elves. He doesn't appear > to have any house keeping, cooking or cleaning skills and I bet he > would be utterly disgusted or at least confused if someone > suggested he learn them. Given his tendency to think the things he > learned growing up are the way things are, I really think he would > expect to be taken care of much as his mother took care of him and > his father. SSSusan: Right. And Hermione would show Ron that it AIN'T gonna happen anymore! ;-) And Ron *would* adjust. Siriusly Snapey Susan, whose mother-in-law raised *her* sons right and taught them to do all this stuff for themselves From syroun at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 18:35:09 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:35:09 -0000 Subject: Petunia's secret/ was Petunia and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115429 Tonks wrote: > I have been thinking about Petunia and the fact that JKR says the > person she dislikes the most is Vernon...Why Vernon? So here is an > idea that fits with your idea of what isn't been said. It is so > easy to overlook the silences. Here I am also speaking of > Petunia's silence when it comes to "stamping out the magic in the > boy". > > If I remember correctly most of the "stamping out" of magic from > Harry comes from Vernon. Maybe the reason JKR > doesn't like Vernon is that he does not allow a person to be who > they are...Not allowing a person to be fully what and who they > were meant to be is in someway worst than just killing their body; > it is killing their soul, in a sense. As I have said before, I > think Petunia is a witch that chose to live as a Muggle. Maybe > because she knows Vernon would not have married her otherwise. I agree with Tonks; JKR has already warned us that there is more to Petunia and that we should keep an eye on her. Past that, her reaction to Harry's description of the dementors was not one of an average muggle that holds whole idea of the WW as a "bin of rubbish". She shows that she as a profound understanding of the gravity of the situation. Harry comments that for the first time, she sees something in Petunia's eyes that proves she is the sister of his mother, Lily. This profound reaction gives her away. She is not just the average muggle that happens to have a magical sister; she most likely has her own personal experience within the WW and has chosen, for one reason or another, to live strictly as a muggle. I also think that the fact that Harry has spent appreciable time over the years with Mrs. Figg, a squib in the WW, but an eccentric nutter to muggles, is evidence of Petunia's connection with and understanding of the WW along with her grasp of Harry's need for protection over and above what she has provided him through the blood curse. It is not likely that someone like Petunia would ever have anything to do with an odd bird like Figg, if she did not have a significant underlying reason for it. Figg is the type of neighbor Petunia would ordinarily shun. It is likely that DD has had a good deal of contact with Petunia over the years, and perhaps she has contacted him as well. I cannot remember an instance where Petunia has instigated the harsh treatment that Harry recieves at the Dursely's - she is complicit out of respect for or fear of her husband, as many wives are. Petunia may still harbour feelings of jealousy for Lily, or a loathing of the WW in general, just as Snape still harbours hatred for those that bullied him as a child (Harry's father, et. Al.), but both Petunia and Snape show faint signs of a willingness to protect Harry in their behaviour. They are, essentially, still human beings willing to afford protection to children...regardless of how imperfect as they may seem otherwise. Syroun From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 20:14:57 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:14:57 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > LV though a brilliant wizard forgets many thing, like for exemple <> > end of July... it's clear that it's not Neville, so Harry can (and > hopefully will) kill LV for good, he couldn't have done it 15 years > ago, but maybe he could do it now. First let me commend you on your excellent theory... it has been most insightful. That said, I'm not so certain that Neville is clearly counted out. As you yourself has said, Voldemort can make mistakes. The books have shown that Dumbledore can make mistakes. I see everyone looking at Harry while Neville becomes increasingly competent and valiant. Neville also has a grudge against Voldemort and the Death Eaters and could easily become the hero. My theory remains : Harry and Voldemort fight and Harry dies (book 7). Thinking himself invinceble now Voldemort lets his guard down. Neville destroys Voldemort to expunge the deep hurt inflicted upon him by what was done to his parents and what he has witnessed done to one of his best friends. While the movies don't show it, the books do... Neville is the fourth to Harry, Ron and Hermione. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 21:05:57 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:05:57 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115431 Feklar wrote : " Ron takes his understanding of the world (house elves want to be slaves, all slytherins are evil, Harry purposely put only his name in the goblet of fire, etc.) as the only understanding of the world. He has demonstrated no interest in even hearing about the alternatives, much less in reaching compromise. " Del replies : As far as I can see, so do Harry and Hermione. It's a common trait in teenagers. If we take your examples : House elves want to be slaves : well, Hermione thinks that all house-elves want to be free, and won't listen when someone tries to tell her otherwise. All Slytherins are evil : Ron is not the only one thinking that way, far from it ! Even Harry thinks like that. In fact, Hermione stands out among all the Gryffindors *precisely* because she thinks that there might be some good Gryffindors. Harry purposely put only his name in the GoF : what about Cedric is a useless pretty-boy ? Harry refused to see the truth on that one. They are teenagers, they think they know better than everybody else and that they understand the workings of the universe best. It's not Ron, it's teenagers. Feklar wrote : " How would Ron react to having his wife promoted above him and earning more money?" Del replies : One could say that he's got good training in that area. His brothers are all "better" than he is and his best friend is richer, more famous (for the better and the worse), more talented and more powerful than he can ever dream of becoming. Moreover, he's learned in his youth that poverty is annoying, but that money don't make happiness. He's seen his own father being dominated by his mother and not being bothered by it. All in all, I'd say Ron is probably better equipped than most to stand being dwarfed by his wife. He would probably rejoice in the money she would bring back home, and he would bask in her glory just like he's used to basking in his brothers' and Harry's glory. Feklar wrote : " I really think he would expect to be taken care of much as his mother took care of him and his father." Del replies : But who said that Hermione would mind that ? In fact, we've repeatedly seen her "mothering" the boys. She seems to enjoy it immensely, and Ron seems to not mind it : either he allows her to do it and he's happy she's there to help him, or he just ignores her. I'm not saying that all would necessarily be perfect if Ron and Hermione ended up together. But I do think there's a reasonable chance of that relationship working and being enjoyable for both sides. Del From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Oct 11 21:32:36 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:32:36 -0400 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) Message-ID: <001001c4afd9$d40de160$77c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115432 Neri: "As you say, it would be a huge cop out if everybody Molly saw dead will indeed be killed (especially as it includes Harry also), and if it is only one or two of them who die then this whole scene was a rather bad clue. This is why I'm afraid that the dead Weasley will be one that the boggart did NOT change into. This can be either Ginny (which is suspiciously absent from this vision) or Molly herself, or both. I sure hope I'm wrong in this." DuffyPoo: Or Charlie, who was missed by the Boggart as well. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annegirl11 at juno.com Mon Oct 11 21:38:07 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:38:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) Message-ID: <20041011.173920.1960.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115433 Feklar said: > Hermione is ambitious,liberal and pro-active. > Ron may be likeable enough, but he is > hidebound and a slacker and proud of it. 15-year-old boys are a helluva lot less mature than 15-year-old girls, especially overachieving 15-going-on-25 girls like Hermione. I have no doubt that Ron will *grow into* a resonsible, socially conscious, motivated young man; I think he'll probably turn out a lot like his father. However, right now he does have latent tendencies of the man he'll become. He wouldn't be Gryffendor if he wasn't brave, noble, and loyal; he wouldn't be hanging around Harry if he didn't have White Hat tendencies (ie a drive to save the world - he did volunteer to help Hagrid with Buckbeak's trial); he wouldn't be friends with a smart girl like Hermione if he couldn't keep up, intellectually, even just in conversation. It's the Willow and Xander thing. Smart, socially awkward girl crushing on her sweet, friendly childhood friend; irresponsible but ultimaltly decent guy overlooking that smart girls are sexy - but the guy always figures it out eventually. It's the Homer and Marge thing, too, and explains why Ron and Hermione aren't precisely opposites-attract: "Our differences are only skin-deep, but our sames go right to the core." Their overall value systems, backgrounds, even their outwardly engaging personalities are similar. > He has demonstrated no interest in even hearing > about the alternatives, much less in reaching compromise. He's a kid. Plus, boys aren't particularly good at conversation. He'll grow out of it. > This means they > will almost always be in conflict or they will simply be ignoring > each other and doing their own thing I think one thing's for sure: Ron and Hermione will never just exist in proximity to each other and not engage. They bait each other, challenge each other. Their bickering is how they connect. > I also have to wonder how someone as money-conscious as Ron would > deal with dating someone who not only came from a wealthier background, but > who also has the skills and drive to be successful and highly paid in > whatever career she chose. 1. We don't know that much about Hermione's background. I suspect they're both middle-class (Hermione perhaps a bit more upper-middle), but the Grangers only have one child to provide for. 2. Because of the reasons I listed above, I believe when Ron grows up, he'll find a perfectly respectable and decently-paying job. > How would Ron react to having his wife promoted above > him and earning more money? He likes her when she's smarter than him and gets better grades; he'll like her fine if she makes more money. The WW isn't gender-biased the way the MW is. I don't see Ron freaking out because his wife makes more. This reminds me of another reason why they work: they bring out the best in each other. Hermione encourages Ron to be more ambitious and successful, Ron reminds Hermione that there is more to the world than the stuff in books. In terms of literary couples (especially with JKR being an Austin fan), balanced couples are a sure thing. > Ron has been taken care of his entire life by > his mother or HG house elves. By that logic, Hermione is taken care of by her mother and the house elves. If anyhting, Ron is more independant, b/c I doubt Molly can give all seven children as much doting care as Mrs. Granger can give one child. Generally, kids of big families learn to take care of themselves and each other. > Given his tendency to > think the things he learned growing up are the way things are, I > really think he would expect to be taken care of much as his mother took > care of him and his father. Molly runs the household, she isn't a slave. We may not have canon proof of this, but I really don't see Molly picking up every kids' socks and doing the dishes every night. Kids in big families have to do chores, simply out of necesity. Furthermore, are you saying that R/Hr wouldn't work because Ron would expect Hermione to take care of him? Even if that's true, he wouldn't be the first husband to have that unrealistic expectation, and she wouldn't be the first wife to argue and bicker and let the mess pile up until her husband figured out that she isn't going to be his maid. That's one of those small issues that all couples have to work through when they get married. Anyway, who says they have to get married? They're 15 year olds with a mutual crush. Aura ~*~ "But what we found out is that each one of us really is a brain, a hero, a sidekick, a basket case, and a brat. But that's not all we are. We don't know who we are yet. But every day we'll find another piece of us. Does that answer your question?" - "The Hogwarts Breakfast Club" (Harry/Claire, Hermione/Brian, Draco/Bender, Ron/Andrew, Luna/Allison) From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 23:48:34 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:48:34 -0000 Subject: Two-way mirror at GH In-Reply-To: <20041011153334.17367.qmail@web42101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115434 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, AnitaKH wrote: > I've been reading the posts about what happened at GH and how it became known. JKR has said that the Two-way mirror will make another appearance in a later book, so > in the illustrious tradition of AKH half-baked theories, I propose that the Two-way Mirror had some role in revealing the events of Godric's Hollow on that Fateful Night. > > We have it established that Sirius and James used the TWM frequently at school, so we could presume it continued to be a useful communication tool after school, especially as times became more dangerous. Sirius establishes that it's safer than the Floo Network, which can be monitored, and it's not affected by the Fidelius charm, as far as we know snip snip snip mhbobbin: Not half-baked at all. I like it. I'm willing to consider the Floo Network though the two way mirror is better. Even better than Portraits. Further to this--what if the man that Harry hears yelling to Lily to take Harry and run--wasn't James but someone that James / Lily was talking to through one of these methods. (or even in the Portrait although Portraits seem to take orders rather than give them.) Lupin reacts so strangely (PoA) when Harry mentions that he thinks he heard his father in the Dementor flashback that I doubt the man Harry hears is James. So what if that unknown man was, in effect, "on the phone" with Godric Hollow when the attack occurs. It would be consistent with some contemporary murder mysteries. (I can't think of one now.) Harry doesn't recognize DD's voice in the Howler that DD sent to Petunia. So it's not a given that Harry would recognize the voice that yells to Lily even if Harry knew that Man's voice already. He only assumes the voice is his father's. Could have been any Man's, including Lupin's. And some of the mystery of how it was known that Godric Hollow was under attack unravels... mhbobbin From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 11 16:15:06 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:15:06 -0000 Subject: JKR in the News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > Kind of doubt it myself. JKR's site hasn't been updated w/ a > release date, nor does The Leaky Cauldron have an announcement, > and likely they & HPANA will be first with it. I daresay that Bloomsbury will be the first site with it, as they have been every other time. Given the hints given out by JKR I'd like to believe we might see it in the second half of the calendar of next year, close to the Christmas Holiday. That way the GoF movie and the HBP book will be able to play off each other's marketing and make the other a larger success. "Distaiyi" From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Oct 11 20:49:45 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:49:45 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115436 > Kneasy: > I thought I had been in 114679 "Constant as the Northern Star". > Nothing untoward in that so far as I know. > > But I have to admit I have an aversion to bossy females. Most men > do. It's as irritating as hell to have someone who has decided that > they know what's best for you to be constantly 'advising' you that > you ought to do this, that or the other, even if it is well meant. > It's your mother Mk II, and you left home to get away from Mk I. I agree with you about most men. Lord knows I dislike bossy women myself, but in Ron's case I think he wants a women to remind him of his mom. I don't know why but that happens to some men. I have a friend who married a woman who not only acts like his mon but looks like his mother did in her youth. It's sort of creepy. Phoenixgod2000 From macfotuk at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 00:02:07 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:02:07 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: <002101c4aea8$4b5dbe30$b4c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > DuffyPoo: > My dear Husband has told me for some time not to get too attached to these books as the last two may never make it to the store shelves. She's got all the money she and her children, probably her children's children could ever want there is no real pressing need to 'go to press' on the rest. I also have L.M. Montgomery's (Anne of Green Gables author) words in my head about how very much she hated writing the last few books because she wanted to get on to something else but fans kept pressing her for 'more Anne." I don't think she's actually said this, but yes if she were 'only in it for the money' then there wouldn't be. However, this project I'm sure is as dear to her as almost anything (children excepted) and I cannot see her not finishing, though yes not necessarily fast. But then she'd rather it was good and not rushed. Even if she's 'downed pen' others have pointed out it'll take a year from there on out. I do believe she says she's in it as much because she loves these characters and writing them, which s very different from L.M. Montgomery or Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes. It would be different if she hadn't set the 7 book limit, though she has said that at times even that was a strain (major hurdle in GoF). Let us wish her well and take some pressure off. It is my fear that once book 7 is here it'll literally be over and there'll be no more very enjoyable (seond) guessing game. Lastly, apologies to all, especially list elves (haven't checked my Email recently, but suspecting waiting howlers) for starting this thread which, though about the HP books is mostly not canon and so probably better fits in OTchat. Mac From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Oct 11 21:16:22 2004 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:16:22 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115438 Sophierom: > Although she learns important social lessons in the first few > books, she's still learning about how to interact with others. > She tries to force others to accept her values, and > while I believe that she really does have something to teach the > wizarding world (racism and discrimination are stupid and cruel, > whether it comes in the form of muggle-killings, mistreatment of > house elves, or epithets like mudblood), she does it in the wrong > way. She seems to realize that the forced approach won't work by > OotP, but she goes on another wrong path by trying to manipulate > the house elves. She obviously has more to learn in this matter, > but she is, after all, a socially awkward 15 year old. I'd be > surprised if she had it all figured out. I agree with everything you say up till this point. One of my peeves with book five (and there were many) was the way Hermione was able to lecture Ron and Harry on the nature of the female mind. I just don't buy that a socially awkward fifteen year old would have that much insight into another person's mind while Ron and Harry were almost comically clueless. Harry I could understand, but Ron? This is the guy with a huge family and probably large extended family as well. How many times did Bill or Charlie bring their girlfriends over? How much interaction has Ron seen and overheard? The answer is probably a lot. I would have like to have seen Ron bust out with the advice that he may have heard from Bill or Charlie about women. Because a little brother not asking his older brothers about women? Not happening. Instead we get Hermione. A girl who's never had a boyfriend, doesn't talk with her dorm mates, doesn't seem to socialize with other houses, and spends all her time in the library. And I am supposed to believe that she gets nuances in social relationships. Not so much. To me it seemed liked Hermione was the mouthpiece of JK as she lectured 'those clueless boys'. I've taught High School and Middle school and if it's one thing I've learned it's that girls don't have any special insight that boys somehow lack. Just doesn't happen. I actually thought it was a little sexist to assume that boys are as clueless as she portrayed them. > By OotP, she's not throwing this advice in his face; she's > actually trying to tell him politely, even timidly: "Looking > frightened yet determined," Hermione tells Harry, "This isn't a > criticism, Harry! But you do sort of I mean ? don't you think > you've got a bit of a ? a ? saving people thing [italics]?" (OotP, > Am. ed., 733). Another thing that irritated me! That was about the dumbest thing Hermione could have said. If Harry hadn't had a saving people thing then she would have died in her first year with that very impressive brain of hers splattered on a trolls club. There are a thousand different things that she could have said to him that could have gotten across the point of slow down and think without being obnoxious. That whole scene was more an example of her lack of tact because honestly I think she did more harm than good there. > I'm not a major shipper, but IMHO, we should hope Ron does not escape > Hermione, as Kneasy suggests. I think Ron wants a woman like his mother for some inexplicable freudian reason and Hermione wants to take care of someone. They're made for each other. Phoenixgod2000 From maren.w at web.de Mon Oct 11 21:33:59 2004 From: maren.w at web.de (maren243) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:33:59 -0000 Subject: LV's wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115439 There is one thing I absolutely did not understand ever since reading GOF the first time. Where got LV his wand back? After he had tried to kill Harry and the curse had reflected on him he was not corporal any more, so he was not able to take the wand with him. LV himself tells the Death Eater that he was in a state where he was not able to hold a wand the night he returns. But the wand he has got that night is his old one because it contains the feather from Fawkes and Harry's parents are coming out of it. And speaking of that why isn't the curse with which LV tried to kill Harry coming out of it in some form? Shouldn't a shadow of LVs body come out of it? Well I hope you understand what I mean. My English is not that good (as you may have noticed). "maren243" From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Oct 12 00:30:09 2004 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:30:09 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> References: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: <416B2591.9060403@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115440 feklar wrote: > > But that would be utterly disasterous for Hermione. Everytime I read JKR's > hints that they will end up together, I shudder. The same here. Ron has no respect for what's important for Hermione (books and learning, to name but two). The fact that after 5 years she has learned to ignore his quips, does not make his lack of basic acceptance of her values any more right. In school setting he tries to drag her down, because her success makes him look worse, how on earth will he cope with a more successful/higher earning wife? Irene From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Mon Oct 11 21:39:44 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:39:44 -0000 Subject: Hermione breaking (was: In defense of Hermione ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115441 > Sophierom, who admires Hermione a great deal because I was once > a smart, bossy girl; but unlike Hermione, who's toning it down > without losing her identity, I completely folded under social > pressure during middle and high school and am only now learning > to assert myself again. Toto: Hum, that's where I may really think otherwise (about Hermione). JK hinted at Hermione's breaking sooner or later. She said that we should worry more about her. She said Harry needed her. She said Harry should crawl up and die, it would be easier for him. While Hermione is my favorite character, and I think she is stronger willed than you have described (I believe she knew from the beginning what being a muggleborn would be), there are chances that Hermione breaks. It would be sad, and it may finish in R/Hr -with Harry too weak to help her, and her too stupid to realise her mistake. I also wonder how Harry would fare in that case (maybe super Lovegood to the rescue :) ). Of course, two other scenario would be for Ron to grow up and distance himself from Harry, helping Harry to see a few other things, or Ron and Hermione mingling and changing, but it would transform the book on their tale, and... Plus, I disagree about something else: Ron needs to be sure of himself, and someone like Hermione would smother him, or so I think. From Vekkel at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 21:49:10 2004 From: Vekkel at gmail.com (vekkel1) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:49:10 -0000 Subject: Saving People? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115442 Sophierom: > Hermione, on the other hand, rarely allows Harry to fall into that > comfort zone. This can be annoying - homework planner - or it can be > insightful - don't give up on Occlumency, don't rush to action before > thinking about why this is happening. Even when her advice upsets > Harry (firebolt, POA or cautioning about Sirius, OotP), she says it > because she Harry needs to hear it. By OotP, she's not throwing > this advice in his face; she's actually trying to tell him politely, > even timidly: "Looking frightened yet determined," Hermione tells > Harry, "This isn't a criticism, Harry! But you do sort of I mean > ? don't you think you've got a bit of a ? a ? saving people thing > [italics]?" (OotP, Am. ed., 733). The 'saving people' comment has always eaten at me. How is it she can say it like it's a bad thing when it has actually saved people's lives? She would probably be stuck on some Troll's club and Ginny would have never made it out of the chamber. Second year, he and Ron did stop and go to a teacher, they took the time to tell someone and that person was no help so he had do it himself. Even go back to first year when they went to Hermione's idol and tried to warn her about the stone, she told them to mind their own business, so once again he had to do it himself. I've always felt that Harry has one mother, she died to protect him, he really doesn't need another one to tell him what to do. "vekkel1" From figgys26cats at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 00:08:59 2004 From: figgys26cats at yahoo.com (Kathleen Hunt) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? / Dumbledore keeping watch on Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041012000859.80177.qmail@web51702.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115443 > charme: > Has anyone else noticed the references to Harry's glasses > being "missing" when he experiences something mental I'd > loosely coin "unusual?" Jeanette wrote: > Perhaps a play on everyday vision versus mental or magical > vision. Harry does seem to be showing hints of vision that goes > beyond the physical. I really never thought of his glasses. Dumbledore seems to know exactly what Harry does, and others have stated that he has watched Harry even more closely than he has realized. Has he been using Harry's glasses as a way to know what he has been up to? Or could it be just the Chocolate Frog pictures? What do you all think? "figgys26cats" From siskiou at vcem.com Tue Oct 12 00:51:57 2004 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:51:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <416B2591.9060403@btopenworld.com> References: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> <416B2591.9060403@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <1056477445.20041011175157@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115444 Hi, Monday, October 11, 2004, 5:30:09 PM, Irene wrote: > In school setting he tries to drag her down, because her success makes > him look worse, Do you have any examples from canon for this? Also, Ron does not seem threatened or annoyed by Hermione's brains whatsoever, in the books, and there are plenty of important jobs out there that don't require you to have an outrageously high IQ to be successful and helpful to society. I don't understand this prejudice that the husband should/would feel like a failure if the wife makes more money. Isn't that kind of thinking a bit outdated and offensive? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 12 02:49:29 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:49:29 -0000 Subject: In defense of Ron was Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <00f001c4afd1$048cab90$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115445 > Feklar: > > But that would be utterly disasterous for Hermione. Pippin: Ron is barely sixteen years old. He'd be a disaster for anybody. . Feklar: > Another way I think it will affect whatever poor sucker Ron ends up with is that when it comes down to it, Ron has been taken care of his entire life by his mother or HG house elves. He doesn't appear to have any house keeping,cooking or cleaning skills and I bet he would be utterly disgusted or at least confused if someone suggested he learn them. < Pippin: Ron may possess the emotional range of a teaspoon, but do you need sensitivity to do housework? There are quite a few examples of Ron's domestic skills in the books. Ron makes tea for Hagrid, suggests using the oven-equipped tent kitchen rather than the campfire to cook dinner at the QWC, and helps out without grumbling at home and at Grimmauld Place. He alters his own robes ( he didn't do a stellar job, but he also didn't expect someone else to do it for him). He's ordered not to use magic to clean the trophy room, which certainly sounds as if it's expected he'd know how. We don't know if he can cook, but we don't know if Hermione can cook either. If her efforts resemble her initial efforts at knitting, Ron may learn to cook in self defense . Pippin From patientx3 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 03:04:19 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:04:19 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115446 bboyminn wrote: >>I don't think Seamus necessarily believes the paper or his mother. I think he is inclined to believe Harry but would like to hear the details so he can either make up his own mind and confirm his faith in Harrry. [snip] I think the wizard world is frustrated by Dumbledore's repeating of /headlines/ without the details to back them up. Dumbledore may have valid strategic reasons for doing so, but to the wizard world at large, that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I think this position is clear when you see how fast the wizard world and the students turn their opinions around once Harry's interview is published.<< HunterGreen: Clearly with the Daily Prophet being controlled by the Ministry its very difficult to get the whole story out to anyone. There's many mentions of it being "Harry's word" against everyone elses when there there was actually other evidence (the disappearence of Bertha Jorkins, Crouch Sr.'s mysterious illness and disappearence, Crouch Jr. being alive and claiming to be working for Voldemort, Harry and Cedric disappearing from Hogwarts grounds, and reappearing an hour or more later with Cedric dead) which was being pushed aside or not connected right. I think Dumbledore just wasn't going about it right. They had a grassroots campaign rather than finding some sort of mass-media way to release the *whole* story, which is what should have happened at the end of GoF (to accompany Dumbledore's speech). Its no surprise that so many people changed their minds about Harry when they heard the whole story, it does make sense, and there were things to back it up. Before that, you are right Steve, Dumbledore was just running around spouting headlines, and Harry was reluctant to talk about it at all (and when he did, he gave few or no details), no wonder everyone thought Dumbledore was starting to lose his mind. From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 03:27:22 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:27:22 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115447 phoenixgod2000 wrote: > One of my peeves with book five (and there were many) was the way Hermione was able to lecture Ron and Harry on the nature of the female mind. I just don't buy that a socially awkward fifteen year old would have that much insight into another person's mind while Ron and Harry were almost comically clueless. Harry I could understand, but Ron? This is the guy with a huge family and probably large extended family as well. How many times did Bill or Charlie bring their girlfriends over? How much interaction has Ron seen and overheard? The answer is probably a lot. I would have like to have seen Ron bust out with the advice that he may have heard from Bill or Charlie about women. > Because a little brother not asking his older brothers about women? > Not happening. Instead we get Hermione. A girl who's never had a > boyfriend, doesn't talk with her dorm mates, doesn't seem to > socialize with other houses, and spends all her time in the > library. And I am supposed to believe that she gets nuances in > social relationships. Not so much. > ****I'm not sure about your last statements. I don't know where do many of HP readers get the idea that Hermione is not socially aware or challenged in that respect -- just because Ron said so in PS doesn't mean it's true... To me she is just too mature to find an interesting exchange with P.Patil and L.Brown, and through the books I can see that Hermione has shown a lot of social skills: - Hermione was the founder of the DA, she was the one whom contacted the students from the other Houses, she is well known by them --if she were a 'nutter' they wouldn't have listened to her risky idea. - In GoF she mentions Eloise Midgen, she defends her from Ron's attack by saying that her acne was loads better and that she was a nice person --this shows to me that she has other friends/ acquantainces in the school, she even mentions Theodore Nott in OoTP, whom apparently was a non-entity to Harry and Ron. - In PoA she managed to shut Ron up in front of Fudge politely--she told him it was not wise to contradict Fudge, whom was Mr. Weasley's boss after all, to me that shows quite a good deal a 'social awareness'. - In GoF she stood up for Winky while she was being accused of casting the Dark Mark, she knew whom all those wizards were yet she fought for Winky's rights, that shows a lot of 'social responsibility' to me. (Besides bravery, since she was a Muggleborn and they were being attacked at that moment.) - In GoF she tried to socialize with the other schools, she was the date of one of the Champions --not quite a boyfriend, but a cool date, if you allow her that, so she is not 'that' antisocial as you portray her. - Even though she doesn't agree with Hagrid's idea of teaching CoMC or his choice of 'eau of cologne', she is polite enough to by-pass those 'details' and remain a true friend to him, that to me shows a lot of 'peoples' skills'. - The teachers, except maybe Snape, all think highly of her, MM respects her opinions (she said so to Harry). - She knew that by kissing Ron in the Great Hall she would confuse him enough so that he wouldn't pay attention to the Slytherins King badges, that to me also shows that she knows of nuances of relantioships. - About her not talking to her dorm mates, I believe it's mainly a female trio thing, when you get more than two girls together, you get one odd out, and in Hermione's case, she has never had any problems telling Lavender of Parvarti what was in her mind, and to her credit, her two dorm mates listen to her, they attended the DA lessons, didn't they? Even after Lavender got a 'shout your fat mouth up about Harry' from Hermione at the very beginning of the school year. In summary, Hermione has been shown in the books to have a bigger knowledge not only of the school dynamics but of its students and its Houses, too. She is a more mature witch for her age, and that might be the reason why her dorm mates don't 'click' with her so much. She is also JKR's voice, as you said it, but I didn't find her character overdone in OoTP when it came to 'girl's advice', after all, it wasn't that difficult to know why Cho was feeling like she was and IMO, Hermione was sort of feeling like Cho during OoTP, she was having mixed feelings about her two best friends plus Viktor (I believe she likes Harry, :P) ) like Cho did with Cedric/Harry and she was afraid of being expelled from school (DA) like Cho was afraid of being sacked from her Quidditch team. > >Phoenixgod2000 (Cont'd): > > By OotP, she's not throwing this advice in his face; she's > > actually trying to tell him politely, even timidly: "Looking > > frightened yet determined," Hermione tells Harry, "This isn't a > > criticism, Harry! But you do sort of I mean ? don't you think > > you've got a bit of a ? a ? saving people thing [italics]?" (OotP, > > Am. ed., 733). > > Another thing that irritated me! That was about the dumbest thing > Hermione could have said. If Harry hadn't had a saving people thing > then she would have died in her first year with that very impressive > brain of hers splattered on a trolls club. There are a thousand > different things that she could have said to him that could have > gotten across the point of slow down and think without being > obnoxious. That whole scene was more an example of her lack of tact > because honestly I think she did more harm than good there. > *****I think that you missed the point, she needed to tell him that to explain why Voldemort expected him to do just what he was thinking. I believe JKR chose those words for future reference, there is authorial intent with them, why else would she chose to make Hermione more 'obnoxious' at such a crucial point of the plot? I think that it was to bait us but also warn us (us readers and Harry, too)... I also hated Hermione for being soooo tactless at that moment, because I had swallowed Voldemort's bait up to the hook, just like Harry had, lol. Harry saw some truth in what she said, and agreed to talk on the fire before rushing to the MoM. I agree that Hermione could have been more tactful there, but considering the circumstances I think that she was quite good at that, I'd have been yelling at him instead of being 'polite', :). Marcela From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 03:56:12 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 03:56:12 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115448 Minerva McGonagall. What do we know about her? Her nostrils flare Her mouth tightens when she's angry She looks severe, wears her hair in a tight bun She brooks no goofing off in class (nor out of it) She is stern & strict She wears a tartan dressing gown & hair net She stands firm She drinks gillywater She is one of 7 registered animagi in the 20th century She maintains high expectations for her students She is a Quidditch fanatic She, on various occasions, sniffs, shouts, shrieks, screeches, barks, speaks tartly and bellows She has a soft spot She has a dry wit She's a tough cookie These are aspects of Minerva McGonagall that we've gotten to see. But who IS she, really? What roles does she play? Sure, she teaches Transfiguration, she's Head of Gryffindor House, and she's Deputy Headmistress, but how important is she to the Harry Potter story? Was she in the Order the first time? Does she do anything useful for the Order this time? Is it only at Hogwarts that her rank & responsibility are high? If so, why? If not, why don't we hear about it? Is she a powerful witch? And what the hell is her relationship to DD? Very rarely do posters at HPfGU even bring McGonagall up. When they do, it is often a brief reference to a specific incident. Rarely do posters theorize about her being ESE!, nor do they often bring her up as one of the significant White Hats. Why is this? Is it because she's boring or innocuous? Has JKR indicated that her role is insignificant or inconsequential? Is it because she's a woman? What's up with McGonagall? By way of trying to figure some of this out, I searched the books for MM scenes. Herewith is a bit of a summary and a few of my observations. The four things which most struck me were: 1) there is a stunning change between her first appearance in Privet Drive and 10 years later at Hogwarts, in terms of her relationship with & interaction with DD; 2)MM is by & large a very fair teacher & Head of House; 3) she is portrayed as stern, but she is also a delicious source of dry humor; 4) her role expands significantly as the series progresses. Point 1: there is significant change between Privet Dr. & 10-11 years later We meet MM actually before we meet DD?in cat form at PD. She arrives the morning after GH and waits all day `til DD arrives near midnight. And what is DD's reaction at finding her there? From later books, we might've expected him to *know* that she'd be there. Certainly we'd expect him to start telling her all that's happened & what's going on now. But this is not how it goes. He seems *amused* by her presence. It's not even clear that she intended to reveal herself, but he recognized her cat form. MM wants reassurance and DD offers her a lemon drop! MM doesn't even seem to know about this quirk of his. She finds she must *ask* questions because DD's clearly not automatically offering up information. She expresses reservations about Hagrid's role in bringing Harry, but backs down when DD says he'd trust Hagrid with his life. MM asks about getting rid of Harry's scar, but DD says no, that scars can be useful. When Hagrid arrives & they leave Harry, Hagrid sobs, MM blinks, and DD's twinkle is gone. "I shall see you soon, I expect?" says DD. That's it! He issues no instructions, does not offer to accompany her back to Hogwarts; he simply leaves her there. In short, he is cordial & forthcoming when asked questions directly, but clearly, they're not confidantes at this point. In CoS, when they find petrified Colin, MM mentions how lucky they were that DD was "going down for hot chocolate." [Hmmm. Were they together?] She also asks, "What does this mean, Albus?" They seem quite familiar at this point. So what's up with this?? It could be because of something Dzeytoun suggested awhile back?that this is merely a literary tool to introduce the characters & events. It would be more *interesting* if something really happened in those 10 years to significantly alter DD's & MM's relationship ? what could it be?? ? but given that they'd taught together for about 25 years *before* the Privet Drive scene, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Unless DD & MM fell in love in the intervening 10 years? ;-) Point 2: MM is by & large a very fair teacher/HoH She may lay off the homework the night before a big Gryffindor Quidditch match, but other than that, we do not see her favoring those in her own house very much. She berates, she fumes, she states (repeatedly) that she's "never!" seen such abominable behavior from Gryffindors, she assigns detentions, she takes points ? BIG points, many times ? indeed, she is fair. When Harry, Neville & Hermione are out of bounds, along with Draco, she doesn't excuse her Gryffindors and punish only Draco. Rather, she holds one standard -- out of bed = detention -? and all four receive it. One should note, also, her continual annoyance with Lee Jordan's biased-towards-Gryffindor Quidditch commentary. She's always threatening to "unplug" him if he can't control his remarks (though she never does :-)). The main incident where one could cry "foul" re: favoritism is with Harry being allowed to be a Seeker in his first year and the fact that she sends him a broom. Yet even with this, we see no scowling by Snape nor protestation by other Heads of House. Point 3: MM is a delicious source of dry humor. "Tripe, Sybill?" "I assure you, if you die, you need not hand it in." "Cough drop, Dolores?" "Miss Brown, would you mind running along to the headmistress and informing her that we have an escaped firework in our classroom?" "It unscrews the other way." It is often subtle, but it is also present often. When Harry & Ron are in Snape's office, trying to explain away their arrival in a flying Ford Anglia & the damage done to the Whomping Willow, MM struggles to not smile when Harry tries to argue against taking points, since it happened prior to start of term. She even lets H&R eat their supper on SNAPE'S desk after *not* expelling them. Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as emanating from a fine sense of humor. Point #4: Her role expands throughout the series Pretty much what MM does at Hogwarts can be summed up by saying she sends return-to-school letters, she teaches Transfiguration, she makes announcements, and she herds & leads the students around. She also fills in for DD when he is kicked out of Hogwarts. But how much of these things she does?or how much we SEE her doing these things?has grown from Book 1 to Book 5. SS/PS *Greets 1st years, explains Sorting process [standard each year] *Is a strict teacher who "could spot trouble quicker than any teacher in the school" *Tells Oliver Wood she's found him a Seeker and gives Harry Nimbus 2000 *Giggles & blushes at Christmas when Hagrid kisses her *Issues detentions & docks 50 pts. each from Harry, Hermione, Neville & Draco *Tells H/R/H SS is well protected & dismisses them w/ threat of more points CoS *Handles discipline after Whomping Willow incident *Defends Harry when Snape implies he petrified Mrs. Norris; DD agrees *After Colin & JFF are petrified, *then* MM says, "This is out of my hands, Potter." *Announces cancellation of Quidditch match *Takes over when DD is removed *Announces exams still on *Orders students to dorms, tells staff students must be sent home-- it's the end of Hogwarts *Plays along w/ Snape about Lockhart rescuing Ginny *Once DD is back, falls apart a bit -- clutches chest, takes great, steadying gulps of air, speaks weakly -- but still does majority of questioning of Harry & Ron, though DD announces no punishment. PoA *Sends Hogwarts letters signed "Deputy Headmistress" *Makes arrangements to allow Hermione's use of TT *Refuses to sign Harry's Hogsmeade permission form *Calls Harry in to tell him about Sirius & is surprised he already knows *Discusses James/Sirius/Peter w/ Fudge & Rosmerta?gets teary *Agrees w/ Hermione that Firebolt must be stripped down [only 2nd time Harry's seen MM in Gryffindor common room] *Gets "a bit shirty" with Oliver Wood when he tries to get Firebolt back *Actually smiles when returns Firebolt to Harry *Has ongoing teasing with Snape over Gryffindor/Slytherin Quidditch *Gives Malfoy et al. detention & takes 50 pts. for Dementor stunt *Asks which abysmal fool left passwords lying about, then bans Neville from future Hogsmeade trips, gives him detention & forbids anyone to give him passwords *Yells at Lee Jordan for biased commentary -- until Malfoy blatantly fouls, and then she screeches at Madame Hooch *Sobs harder than Wood when Gryffindor wins GoF *Greets students & yells at Peeves for water balloons *Clears her throat to stop DD from telling joke *Shrieks, "Is that a student?" when Crouch!Moody turns Draco into ferret *Tells George to "shut up" when he asks about TWT champions *Whispers urgently to DD after Harry's name pops out of cup [??] *Worries about Harry before first task & assures him no one will think less of him if he gives it his all; praises him after. *Announces Yule Ball ["a chance for us all to?er?let our hair down"] *Fetches & leads students into ball *Tells Ron & Hermione their part in the 2nd task *Patrols perimeter during 3rd task *Goes straight to Harry after return from graveyard, wants to take to hospital wing; DD says no *Gets Padfoot at DD's request; guards Barty, Jr., at DD's request *"Loses control" with Fudge after Dementor kiss on Barty, Jr. *Calls Fudge "You fool!!" when he won't believe Harry OotP *Visits Order HQ in Muggle attire *Gives first years "the sort of look that scorches" for whispering *When DJU sends Harry to MM, warns him to be careful?it's not about truth & lies, but about keeping temper under control *Tells Neville there's nothing wrong w/ his work but a lack of confidence *"Umbridge won't know what hit her" predicts Ron re: MM's class inspection *When Harry gets more detention, MM takes 5 points & says he "must get a grip!" *Stands up to DJU during inspection *Warns Harry channels of communication are being watched *Warns Ron & Harry she doesn't want to hand over the Quidditch Cup to Snape *Is livid with Harry & George after post-Quidditch fight w/ Draco. Gets more livid w/ DJU for interfering. *Takes Harry to DD after vision of snake attack; heads off DJU *Comforts Trelawney when she gets sacked; knows plan for her to stay *Sarcastic commentary on WW justice system during questioning of Harry on DA *Tells Fudge DD won't be taking the ministry on single-handedly, but DD says he will because "Hogwarts needs you." *Tells Harry she'll do whatever is necessary to see that he becomes an Auror, even if she must coach him herself nightly *Runs to defend Hagrid/confront DJU and takes 4 stunners to chest ****Harry comments: "Dumbledore had gone, Hagrid had gone, but he had always expected Professor McGonagall to be there, irascible & inflexible, perhaps, but dependably, soundly present."**** *Returns to Hogwarts & interrupts Snape confronting Harry; adds 300 points for students involved in MoM battle *Regrets she can't go cheering after departing DJU, but Peeves has borrowed walking stick :-) Hopefully it is apparent that her role has changed from beginning to present. She evidences more responsibility, she is officially Deputy Headmistress, if she was not before; she stands firm, she metes out punishment. For me, Harry's thought [just above] when McGonagall had been sent to St. Mungo's spoke volumes about how HE sees her importance. I wonder why we HPfGU'ers just don't talk about her much.... With apologies for the length of this, Siriusly Snapey Susan From Tenou0 at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 01:15:14 2004 From: Tenou0 at gmail.com (Tenou) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:15:14 -0000 Subject: Petunia's secret/ was Petunia and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115449 Tonks thus spoke: > > Here I am also speaking of > > Petunia's silence when it comes to "stamping out the magic in the > > boy". > > > > If I remember correctly most of the "stamping out" of magic from > > Harry comes from Vernon. Maybe the reason JKR > > doesn't like Vernon is that he does not allow a person to be who > > they are...Not allowing a person to be fully what and who they > > were meant to be is in someway worst than just killing their body; > > it is killing their soul, in a sense. As I have said before, I > > think Petunia is a witch that chose to live as a Muggle. Maybe > > because she knows Vernon would not have married her otherwise. Syroun thus spoke: > I agree with Tonks; JKR has already warned us that there is more to > Petunia and that we should keep an eye on her. Past that, her > reaction to Harry's description of the dementors was not one of an > average muggle that holds whole idea of the WW as a "bin of > rubbish". She shows that she as a profound understanding of the > gravity of the situation. Harry comments that for the first time, > she sees something in Petunia's eyes that proves she is the sister > of his mother, Lily. > > This profound reaction gives her away. She is not just > the average muggle that happens to have a magical sister; she most > likely has her own personal experience within the WW and has chosen, > for one reason or another, to live strictly as a muggle. I also > think that the fact that Harry has spent appreciable time over the > years with Mrs. Figg, a squib in the WW, but an eccentric nutter to > muggles, is evidence of Petunia's connection with and understanding > of the WW along with her grasp of Harry's need for protection over > and above what she has provided him through the blood curse. It is > not likely that someone like Petunia would ever have anything to do > with an odd bird like Figg, if she did not have a significant > underlying reason for it. Figg is the type of neighbor Petunia would > ordinarily shun. > They are, essentially, still human beings willing to afford > protection to children...regardless of how imperfect as they may > seem otherwise. I agree with Syroun, in that Petunia has probably had some experience with the WW, however, like attracting like as it does, I'm not so sure she consciously chose Mrs. Figg. She would be afraid of angering her husband, even if she was sure he would not notice anything off about Mrs. Figg. It could have been something as simple as Harry - being the odd duck that he is ? would embarrass the family if he were sent to stay with anyone else. My own theory on Petunia, she is an abused woman and an enabler. In the beginning, before Lily is notified that she has been accepted to Hogwarts, Lily and Petunia are very close, possibly best friends. Lily goes off to Hotwarts and Petunia feels abandoned and a little betrayed, but still, she loves her sister and they still talk to one another. (`Mrs. Potter was Mrs. Dursley's sister, but they hadn't met for several years ' [pg. 1 UK ed.] I'm thinking that it would be right around the time of Lily's graduation that Lily and Petunia stopped talking.) In the time that Lily is gone Petunia meets a nice muggle ? probably just like Vernon - and becomes romantically involved. He learns about her connections to the WW (or she tells him) and rejects her, calling her a `freak' by association, etc. Lily come home for holiday, and she gets a lot of attention, which is probably amplified in her mind because she has been rejected by a man, and the natural distortions of memory and feelings. Slowly she begins to blame Lily, but being sisters, still loves her and is still loyal to her. Then Lily brings James home to meet the family, and James is up to his old tricks and turns her arms into wings or the like. But not only is James horrible to Petunia, Lily, the sister she has missed while she was away has no time for her and spends all her time with James. This gives plenty of reason to hate James, and then, to some extent, the WW, for taking away her sister and leaving poor Petunia behind. When she meets Vernon she learns that he is a magiphobe (fear of magic people? What do you think?) she verbally bashes the WW, and, to let him know just how much she loathes the WW she tells Vernon how much she hates her own sister because she is a witch. So she and Vernon get married. They live their quiet, normal, boring lives until Harry comes into the picture. So again, Petunia has to bash the WW out of fear of being rejected, loosing her husband, son, the life she's built for herself, her financial status ? home workers tend to be financially dependant on their spouse ? if she openly loves and accepts her sister or her nephew. She enables Vernon's abuse/neglect of Harry by saying nothing against Vernon or in defense of Harry. Like Tonks said, Petunia does remain silent in the `stamping out of magic.' But there are small things that seem to show that Petunia does care for Lily and Harry. She remembers obscure details about Lily's conversations (OoP, pg. 34-5 UK ed. She remembers James telling Lily about Dementors) Harry is not treated as a slave (PS, pg. 19 Harry does not cook the whole meal, Petunia does start cooking it.) While Vernon is abusive towards Harry, Petunia never takes part in the degradation of Harry. When it comes right down to it, I believe it is more than basic humanity keeping Harry safe in the Dursley's home. Petunia still cares for her sister, enough to see that no great harm comes to Harry, because he is, after all, family. `You may not like your family but you still love them.' Though I do not believe she would put her son or herself at risk for Harry's safety. It does take a Howler from Dumbledore in OoP (pg. 40 UK ed.) to convince Petunia to stay. Ten'ou From martyb1130 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 02:51:08 2004 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:51:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another death? (in HBP) Message-ID: <76.43f4d5a2.2e9ca09c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115450 Boggarts are not future detectors. They are simply figures that turn into your worst fears and nightmares. I would not take it to seriously, do you really expect Snape to begin to wear Neville's grandmother's clothes? Or see a spider with roller skates on? Brodeur [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Tenou0 at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 00:50:17 2004 From: Tenou0 at gmail.com (Tenou) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:50:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's doorstep bed, basket or blankets (was: Im confused...Petunia's lette In-Reply-To: <002e01c4af70$9dfedca0$47c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115451 DuffyPoo thus spoke: > Just to question...several have mentioned Harry in a basket when he >was placed on the doorstep. My version has no basket just a bundle >of blankets. PS does say that Harry was wrapped in blankets: 'Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall bent forward over the bundle of blankets'; `He laid Harry gently on the doorstep, took a letter out of his cloak tucked it inside Harry's blankets...' However, just because a basket is not mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there, it might have been off page. The bundle of blankets could have been in a basket. But if it is not and Harry was just wrapped in blankets and left on the step, there have been enough images of babies left on a step in a basket in other books and movies for everyone to assume that there was a basket. Subconscious addition of something that would make more sense. Because have you ever left a baby, not just a baby, but a year old baby rapped in blankets? If you haven't, I'll tell you from personal experience that that baby won't stay like that for long, even if it is sleeping. Ten'ou From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 12 04:27:37 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 04:27:37 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115452 snipping excellent post to get to this part: SSSusan wrote about McGonagall: > *Tells Harry she'll do whatever is necessary to see that he becomes > an Auror, even if she must coach him herself nightly Potioncat: Since the first step was to pull up his transfiguration and potion marks in order to do well on OWLs, how has she helped here? Potioncat who agrees with SSSusan, we haven't discussed McGonagall enough From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 06:57:03 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:57:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's doorstep bed, basket or blankets (was: Im confused...Petunia's lette In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tenou" wrote: > > > DuffyPoo thus spoke: > > > Just to question...several have mentioned Harry in a basket when he > >was placed on the doorstep. My version has no basket just a bundle > >of blankets. > Ten'ou: > PS does say that Harry was wrapped in blankets: 'Dumbledore and > Professor McGonagall bent forward over the bundle of blankets'; `He > laid Harry gently on the doorstep, took a letter out of his cloak > tucked it inside Harry's blankets...' > > However, just because a basket is not mentioned doesn't mean it > wasn't there, it might have been off page. The bundle of blankets > could have been in a basket. Geoff: There is a basket (IIRC) in "the medium that dare not speak its name" but the book doesn't mention one. Hagrid brings Harry on the motor bike... "...in his vast muscular arms, he wasa holding a bundle of blankets.." "PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.16 UK edition) and when Dumbledore makes his exit.... "He could just see the bundle of blankets on the step of number four." (ibid. p.18) Where would a basket come from, unless someone conjures one up? Hagrid hasn't got one, McGonagall arrives in animagus form, Dumbledore isn't carrying anything. Mark you, I agree that a 15-month old child might kick off the blankets; I have memories of my mob when they were that age. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From impherring13 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 07:04:24 2004 From: impherring13 at yahoo.com (impherring13) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:04:24 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115455 As we all know, Yahoo's group search engine isn't exactly the best, so I don't know if this has been proposed already. During PA, Harry begins to regain memories of the night his parents were killed. He hears his mother (or the person we are almost positive is his Lily), and his father (or the person we are not so positive is James). Really all we know for sure is what is spoken between them. We hear the male voice saying that Voldemort is there and that he will hold him off. We do not learn the outcome of this "duel". The scene moves on to Voldemort killing Lily. What I propose is that the male voice is not James, but Peter Pettigrew. In the wand order we are given in GF, we are told that Voldemort killed James, then Lily with no intervening spells. This is my idea of the sequence of events: Voldemort (or one of his Death Eaters) kills James while he is on an Order of the Pheonix mission shortly before Voldemort arrives in Godric's Hollow. Peter, who as secret keeper has been staying with the Potters meets Voldemort at the door. He lies to Lily, saying that Voldemort is there and he will hold him off. He actually Brings Voldemort to Lily. After Voldemort's failed attempt to kill Harry, Peter takes Voldemort's wand and runs off. This tells us why Remus is surprised to hear that James was in the house. We must remember that at this point Remus still believes Peter is innocent, therefore there is no reason to mention to Harry who was really there. This also clears up how Peter came to have Voldemort's wand. Tell me what you think. -SD From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 07:47:05 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:47:05 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115456 > > Dungrollin, previously: > > If he wants to > > read Harry's mind to check whether he's a potential > > competitor for the EvilBastardoftheMillenium cup, he should > > use Legithingy, shouldn't he? Can you read a wizard's > > powers like that? What could he gain from *possessing* > > Harry? Means and opportunity granted in spades, but where's > > the motive? > > Kneasy: > Not sure that Legilimancy would be the right tool for the job > - it accesses memories, reads thoughts - and Harry is unlikely > to have used his power yet so he'll have no memories of it. > Not sure it can measure power, magical potential. To find out > about that I'd think that you would have to get in there and > use it to see what it can do. Could be wrong, but that's my take > with the information available as of now. Dungrollin: Sorry, I was being a bit thick there, you're right about the Legilimency. So... You're suggesting Voldy was after a simple test-flight (with no obligation to buy), but instead got a turbo-assisted ejector-seat exit from the physical plane. Hmm. I see. I've been pondering and pondering, and reading the back posts, and coming up with some stunningly brilliant ideas, which on closer examination all turn out to be rubbish. But, I do have one last (at least I hope it's the last) problem with this possession malarky, and it'sabout the interplay between the spell(/charm/curse/whatever) that Voldy uses and the protection left by Lily (and presumably DD). I'll just recap what I was saying about backfiring/rebounding spells in my original post (115135). If Voldy's attempting a possession, and the spell *backfires* (i.e. affects the caster rather than the castee), then Harry should end up possessing Voldy, and bits of Harry would end up in Voldy, not the other way around. What you're suggesting, (if I've understood correctly) is more akin to a rat entering a trap, realising it's a trap, doing a quick one-eighty to get out sharpish, but not quite quick enough to avoid getting it's tail cut off by the guillotine that comes down on its way out. Thus bits of Voldy stay in Harry. And he gets ripped from his body, pain beyond pain and so on and so forth at the same time. Right? Which would mean DD's not just mistaken, or cherry-picking the truth, he's telling significant fibs. Don't get me wrong, I *like* the idea of devious!Dumbledore. That weapon!Harry is his big plan, and he won't let anything get in its way. I like going over everything he says and turning it upside down, giving it a good shake, and seeing if any new insights (like bits of old fluff) fall out. It's just that... well, there's a *whole page* of blithering about the obvious flaw in his plan (and how he alone could prevent this flaw from ruining it, so he alone must be strong), before he gets round to saying: `I cared about you too much... I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act.' Though I could, I suppose, be accused of quoting him out of context. I'm feeling a bit guilty that I'm sniping a lot, without coming up with anything half-decent myself. Sorry. Dungrollin There is a theory that says: if anyone actually finds out what the universe is for, it will immediately vanish, to be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There is another theory that says: this has already happened. HHGTTG From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Oct 12 09:56:22 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 05:56:22 -0400 Subject: Harry's doorstep bed, basket or blankets Message-ID: <001201c4b041$bb8588b0$84c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115457 DuffyPoo thus spoke: > Just to question...several have mentioned Harry in a basket when he >was placed on the doorstep. My version has no basket just a bundle >of blankets. Ten'ou "PS does say that Harry was wrapped in blankets: 'Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall bent forward over the bundle of blankets'; `He laid Harry gently on the doorstep, took a letter out of his cloak tucked it inside Harry's blankets...' However, just because a basket is not mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there, it might have been off page. The bundle of blankets could have been in a basket. " DuffyPoo: The fact is then, there is no basket? That's good because I re-read that chapter and couldn't find any mention of one! If a basket isn't mentioned then I have to presume there wasn't one there, therefore, no extra letters could get stuck inside one. If the author needs me to believe their was a basket present in which to hide spare letters, then they have to write it into the story. JKR didn't , so their mustn't be one. This isn't the real world after all, it's a storybook world. A storybook baby, asleep and wrapped in blankets can stay in that position for days if that's what the author intends. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 10:09:28 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:09:28 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "impherring13" wrote: snip> > During PA, Harry begins to regain memories of the night his parents were killed. He hears his mother (or the person we are almost> positive is his Lily), and his father (or the person we are not so > positive is James). snip snipWhat I propose > is that the male voice is not James, but Peter Pettigrew. In the wand > order we are given in GF, we are told that Voldemort killed James, then Lily with no intervening spells. > > This is my idea of the sequence of events: > Voldemort (or one of his Death Eaters) kills James while he is on > an Order of the Pheonix mission shortly before Voldemort arrives in Godric's Hollow. Peter, who as secret keeper has been staying with > the Potters meets Voldemort at the door. He lies to Lily, saying that > Voldemort is there and he will hold him off. He actually Brings > Voldemort to Lily. After Voldemort's failed attempt to kill Harry, > Peter takes Voldemort's wand and runs off. > This tells us why Remus is surprised to hear that James was in the > house. We must remember that at this point Remus still believes Peter > is innocent, therefore there is no reason to mention to Harry who was > really there. This also clears up how Peter came to have Voldemort's > wand. Tell me what you think. mhbobbin: This theory addresses the male voice and Remus' strange reaction to it-- with James being killed away from the house. However, once Voldemort can see Godric Hollow, I don't think he's going to knock on the door or wait for Peter to let him it. I think he's just going to barge in. As Sirius expected to find Peter at Peter's own secret hiding place that night, I don't think Peter would be staying with the Potters, although he could have been at GH in advance of LV. I think Peter is present with LV. It may even be his voice yelling for Lily to run. And he likely did take the wand and hide it. What this doesn't address is how everyone--and especially Dumbledore- -knew of events. The male voice is a clue--i think--especially since Harry assumes it to be his father's--typical JKR switcheroo. Remus' reaction is a clue. And the speed in which Dumbledore dispatches Hagrid is a clue. Right now, I lean more towards the other current thread--2-way mirror, floo network, portrait---that allows a witness not physically present at the scene to witness, and possibly, to be heard yelling for Lily to run. Perhaps it was even Lupin's voice. Do we have any clues as to whether it was a full moon? mhbobbin From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 10:16:39 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:16:39 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: Mac: > I do believe she says she's in it as much because she loves these > characters and writing them, which s very different from L.M. > Montgomery or Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes. It would be > different if she hadn't set the 7 book limit, though she has said > that at times even that was a strain (major hurdle in GoF). Let us > wish her well and take some pressure off. It is my fear that once > book 7 is here it'll literally be over and there'll be no more very > enjoyable (seond) guessing game. Geoff: Unless she emulates the last episode of "Blake's Seven" and kills all the goodies off, there'll be folk around and, hoping that my wish re Harry is observed, we can spend our time speculating where our friends have gone, especially JKR makes the last chapter an epilogue outlining what has happened to folk. Again, Hermione wouldn't want us to stop the group because the result would be a number of elves on benefit (and off vallium!) as a result. :-) Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 10:19:26 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:19:26 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115460 > Right now, I lean more towards the other current thread--2-way > mirror, floo network, portrait---that allows a witness not > physically present at the scene to witness, and possibly, to be > heard yelling for Lily to run. > > Perhaps it was even Lupin's voice. Do we have any clues as to > whether it was a full moon? > > mhbobbin If the male voice is someone other than James, it can't be a painting or someone in the 2-way mirror, it has to be someone who's physically there, and could have held off Voldy: 'Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off -' There can be a painting/mirror/something else witness too, of course, but the voice has to belong to someone who was there. Dungrollin From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 12 09:24:52 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:24:52 -0000 Subject: Hermione breaking (was: In defense of Hermione ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115461 Toto: > Hum, that's where I may really think otherwise (about Hermione). > JK hinted at Hermione's breaking sooner or later. She said that we > should worry more about her. She said Harry needed her. She said > Harry should crawl up and die, it would be easier for him. I think this is rather an exaggeration. It is true that JKR said, when asked what she would do if she were Harry, "I would run and hide." However, that is a far cry from saying it would be easier to "crawl up and die." And besides, JKR has always acknowledged that she isn't Harry and what might be terrible for her he might handle better. I do agree that Harry needs both Hermione and Ron, more than he probably realizes. And I do think this will be a theme of HBP. While > Hermione is my favorite character, and I think she is stronger > willed than you have described (I believe she knew from the > beginning what being a muggleborn would be), there are chances that > Hermione breaks. Well, we've already seen her rattled (e.g. at the end of PoA the book as opposed to PoA the movie). As for "breaking," I'm not so sure. "Stunned" I can see. It would be sad, and it may finish in R/Hr -with > Harry too weak to help her, and her too stupid to realise her > mistake. I also wonder how Harry would fare in that case (maybe > super Lovegood to the rescue :) ). Depends on what you think of R/Hr I suppose. Of course, two other scenario > would be for Ron to grow up and distance himself from Harry, helping > Harry to see a few other things, or Ron and Hermione mingling and > changing, but it would transform the book on their tale, and... > Plus, I disagree about something else: Ron needs to be sure of > himself, and someone like Hermione would smother him, or so I think. Ron definitely needs a big dose of self-confidence the same as Hermione needs a dose of humility. I certainly agree. Lupinlore From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 10:46:07 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:46:07 -0000 Subject: Ron&Hermione/Aberforth as DADA teacher? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115462 > Lupinlore: > > Ron definitely needs a big dose of self-confidence the same as > Hermione needs a dose of humility. I certainly agree. > Finwitch: How about having Aberforth Dumbledore as the next DADA teacher? Considering how Hermione learns all she knows from books, a teacher who doesn't appreciate reading at *all* would teach her humility. (I got this from how his brother "isn't certain he can read"...) As one subject probably would be DANGEROUS books, Ron knows of those quite a lot more than Hermione. Not just the Riddle Diary, but also: one that burns your eyes out, one that you can never stop reading... Ron had quite an impressive list to give when Harry found the Riddle Diary! A class where Ron can shine, but Hermione not! I do think Albus Dumbledore would ask his brother now - after all, he *was* unable to find a teacher, and after Umbridge *preventing* the kids from learning by having them do nothing but a reading practice suitable by someone learning how to read, not 15-year-olds who most definately know how to read, and NO practical magic allowed at all. (and when the kids get learn practical DADA on their own, she declares it illegal) Old Albus may well think that let's have someone who does just the opposite... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 11:59:38 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:59:38 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115463 from Great post on McGonagall by SSS: > > > > Hopefully it is apparent that her role has changed from beginning to > present. She evidences more responsibility, she is officially > Deputy Headmistress, if she was not before; she stands firm, she > metes out punishment. For me, Harry's thought [just above] when > McGonagall had been sent to St. Mungo's spoke volumes about how HE > sees her importance. I wonder why we HPfGU'ers just don't talk > about her much.... > > With apologies for the length of this, > Siriusly Snapey Susan Finwitch: Umm.. As I recall, McGonagall signed the first letter Harry recieved from Hogwarts as Deputy Headmistress. As to why we don't talk about her much, (unlike the never-ending discussion on Snape) I think it's because there's nothing to point that she has secrets, quite the opposite, as she's the only *Registered* animagus we have been introduced to (one of 7 on 20th century), in contrast to the 4 unregistered (Rita Skeeter + 3 friends of Lupin the werewolf). What comes to her relationship with Dumbledore, well... 1) In the first appearance, she's been teaching 15 years. I don't know if all of it was at Hogwarts under Dumbledore. Maybe she had just moved to teach at Hogwarts, because Voldemort/DE killed the previous Transfiguration teacher? 2) She's obviously in awe of Dumbledore's *powers*, and finds Dumbledore to be such a great wizard. Particularly when Dumbledore recognizes her in cat-form! She's registered, fine, but no one's done that before! 3) Before this scene, she and Dumbledore may well have been in a strictly professional relationship, with Dumbledore standing higher. 4) She shows herself as one who won't believe rumours without getting comfirmation from someone who truly knows. 5) She objects, for the first time perhaps, to something Dumbledore deems best. She has her opinions Dumbledore doesn't agree with, but I believe that points 4) and 5) are why Dumbledore begins to confide in her afterwards. Just what IS the deal with Dumbledore offering Lemon Drops and the other *always* refusing? Sure, Dumbledore likes them and it's only polite to offer, but none other will have one? (Dumbledore's favourite way not to answer a question, I've noticed: Distraction by candy). Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 12:08:38 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:08:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? / Dumbledore keeping watch on Harry In-Reply-To: <20041012000859.80177.qmail@web51702.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115464 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathleen Hunt wrote: > > > I really never thought of his glasses. Dumbledore seems to know exactly > what Harry does, and others have stated that he has watched Harry even > more closely than he has realized. Has he been using Harry's glasses as > a way to know what he has been up to? Or could it be just the Chocolate > Frog pictures? > What do you all think? Finwitch: I'd rather it was the Chocolate Frog Cards! Honest, Dumbledore watching Harry trough his glasses! Uh... what a horrid idea... I don't think he's THAT intrusive. And if he knew what a horror Vernon was to Harry, why didn't he DO something?... I think that he has some sort of detector under the bottom stair, though (only one shrieking stair? In my experience, either none does or all do)... Finwitch From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 13:10:24 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:10:24 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115465 from Great post on McGonagall by SSS: > > Hopefully it is apparent that her role has changed from beginning > > to present. She evidences more responsibility, she is officially > > Deputy Headmistress, if she was not before; she stands firm, she > > metes out punishment. For me, Harry's thought [just above] when > > McGonagall had been sent to St. Mungo's spoke volumes about how > > HE sees her importance. I wonder why we HPfGU'ers just don't > > talk about her much.... Finwitch: > Umm.. As I recall, McGonagall signed the first letter Harry recieved > from Hogwarts as Deputy Headmistress. SSSusan: Ack! You are right, of course. I botched that one. [I think she didn't ACT much like 2nd-in-command then, though, did she?] Finwitch: > As to why we don't talk about her much, (unlike the never-ending > discussion on Snape) I think it's because there's nothing to point > that she has secrets, quite the opposite, as she's the only > *Registered* animagus we have been introduced to SSSusan: So you mean she's just more "What you see is what you get," then? With no deep, dark past or closet full of skeletons? Finwitch: > What comes to her relationship with Dumbledore, well... > > 3) Before this scene, she and Dumbledore may well have been in a > strictly professional relationship, with Dumbledore standing > higher. SSSusan: Right. I wonder, though, how/why things changed so much in the intervening 10-11 years. Why, for instance, he's "Albus" and she's ostensibly sharing a cuppa hot chocolate with him in the evening.... Finwitch: > 4) She shows herself as one who won't believe rumours without > getting comfirmation from someone who truly knows. > > 5) She objects, for the first time perhaps, to something Dumbledore > deems best. > > She has her opinions Dumbledore doesn't agree with, but I believe > that points 4) and 5) are why Dumbledore begins to confide in her > afterwards. SSSusan: So are you saying that DD wanted to see her rise to the challenge a bit? Show that she was willing to take him on? I'm curious what instance(s) you're thinking of when you say she shows herself as one who won't believe rumors w/o confirmation.... Finwitch: >Just what IS the deal with Dumbledore offering Lemon Drops > and the other *always* refusing? Sure, Dumbledore likes them and > it's only polite to offer, but none other will have one? > (Dumbledore's favourite way not to answer a question, I've noticed: > Distraction by candy). SSSusan: You may have a point there about distraction! But in that first instance, in Privet Drive? Poor MM is looking for some reassurance and gets offered candy. Maybe he was trying to shock her a bit, get her to adjust her focus? Hmmm. Now that you mention this, is that what was behind MM's offering Harry a biscuit? He seemed equally stunned. "Have another biscuit." "No, thanks." "Don't be ridiculous." Has always struck me as a funny scene, but I've never felt sure what she was doing. Siriusly Snapey Susan From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 12 13:21:57 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:21:57 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > These are aspects of Minerva McGonagall that we've gotten to see. > But who IS she, really? What roles does she play? Sure, she > teaches Transfiguration, she's Head of Gryffindor House, and she's > Deputy Headmistress, but how important is she to the Harry Potter > story? Was she in the Order the first time? Does she do anything > useful for the Order this time? Is it only at Hogwarts that her > rank & responsibility are high? If so, why? If not, why don't we > hear about it? Is she a powerful witch? And what the hell is her > relationship to DD? > Is she actually a member of the Order? I don't remember any canon that states unequivocally that she is; might be wrong though. I think she's DD's back-up at Hogwarts, pure and simple and she'd only get involved peripherally with Order stuff - and then only in emergencies. Yes, she is seen in the vicinity of GH - in Muggle clothes. Which could (if one of my pet theories turns up trumps) mean that she's Muggle born or half-blood. (I think that an "identifier" for pure-bloodedness is that the adults *always* wear robes - remember Madam Malkin "Robes for *all* occasions". Any adult seen voluntarily wearing Muggle clothing, so the QWC might not count, is not pureblood; which casts an interesting light on Dear Dolly.) I seem to remember a reference to a Quidditch cup/prize/plaque (?Lexicon) with the name McGonagall on it; dated about 50 years ago and the first initial wasn't M. A brother possibly? Or husband? Was she born McGonagall or did she acquire it? And what happened to him anyway? Scope for lots of speculation there. No canon unfortunately. One possibility to add - she's Hermione's role model. This is Hermione in 50 years. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 13:25:22 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:25:22 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115467 Potioncat: > snipping excellent post to get to this part: SSSusan: Merci Potioncat: > SSSusan wrote about McGonagall: > > *Tells Harry she'll do whatever is necessary to see that he > > becomes an Auror, even if she must coach him herself nightly Potioncat: > Since the first step was to pull up his transfiguration and potion > marks in order to do well on OWLs, how has she helped here? > > Potioncat who agrees with SSSusan, we haven't discussed McGonagall > enough SSSusan: That's an interesting point.... Somehow I was envisioning her helping him in year 6, if necessary, if he did poorly on OWLs. But you're right that he had to pass those first to move on. How close to OWL time was the career counseling session wherein MM said this? I'm thinking it was getting far into the school year and not far away from the exams, but I'm away from books/notes and may be wrong.... I'm also interested in your closing remark that we haven't discussed McGonagall enough. I'm so curious about WHY people think that is! Siriusly Snapey Susan From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 13:33:10 2004 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Two-way mirror at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041012133310.84014.qmail@web42104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, AnitaKH wrote: I propose that the Two-way Mirror had some role in revealing the events of Godric's Hollow on that Fateful Night. mhbobbin: Not half-baked at all. I like it. I'm willing to consider the Floo Network though the two way mirror is better. Even better than Portraits. Further to this--what if the man that Harry hears yelling to Lily to take Harry and run--wasn't James but someone that James /Lily was talking to through one of these methods. (or even in the Portrait although Portraits seem to take orders rather than give them.) Lupin reacts so strangely (PoA) when Harry mentions that he thinks he heard his father in the Dementor flashback that I doubt the man Harry hears is James. So what if that unknown man was, in effect, "on the phone" with Godric Hollow when the attack occurs. It would be consistent with some contemporary murder mysteries. (I can't think of one now.) [snips] Thanks for thinking this idea isn't totally off the wall. My MO is to come up with an idea and then let you bright folks shoot it down or flesh it out. I really like your idea that the voice Harry hears may be emanating from the mirror, and since we haven't been shown exactly how it works, we can speculate all we like. We're all deeply suspicious that the "James" voice isn't James at all, so this would answer that rather neatly. akh, who ought to be heading to church right now. Bye! --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 13:48:54 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:48:54 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115469 SSSusan: > > These are aspects of Minerva McGonagall that we've gotten to > > see. But who IS she, really? What roles does she play? Sure, > > she teaches Transfiguration, she's Head of Gryffindor House, and > > she's Deputy Headmistress, but how important is she to the Harry > > Potter story? Was she in the Order the first time? Does she do > > anything useful for the Order this time? Is it only at Hogwarts > > that her rank & responsibility are high? If so, why? If not, > > why don't we hear about it? Is she a powerful witch? And what > > the hell is her relationship to DD? Kneasy: > Is she actually a member of the Order? > I don't remember any canon that states unequivocally that she is; > might be wrong though. > Yes, she is seen in the vicinity of GH - in Muggle clothes. SSSusan: Not positive, but there is the moment when Harry is desperate to find her [with that "he had always expected Prof. McG to be there" remark], where he says this to Hermione: 'Hermione, it doesn't matter if he's done it to get me there or not - they've taken McGonagall to St Mungo's, there isn't anyone from the Order left at Hogwarts who we can tell, and if we don't go, Sirius is dead!' You're right that this doesn't outright identify her as an Order member, but I took it as inclusive of her. She also showed up *at* 12 GP, so she's either officially in or trusted enough to be given the location. Would DD give that info to anyone who's not in? Can't be sure, but.... Kneasy: > Yes, she is seen in the vicinity of GH - in Muggle clothes. Which > could (if one of my pet theories turns up trumps) mean that she's > Muggle born or half-blood. SSSusan: Well, now, that's an interesting thought. I hadn't ever considered this about her.... I thought she was wearing Muggle clothes because her Order assignment somehow required it. But that's equally speculative. Kneasy: > I seem to remember a reference to a Quidditch cup/prize/plaque (? > Lexicon) with the name McGonagall on it; dated about 50 years ago > and the first initial wasn't M. A brother possibly? Or husband? SSSusan: I have a vague recollection of this as well. Was it in canon/at the Lexicon? Or was it That Other Medium--that there was a glimpse of a plaque w/ McGonagall's name on it when Harry is looking at his father's name on another placque? Can someone enlighten us on this?? Kneasy: > Was she born McGonagall or did she acquire it? And what happened to > him anyway? Scope for lots of speculation there. SSSusan: Ha ha--there's always that old Mrs. Tom Riddle theory. ;-) Hey--maybe she's married to an understanding Muggle, who kisses her goodbye for 10 months of the year. That could explain the Muggle clothes at GP, since it was summer holiday! Kneasy: > One possibility to add - she's Hermione's role model. > This is Hermione in 50 years. SSSusan: Absolutely. There are *many* references to Hermione's being "McGonagall-like" in the books. They're two peas in a pod. Siriusly Snapey Susan - From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 13:55:16 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:55:16 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115470 > Kneasy: > > I seem to remember a reference to a Quidditch cup/prize/plaque (? > > Lexicon) with the name McGonagall on it; dated about 50 years ago > > and the first initial wasn't M. A brother possibly? Or husband? > > SSSusan: > I have a vague recollection of this as well. Was it in canon/at the > Lexicon? Or was it That Other Medium--that there was a glimpse of a > plaque w/ McGonagall's name on it when Harry is looking at his > father's name on another placque? Can someone enlighten us on this?? I am fairly sure that this is film contamination. IIRC this same plaque also shows James as a Seeker, tho JKR tells us he was a Chaser. Meri - damning that Other Medium for messing up something so little...and yet sitting on pins and needles till POA is out on DVD! From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 14:02:54 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:02:54 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > Right. I wonder, though, how/why things changed so much in the > intervening 10-11 years. Why, for instance, he's "Albus" and she's > ostensibly sharing a cuppa hot chocolate with him in the evening.... Geoff: But she's on first name terms from the beginning.... '"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..." Dumbledore reached out and patted her on the shoulder.' (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.14 UK edition) Interestingly, she also referred to him rather familiarly as just "Dumbledore" in at least four places here. "A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You-Know-Who seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all. I suppose he really has gone, Dumbledore?" (ibid. p.13) '"I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." You don't mean - you can't mean the people who live here?" cried Professor McGonagall, jumping to her feet and pointing at number four. "Dumbledore - you can't....." "...I've written them a letter." "A letter?" repeated Professor McGonagall faintly, sitting back down on the wall. "Really, Dumbledore, you think you can explain all this in a letter?"' (ibid. p.15) 'Professor McGonagall opened her mouth, changed her mind, swallowed and then said,"Yes - yes, you're right of course. But how is the boy getting here, Dumbledore?"' (ibid. p.16) Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling fok by their title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and informality between them. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 14:06:35 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:06:35 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115472 > > Del replies : > And how does Harry react when anyone insults his *parents* ? He's NOT > happy... Harry's Mom never prevented Harry from coming to Hogwarts, never believed any nasty rumours... and they're DEAD. Harry's emotional response to Mom&Dad is *very* different than response to those who raised him.. At this situation, Seamus mother comes out like a Dursley. > Finwitch wrote : > " So in effect, Harry - by insulting Seamus' mother IS answering the > question: His anger over such belief should tell it's not true. It's > also anger for her to treat Seamus so - (attempting to prevent his > coming to Hogwarts)." > > Del replies : > You might be right about Harry thinking that anger is a proof of > innocence. I remember being a teenager and thinking the same as far as > *I* was concerned. In other words, I expected people to realise that I > got angry because I was right. *However*, and that's where it gets > interesting, I usually reacted in the complete opposite way where > other people were concerned : if they got angry, it was because I had > hit a sore spot, because I had caught them in their lies, because they > felt *guilty*. The more they got angry, the more I would deny their > point of view. I'm afraid that might have happened with Harry too : we > have no proof that Seamus shared his mother's opinion before Harry got > mad, but we do know that he refuses the truth right after Harry's > outburst. In Seamus's mind, it could very well be that he was ready to > believe Harry, but that Harry's anger proved that he had something to > hide. Finwitch: Misunderstandigs. They both assume too much, and misunderstand each other. > As for Harry being angry at Seamus's mom for the way she treated her > son, I don't think it fits with the way he talks about her. He calls > her a liar, and he suggests that Seamus change dormitory, to "stop his > mommy from worrying". Finwitch: Teenager challenge: If you're such a big Mommy's boy, go ahead, or stay if you have a mind of your own. In effect, Seamus *has* to stay in order to keep his face with his peers. > Finwitch wrote : > " Now let's get back to the Question Seamus asks Harry: > He, as *everyone* in Hogwarts (except for the first years) know that > Cedric Diggory died during the third task. > Dumbledore told them of the matter: > a) Voldemort murdered Cedric. > b) Harry brought Cedric's body back to Diggorys at the risk of his life. > The question is: > Do you believe Dumbledore or not? If you do, you need not ask about > Voldemort's return." > > Del replies : > That's a dangerous path to tread, *blind* acceptance and obedience. > That's *Percy's path* ! Percy blindly obeys authority figures, without > trying to figure things out for himself. So I think it's not something > we should expect the other kids to do, to just accept DD's second-hand > testimony without any proof or explanation. If it were me, I don't > think I would believe in something of that magnitude and gravity just > because the Headmaster says that a kid says he's seen those things > happen and we should all believe him. And I don't think I would want > my kid to believe it blindly either. Oh well. Kid's dead. Dumbledore tells briely what happened (so far as he knows). Voldemort mudered Cedric. Harry brought his body back. Dumbledore believes Harry and that Ministry wants to lull everyone not to believe him. The kids know at least that Cedric Diggory died. This is also what Dumbledore emphasized. Remember Cedric Diggory. I'm not after blindly following authorities, but... Cedric is dead. *How* did he die? Albus Dumbledore says that Voldemort killed him, and that Harry Potter was there and brought his body back, and told the story to Albus Dumbledore. He also mentions that ministry doesn't like him telling them that - but he does, because it's the truth. So far so good. You can't expect full details in a funeral speech. I for one wouldn't WANT them in that context. Follows a series of articles and what not discrediting Harry Potter about it. This adds evidence to Dumbledore, that Harry DID tell him all that, regardless of whether you believe the article or not. (Otherwise, why discredit HARRY?) And it wouldn't be just to doubt Dumbledore of lying about a thing like this, either. He may be in error, of course, but oh well... The question is back on whether you believe Harry, who has already *said* that Voldemort is back. > Del replies : -- > However, when Harry stopped trying to keep everything for himself and > decided to *testify*, he actually managed to convince some people. And > testify is exactly what Seamus was asking of him. I'm pretty sure that > if Harry had done just that, Seamus would have supported him > completely right from the beginning. Finwitch: You know, it's a bit different. Harry did say Voldemort came back - albeit Seamus only heard that from Dumbledore. Mind you, the fact that those articles *exist*, supports that Dumbledore was being honest and not just *saying* that Harry said it. While it's not valid to trust a person just because someone else does, well - as far as Harry goes, he has already *said* Voldemort came back, and doesn't understand why Seamus wants to hear him say so again, or whether the question was just to say he thinks it was a lie or whatever. Mind you, Harry does NOT expect anyone giving him a chance to explain himself. Dursleys never did, they just locked him up into that cupboard. Asking for details was 'between lines', and Harry certainly didn't see them. It's also noticeable that both Dean and Neville believe Harry, *without* any details. Neville's the one with enough sense to say so out loud, and not just expect Harry to get it. And even if Harry was ready to tell the full story, he doesn't know where to start. Entirely different than answering specific questions of a professional editor when Harry also knows *why* the questions are being asked as in giving an interview. (and any professional doing a statistical study requiring asking questions from people ALWAYS tells why they ask). Harry IS a bit sensitive about being asked for an explanation without knowing WHY someone asks that. Otherwise, it feels very uncomfortable. I for one, am one who hates being asked questions about things just like that. I'm not one to go around asking questions either because I wouldn't be comfortable putting another into such situation I'd hate to be in. Harry doesn't ask many questions himself, does he? So tell me, why doesn't Seamus tell Harry what he thinks *before* he asks the question? If he had, I think Harry might have told him. Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 14:10:22 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:10:22 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115473 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > That's an interesting point.... Somehow I was envisioning her > helping him in year 6, if necessary, if he did poorly on OWLs. But > you're right that he had to pass those first to move on. How close > to OWL time was the career counseling session wherein MM said this? > I'm thinking it was getting far into the school year and not far away > from the exams, but I'm away from books/notes and may be wrong.... Geoff: Reasonably close... 'CAREERS ADVICE All fifth-years are required to attend a short meeting with their Head of House during the first week of the summer term to discuss their future careers. Times of individual appointments are listed below.' (OOTP "Careers Advice" p.578 UK edition) If Hogwarts follows the pattern of UK schools in returning a week or so after Easter, then depending on when Easter fell in 1996, the interviews would be somewhere between the end of March and perhaps the third week in April. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 12 14:22:36 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:22:36 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > But, I do have one last (at least I hope it's the last) problem with > this possession malarky, and it'sabout the interplay between the > spell(/charm/curse/whatever) that Voldy uses and the protection left > by Lily (and presumably DD). I'll just recap what I was saying > about backfiring/rebounding spells in my original post (115135). If > Voldy's attempting a possession, and the spell *backfires* (i.e. > affects the caster rather than the castee), then Harry should end > up possessing Voldy, and bits of Harry would end up in Voldy, not > the other way around. > > What you're suggesting, (if I've understood correctly) is > more > akin to a rat entering a trap, realising it's a trap, doing a > quick one-eighty to get out sharpish, but not quite quick > enough to avoid getting it's tail cut off by the guillotine that > comes down on its way out. Thus bits of Voldy stay in Harry. > And he gets ripped from his body, pain beyond pain and so on and > so forth at the same time. Right? > Erm; not quite. I didn't intent 'trap' to be read quite so literally. The protective spell is defensive (we assume) but defense can take different forms - some of which are designed not just to protect but to give attackers a bloody nose. (Puts on pontificating demeanor.) OK. A wall, an electrified fence, a minefield and a staked pit are all defensive. Loosely paralleled in terms of the situation, a wall would give a pure spell rebound and a pit would trap Voldy in place. My idea is more the electrified fence, minefield or booby-trap concept. He moves in and everything goes pear-shaped. He gets a hell of a lot more than he bargained for. Contact with Harry or his mind triggers a vigorous defensive reaction. But the dissolution of Voldy has unexpected consequences - bits get left behind. Now unless DD interprets in advance just what is meant by, and the significance of the word "marked" in the Prophecy, then he can't predict the outcome as we know it. The remnants of Voldy's powers in Harry's head are there by chance, not design. As for the spell backfiring causing Harry to possess Voldy, I don't think so; it's the Voldy mind force that's zipping round the room, Harry's stays where it is. In fact, the last thing anybody (except maybe Voldy) wants is a joining of the two minds - and that would be the effective result if Harry invaded Voldy. Kneasy From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 14:44:17 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:44:17 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115475 Geoff: > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling fok by their > title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and informality > between them. Finwitch: I don't know what you mean by that? I seem to recall several times he asks people (who are not students) to call him Albus? He also tends to address people by their first names. That's how we find Moody's first name, BTW. It's Harry, a student, who he reminds of that title... 1) He's the one who made Snape a professor. Think he wants Harry to acknowledge that? Wonder how many Owls he's got from people about having an ex-DE as a teacher? Or how mean/unfit he is? 2) Rebuke over proper titles also serves to distract from a question... (but Harry doesn't fall for that. He says: 'Yes, him' and retakes the question.) I wonder if asking adults to call him Albus is also a minor distraction? Seems to me that he minds of titles if he wants to add a bit of space to think before answering. Also, finding Minerva McGonagall as a cat he's telling her that she's NOT fooling him with the cat-form when he addresses her by name, as well as greeting her at the same time. Most of the time when he calls her by title and surname, it's so that using first name would make it sound like talking to a child. Particularly as Dumbledore is over twice her age. Doing so would probably result to an angry response saying she's an adult and has a right to be there. Dumbledore doesn't want that so he uses a more formal manner of address. Finwitch From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 15:25:52 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:25:52 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115476 SSSusan: > > Right. I wonder, though, how/why things changed so much in the > > intervening 10-11 years. Why, for instance, he's "Albus" and > > she's ostensibly sharing a cuppa hot chocolate with him in the > > evening.... Geoff: > But she's on first name terms from the beginning.... > > '"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..." > Dumbledore reached out and patted her on the shoulder.' > > (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.14 UK edition) > > Interestingly, she also referred to him rather familiarly as > just "Dumbledore" in at least four places here. > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling fok by their > title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and informality > between them. SSSusan: Yep, I stand corrected [for the second time already!]. Perhaps I'm hanging on to very little here, but I think I'd still argue the same way, despite this correction. As with the other correction I received--that she IS clearly Deputy Headmistress when Harry gets his letter--I asked about whether she *behaves* as one would expect a 2nd-in-command in SS/PS. She doesn't, in *my* book. Similarly, while she calls him Albus the one time at PD, I don't think "Dumbledore" indicates much familiarity, and the remainder of the scene strikes me as markedly different from what we see 10 years later. Again, she must directly fish for information; she's not in the know & DD's not automatically volunteering much. Also, he doesn't give her any tasks to perform or errands to run; he seems to just kind of tolerate her presence. He doesn't even say, "See you at dinner" or any such thing. Instead, it's that rather stilted, "I shall see you soon, I expect?"--almost like two old acquaintances who *occasionally* run into one another, not two staff members at the same institution who presumably see one another many times a day. Maybe it really is just me, but their interaction at PD didn't seem at all like that of close colleagues. Perhaps it can be attributed to the possibility that she *wasn't* yet Deputy HM at PD, and so things were more formal between them at that time. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 15:42:56 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041012154256.81715.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115477 > HITLER ALIVE!!! STUDENT DEAD!!! > > I think the wizard world is frustrated by Dumbledore's repeating > of /headlines/ without the details to back them up. Dumbledore may > have valid strategic reasons for doing so, but to the wizard world > at large, that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I think this > position is clear when you > see how fast the wizard world and the students turn their opinions > around once Harry's interview is published. > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) Steve raises a good point. Personally I'm willing to cut Hermione a LOT of SPEW slack because she's the one who came up with the idea of giving an interview to the Quibbler and putting the story out front where it can do the most good. It was brilliant - and much better than anything Dumbledore came up with. This is where I think Dumbledore really fell down on the job - not with regard to occlumency or Harry but with getting the word out about Voldemort. What was he thinking of? What's Dumbledore's strategy? He's sending envoys to the giants but not trying to win over the wizarding public. Also, as the Red Hen site states: why not start telling the world that Big Bad Lord Voldemort is really all-grown-up Hogwarts overachiever Tom Riddle - a halfblood himself? Wouldn't that put a crimp in DE recruitment if purebloods knew that BBLV-TR wasn't one of themselves? What's Dumbledore holding back for? Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com Tue Oct 12 15:46:03 2004 From: nadinesaintamour at hotmail.com (catimini15) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:46:03 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115478 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > I think (Minerva McGonagall)'s DD's back-up at Hogwarts, pure and simple and she'd only > get involved peripherally with Order stuff - and then only in emergencies. > > Yes, she is seen in the vicinity of GH - in Muggle clothes. Which could > (if one of my pet theories turns up trumps) mean that she's Muggle born > or half-blood. (I think that an "identifier" for pure-bloodedness is that > the adults *always* wear robes - remember Madam Malkin "Robes for > *all* occasions". Any adult seen voluntarily wearing Muggle clothing, so > the QWC might not count, is not pureblood; which casts an interesting > light on Dear Dolly.) > > I seem to remember a reference to a Quidditch cup/prize/plaque (? Lexicon) > with the name McGonagall on it; dated about 50 years ago and the first > initial wasn't M. A brother possibly? Or husband? Was she born McGonagall > or did she acquire it? And what happened to him anyway? Scope for lots > of speculation there. > No canon unfortunately. > > One possibility to add - she's Hermione's role model. > This is Hermione in 50 years. Did you mean that Minerva is seen wearing muggle clothes in the vicinity of Grimmauld Place ? Indeed, she is. Maybe she was on some sort of a mission that day in OotP. But she is the transfiguration teacher after all. She probably can switch her robes into the perfect tweed tailleur as easily as saying sherbet lemon. I doubt she is a muggle born otherwise she would know what a sherbet lemon is. In the first pages of PS/SS (chapter The Boy Who Lived), Dumbledore offers Minerva a sherbet lemon to which she responds : ?A what ?? ?They're a kind of Muggle sweet I'm rather fond of? replies DD. Maybe our favorite headmaster is, himself, a muggle born... Nadine From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 16:14:31 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:14:31 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: <20041012154256.81715.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115479 Steve: > > HITLER ALIVE!!! STUDENT DEAD!!! > > > > I think the wizard world is frustrated by Dumbledore's repeating > > of /headlines/ without the details to back them up. Dumbledore may > > have valid strategic reasons for doing so, but to the wizard world > > at large, that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I think this > > position is clear when you > > see how fast the wizard world and the students turn their opinions > > around once Harry's interview is published. > > > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) Finwitch: Dumbledore was giving a speech for a funeral. It's time to speak of Cedric, and while he gives 'healdines' of how he died, he also admits they have the right to know the truth. Giving details simply does not belong to this *situation*! I don't know about you, but I feel that telling all the nasty details in that speech would have been profoundly disrespectful to Cedric Diggory, his housemates and his family. Magda: > Steve raises a good point. Personally I'm willing to cut Hermione a > LOT of SPEW slack because she's the one who came up with the idea of > giving an interview to the Quibbler and putting the story out front > where it can do the most good. It was brilliant - and much better > than anything Dumbledore came up with. This is where I think > Dumbledore really fell down on the job - not with regard to > occlumency or Harry but with getting the word out about Voldemort. > > What was he thinking of? What's Dumbledore's strategy? He's sending > envoys to the giants but not trying to win over the wizarding public. Finwitch: And yes, Hermione did have a good idea. Harry wants them to know the truth, but doesn't know how to tell. She contacts Luna Lovegood - so it *will* be published. (Rita Skeeter DID say it wasn't *likely* to be published anywhere, didn't she?) I think Dumbledore wouldn't get it *published*, even if he did try to contact the press, or even someone to write it! Hermione has the advantage of "owning" someone who will write the story (and many people DO believe what Rita Skeeter writes!), and also of knowing someone who will see it published. (And while Luna isn't all that close, they get the reward in huge sales!) Also, Harry's the *witness* when Dumbledore can only repeat what Harry told him. Magda: > Also, as the Red Hen site states: why not start telling the world > that Big Bad Lord Voldemort is really all-grown-up Hogwarts > overachiever Tom Riddle - a halfblood himself? Wouldn't that put a > crimp in DE recruitment if purebloods knew that BBLV-TR wasn't one of > themselves? What's Dumbledore holding back for? Finwitch: Sure, go to the papers... sounds easy. Dumbledore has no control over what's going to be printed! He may have told some representatives of the press, but the editors-in-chief chose not to publish it. (Because CF told them not to, perhaps, and bribed them on top of that? Or maybe Lucius Malfoy did so, on Voldemort's orders?) Finwitch From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 12 16:47:13 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:47:13 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115480 >SSSusan: > These are aspects of Minerva McGonagall that we've gotten to see. > But who IS she, really? What roles does she play? Sure, she > teaches Transfiguration, she's Head of Gryffindor House, and she's > Deputy Headmistress, but how important is she to the Harry Potter > story? Was she in the Order the first time? Does she do anything > useful for the Order this time? Is it only at Hogwarts that her > rank & responsibility are high? If so, why? If not, why don't we > hear about it? Is she a powerful witch? And what the hell is her > relationship to DD? Jen: Wow, this is an excellent compendium on Minerva for future reference! Thanks Susan. As for Minerva, you're right that she isn't often discussed on this list even though she gets almost as much page-time as Snape and more than the adult Weasleys or Lupin. I do think McGonagall comes across as a "what you see is what you get" character like you said, and perhaps that's why we don't spend much time on her. And unlike most of the other characters, even Dumbledore, she is a "by-the- book" person living in a world that is decidedly chaotic and ambiguous when it comes to following rules. Even the resident bureaucrats who appear to adhere to MOM regulations are apallingly subjective and occasionally corrupt in their rule-enforcement. McGonagall stands out as someone who consistently and fairly applies rules for the safety and education of the students. And that doesn't happen often at Hogwarts. In fact, I would agree with whoever said McGonagall might be Muggle- born or influenced by Muggles in some way. I think that could explain her general outlook as well as why Hermione is so attracted to her as a mentor. While it's true Hermione *might* be like McGonagall in 40 years, I think it's more true that McGonagall was like Hermione when she was young! Hermione has had the influence of Ron and Harry to loosen her up a bit and to see there's another world out there beside books and learning. McGonagall may never have had another influence. As for Minerva and Dumbledore having a love relationship, that could be a very interesting plot twist if the DE's decide to use them against each other. If they are together, they hide it well and I'm sure one reason would be to keep this info away from the DE's children. That brings up another thought, if everyone has a weakness that can be used against him, like Voldemort using Sirius to lure Harry, what would that weakness be for Dumbledore? Would it be Minerva? His growing love for Harry (if he hasn't squashed that down already )? Unfortunately for Minerva, I see her as an interesting character to read, but one who will be expendable in the coming War. It would be interesting to find out she and Dumbledore have a thing going, or that she was a Muggle or something, but I'm not certain those factors would would add to Harry's story. Unlike Snape, who is intertwined with Harry, James, Godric's Hollow (?) etc., Mcgonagall's role doesn't appear to be integral to the conclusion of the series. Jen Reese From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 12 16:53:32 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:53:32 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: <20041012154256.81715.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > HITLER ALIVE!!! STUDENT DEAD!!! > > > > I think the wizard world is frustrated by Dumbledore's repeating of /headlines/ without the details to back them up. Dumbledore may have valid strategic reasons for doing so, but to the wizard world at large, that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I think this position is clear when you see how fast the wizard world and the students turn their opinions around once Harry's interview is published. << > > > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) > > > Steve raises a good point. Personally I'm willing to cut Hermione a LOT of SPEW slack because she's the one who came up with the idea of giving an interview to the Quibbler and putting the story out front where it can do the most good. It was brilliant - and much better than anything Dumbledore came up with. This is where I think Dumbledore really fell down on the job - not with regard toocclumency or Harry but with getting the word out about Voldemort. > > What was he thinking of? What's Dumbledore's strategy? He's sending envoys to the giants but not trying to win over the wizarding public.< Harry was the only witness, and Harry wasn't ready to talk. It was all he could do to tell Dumbledore--he certainly wouldn't have been up to an interview with Rita Skeeter. Also, Rita Skeeter had to be blackmailed to write that story the way Hermione wanted it written. If Dumbledore had approached her it wouldn't have been printed, or it would have been 'Disturbed teenage survivor of You-Know-Who's attack, Harry Potter, 15, caused outrage yesterday by accusing respectable and prominent members of the wizarding community of being Death Eaters...." (OOP ch 25). A story by Dumbledore or even Harry himself wouldn't have persuaded anyone who didn't believe them already, not if it was in the Quibbler. It's only Rita Skeeter's byline that gets the story the attention it deserves. As for the LV Riddle connection, without the diary there's no longer any proof that Voldemort is Tom Riddle -- besides most of the puristas aren't openly on Voldemort's side, so their only reaction would be to sniff "A half-blood? I'm not surprised." It would make things harder for Harry and the other half-bloods if it got out that Riddle was one of them. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 17:30:36 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:30:36 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > Steve: > > HITLER ALIVE!!! STUDENT DEAD!!! > > > > > > I think the wizard world is frustrated by Dumbledore's repeating > > > of /headlines/ without the details to back them up. ... > > > > > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) > Finwitch: > > Dumbledore was giving a speech for a funeral. It's time to speak of > Cedric, and while he gives 'healdines' of how he died, he also > admits they have the right to know the truth. Giving details simply > does not belong to this *situation*! ... > bboyminn(steve) adds: I never specifically mentioned the end of year feast speech, and actually wasn't even thinking of that, although given the context of the 'Harry vs Seamus' discussion, that was a reasonable thing to assume. Dumbledore also gave a speech to the International Confederation of Wizards, although whether to the full assembly or just the British branch we don't know. Given that he was thrown out of the Wizangamot too, he may have spoken to them as well, although that could have simply been political pressure for Fudge. So, while Dumbledore is speaking publically about the events, I suspect he is not going into great detail, and I think this is primarily for strategic reason. In the end though, it seems to have been a poor strategy. I do however agree that the end of year feast was not the time or place to go into the intimate detail of Cedric's death. The point is not to rub salt in the pain the students are feeling over that death or to promote Dumbledore's agenda, but to honor Cedric. I'm sure Dumbledore restrained himself for Harry's sake too. I doubt that he felt Harry was ready to relive the tramatic ordeal so soon after it happened. I do think Dumbledore gave a more detailed story to the Int.Con.Wiz and the Wizengamot, but I think it was still just the highlights. I suspect this lack of fine details made the story seem very superficial, and lent some credibility to the idea that both Harry and Dumbledore were just 'attention seeking'. The story was further weakened by the Ministry and the Daily Prophet conspiring to belittle everything Dumbledore and Harry said. That left people very uncertain, and instinctively leaning toward doubting that Voldemort was back. Voldemort returning was something of such a horrible magnitude that most people would be desperate for it to not be true. Harry's final account of the events to Rita as published in the Quibbler was probably overwhelmingly detailed, and that refined detail probably lent great credibility to the story. > ...edited... > > Magda: > > Also, ... why not start telling the world that Big Bad Lord > > Voldemort is really all-grown-up Hogwarts overachiever Tom Riddle > > - a halfblood himself? ... What's Dumbledore holding back for? > Finwitch: > > Sure, go to the papers... sounds easy. Dumbledore has no control > over what's going to be printed! He may have told some > representatives of the press, but the editors-in-chief chose not to > publish it. > > Finwitch bboyminn: Hermione was rather brilliant in getting the information published. Fudge would never give a second thought to a publication like The Quibbler. He certainly leaned hard on the /mainstream/ pressed and forced them to skew their articles against Harry & Dumbledore, but he obviously never considered that Hermione would find a 'backdoor' way of getting the information out. Dumbledore is sitting on a pool of information some of which is harmfully, some of which is strategically advantagous, and some of which is neutral. I think Dumbledore doesn't give out information unless it serves him in some way. That means that a whole lot of neutral information doesn't get out there because it serves no advantagous purpose. If it doesn't serve him, then he sees no point in putting it out. Some people in the wizard world do know about the Tom Riddle/Voldemort connection, for example, Mr. Ollivander seems to know. However, I don't think Dumbledore sees any great strategic advantage in this being common knowledge among the wizard would in general, and indeed, in Dumbledore's mind, there may be some strategic disadvantage the we are unaware of. More likely, it's merely the author doling out information at a controlled pace. Other things I'm sure Dumbledore is withholding; Voldemort's use of Harry's blood, the Brother Wand connection, Harry's scar connection, Sirius's death, and the details of the Prophecy among other things. On the Prophecy, I think there are probably quite a few critical people who know that the Prophecy exist and have the general /gist/ of it. I think the Ministry is generally aware that Harry isn't just 'the boy who lived' but that he is the boy who must keep living because he has a future destiny that is vital to the wizarding world, but that doesn't necessarily mean those people know precisely what the Prophecy says. I think that is part of the reason Harry is so closely protected and so closely monitored at Privet Drive. I think that is the reason we see thing being done for Harry that would never be done for another student; examples, seats in the top VIP box at the World Cup, three very expensive taxis to take him to the Train, chauffeured Ministry cars to take him to the Train station combined with a room at the Leaky Cauldron for a couple of weeks, Plus additional rooms for the Weasleys, etc.... My point again is that Dumbledore is very tight with information and only gives out that which specifically serves him, and even then, only as detailed as necessary to accomplish what he wants. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 12 17:44:46 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:44:46 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115483 --- Jen wrote: snip And unlike most of the other characters, even Dumbledore, she is a "by-the- book" person living in a world that is decidedly chaotic and ambiguous when it comes to following rules. Even the resident > bureaucrats who appear to adhere to MOM regulations are apallingly > subjective and occasionally corrupt in their rule-enforcement. > McGonagall stands out as someone who consistently and fairly applies rules for the safety and education of the students. And that doesn't happen often at Hogwarts. Potioncat: Good point. I've wondered if she interacts at with the Trio vrs Draco situations with any awareness of the Marauders vrs Severus situation. It's impossible to know what the adults knew. But it seemed to me that there was a small simularity between her perception that Harry had tricked Draco into looking for a dragon in the middle of the night (SS/PS) and the Whomping Willow incident (Prank) from years earlier. However, we don't know if she even knew about that. And the punishment was for being out of bounds at night, which all 4 suffered. Potioncat > > From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 18:25:43 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:25:43 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115484 Jen: > And unlike most of the other characters, even Dumbledore, she is > a "by-the-book" person living in a world that is decidedly chaotic > and ambiguous when it comes to following rules. Even the resident > bureaucrats who appear to adhere to MOM regulations are apallingly > subjective and occasionally corrupt in their rule-enforcement. > McGonagall stands out as someone who consistently and fairly > applies rules for the safety and education of the students. And > that doesn't happen often at Hogwarts. > Unlike Snape, who is intertwined with Harry, James, Godric's Hollow > (?) etc., Mcgonagall's role doesn't appear to be integral to the > conclusion of the series. SSSusan: I have a feeling, when it comes down to it, that this is likely to be the most popular reason why MM is so rarely discussed. Snape is a treasure trove for secrets. DD is such an odd mix of "all-knowing" and sometimes *not* knowing that he's excellent fodder for conspiracy theorists. Lupin, who, as you note, doesn't really have a larger role in the series than MM so far, has that Marauder history and looking the other way when his friends were jerks and some "funny" reactions to things which make many posters scratch their heads. Bagman & Fudge--people like that--also have enough history of questionable activity or stupid decision-making to give pause. But Minerva? Nope, so far not too much to grab ahold of re: conspiracy theories or questioning her stance. (Though I do wonder why she wasn't an Order member--or at least not noted as one--the first go-round.) I suppose to be fair, she's not the only "major player" to not get discussed much. Arthur is rarely talked about outside of the interplay between him & Molly or about his suitability for Minister of Magic someday. So the WYSIWYG part of it is understandable. She's just steady, rock-solid, consistent, stern but humorous McGonagall, I guess. But, darn it, even Sybill Trelawney seems to get discussed more than MM! Jen: > While it's true Hermione *might* be like McGonagall in 40 years, I > think it's more true that McGonagall was like Hermione when she was > young! Hermione has had the influence of Ron and Harry to loosen > her up a bit and to see there's another world out there beside > books and learning. McGonagall may never have had another influence. SSSusan: That's true. After all, when McGonagall talked of letting their hair down for the Yule Ball, she said it in a disapproving voice, whereas Hermione seemed to *enjoy* letting her hair down -- er, putting it UP, I mean. :-) Jen: > That brings up another thought, if everyone has a weakness that can > be used against him, like Voldemort using Sirius to lure Harry, > what would that weakness be for Dumbledore? Would it be Minerva? > His growing love for Harry (if he hasn't squashed that down already > )? SSSusan: Good question. I suppose his OotP end-of-year talk with Harry would imply that it is Harry. But I know there are cynics amongst us. Wonder what they'd postulate as DD's weakness? Siriusly Snapey Susan From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Oct 12 18:32:48 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:32:48 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115485 Geoff: > But she's on first name terms from the beginning.... > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling folks by their > title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and > informality between them. Yb: I've often thought about when DD calls people by their first name. He does prefer to use the appropriate title for most, except for two cases: 1) When he needs that level of familiarity and informality, usually when he's dealing with a student (in his office, usually) or 2) When he is reinforcing the fact that "I'm a lot older and a whole lot smnarter than you! Don't argue with me!" Number 1 is evident at the end of OotP, when DD is talking with Harry in his office. I like the scenes when Number 2 is apparent because they usually involve some of that dry humor DD is so famous for, and he's usually poking a bit of fun at the ones he's talking to. My favorite example is his "great escape" in OotP with Fudge and Umbridge. DD refers to those particular two (and McGonagall, at one point... again "I know better than you, don't argue!") ONLY by their first names, like errant children, as someone in this thread pointed out somewhere. I found it to be absolutely HILARIOUS. No titles of honor there.... heeheehee. And of course, Phineas, at the end of the chapter: "You know, Minister, I disagree with Dumbledore on many counts...but you cannot deny he's got style...." After such a great chapter, with DD being as condescending as possible, nothing topped it off like that quote. ~Yb, laughing out loud reading the chapter now. From dolis5657 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 19:55:33 2004 From: dolis5657 at yahoo.com (dcgmck) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:55:33 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115486 > SSSusan: [snip] > So the WYSIWYG part of it is understandable. She's just steady, rock-solid, consistent, stern but humorous McGonagall, I guess. > > Jen: > > While it's true Hermione *might* be like McGonagall in 40 years, I think it's more true that McGonagall was like Hermione when she was > > young! Hermione has had the influence of Ron and Harry to loosen > > her up a bit and to see there's another world out there beside > > books and learning. McGonagall may never have had another influence. dcgmck: I love the character of McGonagall, perhaps because I read much more into her than appears on the written page, so I've truly enjoyed reading all the recent posts on this topic. I wonder, though, how you can possibly think that McGonagall never had her own "loosening" influences. If she didn't, where does that wry, dry, sly humor come from? Where does her authentically rabid enthusiasm for Quidditch come from? From whence stems the creativity to favor the Gryffindors on detention by sending them with Hagrid, thus minimizing their punishment while simultaneously torturing and terrorizing Malfoy? Just because the callow youth through whose eyes we must peer in frustration cannot see the rascal lurking behind those glasses doesn't mean I can't project such qualities on her. My personal experience is that the strictest teachers tend to be the most fun and radical outside the classroom and in faculty meetings. dcgmck, fondly remembering... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 20:17:48 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:17:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's doorstep ... basket or blankets - Swaddled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tenou" wrote: > > > DuffyPoo thus spoke: > > > Just to question...several have mentioned Harry in a basket when > > he was placed on the doorstep. My version has no basket just a > > bundle of blankets. > Ten'ou: > > PS does say that Harry was wrapped in blankets: ...edited.. > > But ... Because have you ever left a baby, not just a baby, but a > year old baby rapped in blankets? If you haven't, I'll tell you from > personal experience that that baby won't stay like that for long, > even if it is sleeping. > > Ten'ou bboyminn: To some extent you are correct, but I think you are basing your opinion on a very modern image of a baby wrapped or covered in a common modern baby's blanket which would be about the size of one of Hagrid's handkechiefs. But I would like to introduce the ancient (sort of) concept of /swaddling/. It means to wrap a baby in a blanket, but it also means more than that. swaddle - 1. To wrap or bind in bandages; swathe. 2. To wrap (a baby) in swaddling clothes. 3. To restrain or restrict. A baby who is sufficiently /swaddled/ is a baby wrapped in a full adult sized blanket to the extent that they are in the equivalent of a straight jacket. They aren't just wrapped, they are bound by the blankets. In modern times if a baby kicks off a blanket they are just likely to become annoyingly chilly; in more ancient times, losing a blanket during the night would mean freezing to death. So, the ancient practice of swaddling involves a experienced technique of strategic twists, tucks, folds, and ties applied for the specific purpose of keeping the baby in the blanket. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From hautbois1 at comcast.net Tue Oct 12 16:14:35 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:14:35 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115488 > Finwitch: > 2) She's obviously in awe of Dumbledore's *powers*, and finds > Dumbledore to be such a great wizard. Particularly when Dumbledore > recognizes her in cat-form! She's registered, fine, but no one's done that before! Patrick here: I don't think it's necessarily safe to say "no-one" has recognized her in cat form. I think as a Transfiguration teacher, being an animagus would be one of the first "skills" on my resume. Remember, she uses that as an "ice breaker" of sorts on their first day of Transfiguration, so she's making no great strides to hide what she is. If the students know she's a cat, I'm sure Dumbledore does, and with even more familiarity. Finwitch: > She has her opinions Dumbledore doesn't agree with, but I believe that > points 4) and 5) are why Dumbledore begins to confide in her > afterwards. Patio!: I think part of our perception is skewed slightly. We see Dumbledore, who is very polite, but generally aloof. Then we see McGonnagal who has a very professional demeanor in school. The rare glimpses that we get into "who she is" are often forgotten. Well, except for her fleeing onto the school grounds to stop MoM hooligans from taking Hagrid. THAT scene is fantastic...but I digress...like normal... These are teh two visions of the teachers WE SEE, but we can't assume nothing else is happening. She's been teaching for quite sometime (most likely at Hogwarts, unless we get confir. from JKR about other wizarding schools)and in that time people will usually develop a relationship beyond mere politeness. Finwitch: Just what IS the deal with Dumbledore offering Lemon Drops > and the other *always* refusing? Sure, Dumbledore likes them and it's > only polite to offer, but none other will have one? (Dumbledore's > favourite way not to answer a question, I've noticed: Distraction by > candy). Patrick: This, I think, is a fantastic observation...perhaps he knows something about Lemon Drops we don't... Patrick--who's hungry for a Lemon Drop... From hautbois1 at comcast.net Tue Oct 12 17:44:02 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:44:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115489 Here's a half-formed idea perhaps some could help me hash out... Why is it that Dumbledore have such a hard time appointing a DADA teacher in 15 YOOH (Year of our Harry)? While it's seemingly been a hard position to fill, it's always had a prof. Why NOW can he not fill it? How many people must DD know who could have at least filled in for a year? He filled Trelawny's position in what seemed like minutes...with a centaur, no less. Why was it "hard" for him to fill this position? My thought is that perhaps DD had some motive for not hiring a teacher? Did he WANT the MoM in Hogwarts? Was this his way of keeping a closer eye on Fudge and the Ministry? I'm sure he KNEW (from Fudge's reaction at the end of GF) that Fudge would be poking his nose around Hogwarts and FERVENTLY denying any LV stories of new. Was the hullaballo before DD left in OotP staged in someway? Did DD know something like that would happen after the MoM stuck it's nose in at Hogwarts? Perhaps that was his excuse to make a "grand escape" and get the truth about Voldemort's return out in the open. Just a thought or two... Patrick From vidarfe at start.no Tue Oct 12 18:01:33 2004 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:01:33 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115490 Nadine: > I doubt she is a muggle born otherwise she would know what a sherbet > lemon is. In the first pages of PS/SS (chapter The Boy Who Lived), > Dumbledore offers Minerva a sherbet lemon to which she responds : ?A > what ?? ?They're a kind of Muggle sweet I'm rather fond of? replies > DD. vidar_fe: I don't think this is an argument. Remember how old she is. When she grew there probably weren't any sherbet lemons. Of course this doesn't necessarily make her pureblod, it's just that IMHO this particular argument is not valid. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 21:22:10 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:22:10 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Good question. I suppose his OotP end-of-year talk with Harry would > imply that it is Harry. But I know there are cynics amongst us. > Wonder what they'd postulate as DD's weakness? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carolyn: I expect he'd do anything for a nice pair of fluffy bedsocks. McG probably needs to have a quiet little chat with Hermione about how to please an old man. From sophierom at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 22:01:48 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:01:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohnooboe" wrote: > > Here's a half-formed idea perhaps some could help me hash out... > > Why is it that Dumbledore have such a hard time appointing a DADA > teacher in 15 YOOH (Year of our Harry)? While it's seemingly been a > hard position to fill, it's always had a prof. Why NOW can he not > fill it? How many people must DD know who could have at least filled > in for a year? He filled Trelawny's position in what seemed like > minutes...with a centaur, no less. Why was it "hard" for him to fill > this position? > > My thought is that perhaps DD had some motive for not hiring a > teacher? Did he WANT the MoM in Hogwarts? Was this his way of > keeping a closer eye on Fudge and the Ministry? I'm sure he KNEW > (from Fudge's reaction at the end of GF) that Fudge would be poking > his nose around Hogwarts and FERVENTLY denying any LV stories of > new. Was the hullaballo before DD left in OotP staged in someway? > Did DD know something like that would happen after the MoM stuck it's > nose in at Hogwarts? Perhaps that was his excuse to make a "grand > escape" and get the truth about Voldemort's return out in the open. > > Just a thought or two... > > Patrick Sophierom: These are good questions. And I think there's some canon support for your ideas (see timeline below.) However, before I get to that, I do wonder if DD would have found the consequences of Umbridge worth the eventual outcome. Because DD has to make a great escape, he's not there to counsel Harry. Neither is McGonagall or Hagrid or any of Harry's traditional allies because Umbridge makes sure to get rid of them all once she takes over. Only Snape is left, and Harry doesn't trust Snape. Hence, Harry runs off the the MoM. While in the end, the MoM scene does force Fudge to accept Voldemort's return, it comes at a very high price, and I would sincerely hope that DD was holding out for some other way of alerting the public to LV's second rise. I always assumed that DD, powerful as he is, simply wasn't able to find someone before Umbridge/Fudge came up with their plan to infiltrate Hogwarts. Remember, Dumbledore can't just choose anyone at this point. I think he's realized, after Crouch!Moody, that if he's not extremely careful, he could bring an LV supporter into the safety of Hogwarts. By the timeline below, DD probably didn't have anyone by August 30, the day the Ministry passes the law stating that it can appoint a professor if the headmaster can't find anyone. I'm wondering if Dumbledore was, at this point, either 1. trying to convince the real Moody to take the job or perhaps trying to finagle a way for Lupin to return or 2. willing to let the position remain open, perhaps having various professors fill in, perhaps filling in himself?, until he could find someon he trusted. Then again, he could, as Patrick has suggested, have left it open on purpose. Or, worst of all, it could simply be a plot device to allow evil Umbridge into the picture! In any case, here's a timeline of events for those interested in fleshing out their theories about Dumbledore's motives for the DADA position in OotP. August 2 - Umbridge sends the Dementors to Privet Drive in order to discredit Harry Potter. That night, Harry receives the letter from the Ministry that declares he must turn in his wand and that he has been expelled from Hogwarts. This obviously catches DD unawares, and he has to move quickly in order to stall the ministry, forcing them to give Harry a hearing. August 12 - Harry's hearing. Here's a telling exchange between Fudge and Dumbledore at the hearing: Fudge: "And I haven't even started on what he gets up to at school - " Dumbledore: "-but as the Ministry has no authority to punish Hogwarts students for misdemeanors at school, Harry's behavior there is not relevent to this inquiry." Fudge: "Oho! Not our business what he does at school, eh? You think so?" Dumbledore: "The Ministry does not have the power to expel Hogwarts students, Cornelius ...Nor does it have the right to confiscate wands until charges have been successfully proven ... Inyour admirable haste to ensure the law is upheld, you appear, inadvertently I am sure, to have overlooked a few laws yourself." Fudge: "Laws can be changed." (OotP, Am. ed, 149) This can be read in two ways: Fudge gets the idea, hey, what if we could deal with what goes on in Hogwarts ... or, Dumbledore provokes Fudge into thinking this. Also, we have to remember that Umbridge, evil witch, is at the hearing as well. Even if Fudge didn't take the leap from "Laws can be changed" to "Let's inflitrate Hogwarts" I'm sure that toady did. August 30 - MoM passes Educational Decree #22, allowing Minstry to appoint professors if headmaster can't find anyone. (got this info from the Lexicon - I haven't located the reference in OotP, however) August 31 - Booklists arrive, finally. As Ron says, "About time, I thought they'd forgotten, they usually come much earlier than this." The only two new books: Standard Book of Spells Grade 5 and Defensive Magical Theory. Booklists couldn't arrive until there was a DADA professor to assign texts, and apparently this didn't happen until August 30, when the Ministry passes Educational Decree #22, effectively appointing Dolores Umbridge to be quite possibly the worst DADA teacher ever. (I say this because Quirrell!Mort probably did teach the students at least a few basic things; Lockhart is ridiculous, true, but at least he starts the duelling club wherein students can see Snape practice defense at work (Harry learns the "expelliarmus" spell from Snape's duel with Lockhart); Lupin is of course a wonderful teacher (well, that's mine and Harry's opinion); and Crouch!Moody, evil as he was, did actually allow the students to learn some important DADA lessons. Umbridge's only contribution: she forces the creation of the DA because she refuses to teach (having them read from textbooks is not teaching!). Okay, I also say that Umbridge is the worst because I simply cannot stand the woman!) Sophierom From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 12 22:20:48 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:20:48 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Geoff: > > > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling folk by their > > title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and > > informality > > between them. > > Finwitch: > > I don't know what you mean by that? I seem to recall several times > he asks people (who are not students) to call him Albus? He also > tends to address people by their first names. That's how we find > Moody's first name, BTW. Geoff: I seem to recall that most of the staff use his "Professor title". Can you quote a specific instance of him /asking/ someone to call him Albus? > Seriously Snapey Susan: > Similarly, while she calls him Albus the one time at PD, I don't > think "Dumbledore" indicates much familiarity, and the remainder of > the scene strikes me as markedly different from what we see 10 years > later. Geoff: Speaking as a teacher who taught during the period in which this is set, I do believe that it indicates familiarity. In my situation, the Head would either call us by "Mr. So-and-so" or "Miss So-and-so" if the relationship was no more than professional or by our Christian name if we knew each other better but it was quite normal to refer to the head as "Mr.......". Very few people would use his first name and it would be considered impolite to use his surname without the "Mr." unless there was a very close friendship. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 12 23:08:13 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:08:13 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115494 Siriously Snapey Susan: > > Similarly, while she calls him Albus the one time at PD, I don't > > think "Dumbledore" indicates much familiarity, and the remainder > > of the scene strikes me as markedly different from what we see > > 10 years later. Geoff: > Speaking as a teacher who taught during the period in which this > is set, I do believe that it indicates familiarity. > > In my situation, the Head would either call us by "Mr. So-and-so" > or "Miss So-and-so" if the relationship was no more than > professional or by our Christian name if we knew each other better > but it was quite normal to refer to the head as "Mr.......". Very > few people would use his first name and it would be considered > impolite to use his surname without the "Mr." unless there was a > very close friendship. SSSusan: Wow. Was this only in *front* of students, or all the time? I, too, was teaching at this time--or slightly before it ['89-'95]--and staff members typically called one another by their first names to their faces, by Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ____ in front of students, and occasionally just by the last name w/o title--sort of as you say, between friends kind of joshing with one another. Perhaps that's just US informality, though. I still hold to my argument that the scene, taken in its entirety, does *not* evidence as much familiarity betw. MM & DD as we see once Harry's at Hogwarts. It may be that you're right that they're more familiar than I suspected, but there's clearly a difference, imo, when we see them together 10-11 years later. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 23:17:43 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041012231743.1001.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115495 --- pippin_999 wrote: > Pippin: > Also, Rita Skeeter had to be blackmailed to write that story the > way Hermione wanted it written. If Dumbledore had approached > her it wouldn't have been printed.... > > A story by Dumbledore or even Harry himself wouldn't have > persuaded anyone who didn't believe them already, not if it was > in the Quibbler. It's only Rita Skeeter's byline that gets the > story the attention it deserves. Just for the record, I didn't say that Dumbledore had to arrange an interview with the media for Harry. Everyone's assuming that was my point but it wasn't. What is Dumbledore doing to advise the WW about Voldemort's return? What is the Order doing? Is he approaching senior high-ranking wizards and telling them Harry's story? > Pippin: > As for the LV Riddle connection, without the diary there's no > longer any proof that Voldemort is Tom Riddle -- besides most of > the puristas aren't openly on Voldemort's side, so their only > reaction would be to sniff "A half-blood? I'm not surprised." It > would make things harder for Harry and the other half-bloods if it > got out that Riddle was one of them. No, I completely disagree with that. None of the pureblood types we've seen so far seem bright enough to get their heads around the idea of following a halfblood leader. Except for Lucius, who might be playing his own game. Raising doubts about Voldemort's status can only hurt DE recruitment, if it's going on. And I don't understand how it would make things harder for Harry. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 12 23:45:19 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:45:19 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115496 SSSusan: > But Minerva? Nope, so far not too much to grab ahold of re: > conspiracy theories or questioning her stance. (Though I do wonder > why she wasn't an Order member--or at least not noted as one--the > first go-round.) I suppose to be fair, she's not the only "major > player" to not get discussed much. Jen: But you've given McGonagall her much deserved 15 minutes of fame today!! She has many supporters even if she doesn't generate tantalizing conspiracy theories. And there was an ESE!McGonagall at one time, if anyone is interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 I think you're right that McGonagall wasn't in the Order the first time around, since she and Dumbledore were not confidantes when Harry was left at the Dursleys. McGonagall trusts Dumbledore at that time, and knows he's the person to go to for answers, but she isn't in the inner circle. My guess WHY she wasn't an Order member is pure speculation--like the Weasleys, she had a family during that time (an older family to be sure). Say her husband and/or children were killed in the First War, then she hears about Harry vanquishing Voldemort. When she realizes Dumbledore is in on the secret about Harry, that's when Minerva decides to put her eggs in the Dumbledore basket. Dumbledore realizes over time he can trust her and slowly allows her to become part of his most secretive plans. SSSusan: > Arthur is rarely talked about > outside of the interplay between him & Molly or about his suitability > for Minister of Magic someday. So the WYSIWYG part of it is > understandable. She's just steady, rock-solid, consistent, stern but > humorous McGonagall, I guess. But, darn it, even Sybill Trelawney > seems to get discussed more than MM! Jen: But Trelawney is the prophecy-channel lady! She's got a pivotal role in the story so far. Perhaps it will all turn out to be 'tripe, Sibyll,' but you can't deny Trelawney her rightful place in the Potter saga ;). Jen From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 00:18:08 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:18:08 -0000 Subject: African Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115497 I posted a few months back a question about whether there was any canon for WW royalty. there were some answers about historical figures, but nothing contemporary. I have just spotted one. Hope this isn't a belated me too post (in which case apologies). In Philosopher's Stone, Quirrel tells his first year Gryffindors in their very first DADA class with him that his turban was '... given to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a troublesome zombie, ...'. Another of those things that make you go hmmmm eh? From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 00:38:45 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:38:45 -0000 Subject: Two-way mirror at GH In-Reply-To: <20041012133310.84014.qmail@web42104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, AnitaKH wrote: > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, AnitaKH > wrote: > I propose that the Two-way Mirror had some role in revealing the events of Godric's Hollow on that Fateful Night. > > mhbobbin: > > Not half-baked at all. I like it. I'm willing to consider the Floo Network though the two way mirror is better. Even better than Portraits. Further to this--what if the man that Harry hears yelling to Lily to take Harry and run--wasn't James but someone that James /Lily was talking to through one of these methods. (or even in the Portrait although Portraits seem to take orders rather than give > them.) > > Lupin reacts so strangely (PoA) when Harry mentions that he thinks he heard his father in the Dementor flashback that I doubt the man Harry hears is James. So what if that unknown man was, in effect, "on the phone" with Godric Hollow when the attack occurs. It would be consistent with some contemporary murder mysteries. (I can't think of one now.) > > [snips] > > Thanks for thinking this idea isn't totally off the wall. My MO is to come up with an idea and then let you bright folks shoot it down or flesh it out. > > I really like your idea that the voice Harry hears may be emanating from the mirror, and since we haven't been shown exactly how it works, we can speculate all we like. We're all deeply suspicious that the "James" voice isn't James at all, so this would answer that rather neatly. > > > > mhbobbin: Alas, I liked the idea of the man's voice that Harry "remembers" being from the two-way mirror but it doesn't work. Another poster correctly pointed out that the voice also says "I'll hold him back" implying the voice was from a person physically present in the room. As I see it, theories about Godric Hollow (or at least the logistical aspect of this part of it) must address three mysteries: 1) How did Dumbledore learn of the attack. Was there a witness? 2) How did Dumbldedore know where to send Hagrid, when he didn't know who the Secret Keeper was. Ostensibly the House was still under the Fidelius Charm, unless terminated in ways not yet clear. 3) Why did Lupin react so strangely to Harry's statement that he heard James' voice. What does Lupin know about this? Could the voice belong to someone other than James? A theory that the Potters were in communication with someone not at Godric Hollow via mirror or whatever helps with the first part. But not yet the rest. And then there are are the additional mysteries of what truly happened in the attack, was Pettigrew there and did he take the wand, and why the house fell down and so forth. Not to mention where did baby Harry go between Hagrid pulling him out of the wreckage and Hagrid delivering him to Privet Drive. And why was Hagrid at Hogwarts to tell McGonagall that DD was going to be at Privet Drive that night. Was Hagrid at two places at the same time? (uh-oh. we know what loathsome literary device that implies.) I lament that I suspect the revelations about these events will wait till Book 7 because I think they're so central to the puzzle. But I hope they're included in Book 6 instead. Or at least a big chunk. mhbobbin From macfotuk at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 00:59:04 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:59:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's doorstep ... basket or blankets - Swaddled In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > (but, basically I'd see the basket as film contamination or else what we might expect for an abandoned baby - none is mentioned in canon) > > swaddle - 1. To wrap or bind in bandages; swathe. 2. To wrap (a baby) > in swaddling clothes. 3. To restrain or restrict. > Swaddling is done to VERY young babies, not just to keep them warm but to rigidify them (they're VERY floppy before 6 months). I don't believe a baby of 15 months would be swaddled this way. He could probably toddle (walk) and say a few words already, if comparable to a muggle baby (both he and Ginny seem in fact to have had an unparalled - in the muggle world - memory of events that were clearly early in their lives). From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 01:10:40 2004 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:10:40 -0000 Subject: Will Viktor Krum be one of the deaths? (SHIP-ish) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115500 Summary of post: Rambling essay-let on reasons for Viktor Krum to a) return to Great Britain for the fight against Voldemort, and b) die. The fight against Lord Voldemort is an internal British affair (at least the general idea is to stop him before he gets the chance to launch his international career). Fudge in particular is going to be much too proud to be seen as begging for help through official channels. Other countries may choose an isolationist position as well. This doesn't rule out volunteers, however. Consider the Spanish Civil War and the many illustrious volunteers on the losing side: Hemingway, Andr? Malraux, my favourite philosopher Simone Weil, and (here it comes) JKR's personal heroine Jessica Mitford. (Apologies to any nationality that feels slighted -- those were the only one I could come up with on short notice.) While Fudge speaks for the government, Dumbledore doesn't. If he wants to travel somewhere (or send emissaries to speak on his behalf) and speak privately with people, well, it isn't forbidden. If people want to go to Britain and take up the fight against a Dark Lord on their own time, well, that isn't forbidden either. It's even possible that Dumbly can call some personal favours as well, having defeated Grindelwald. Perhaps witches and wizards in Central Europe still see him as some kind of saviour, despite the mud-throwing in book 5. And I suddenly get a bad feeling about Vicky. He feels very strongly for Hogwarts and seems to have great respect for Dumbledore, has experience of Dark Magic, got a lot of good press during the QWC (including Hermione's "He was very brave, wasn't he?") Some people seem to think that his only place in the two last books is to be the phantom penpal of Hermione, but I think there's more in store for him -- in fact, that he is created to volunteer for the fight against Voldemort. And perhaps to die. (Has anyone ever made a list about the people who Harry has shaken hands with? I have this little pet hypothesis that the handshakes are code for "Don't forget this person, you'll see them again." I hope Galadriel Waters didn't forget it in her attempts to prove that James and Lupin switched bodies.) Here it gets kind of shippy, so from this point onwars, assume Ron + Hermione = <3. The thing is that Viktor stands between Ron and Hermione and as such has the potential of causing discord on a personal level in the trio. His return to the scene could make Ron confront his feelings about Hermione and would become a point of character growth for him: through hero-worship, jealousy and grudging respect to -- what? R/H shippers have been drumming their fingers at the table to see them kiss already, and I agree that it's about time. But I think JKR will drag it out to the seventh book, so she needs another obstacle. Viktor dying would be just the thing that could make Ron hesitate -- I wouldn't say he's the kind of character that would cheerfully woo the love of his life over a rival's dead body. Even if Hermione sees Viktor as just a friend, Ron obviously doesn't. Much though I liked Viktor and don't want to see him die, anything that keeps both of them alive reminds me too much about Casablanca. Against this speaks the fact that it's incredibly clich? even for a love triangle. Two men vies for the attention of a woman, one a famous, dark, mysterious foreigner and the other a poor, painfully honest, red-headed English oaf with large ears. Then, it'd be rather clumsy manipulation for JKR to try and create tension by picking off the Tri-Wizard champions. Are we supposed to go, Oh Lord, she killed another Tri-Wizard champion, what if Harry is next? (But after the miracle growth of Ginny, I've come to accept a certain level of clumsiness.) I'm not putting any money on Viktor to be the death of book six yet, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Alshain From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 13 01:24:03 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:24:03 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: <20041012231743.1001.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115501 > > Pippin: As for the LV Riddle connection, without the diary there's no longer any proof that Voldemort is Tom Riddle -- besides most of the puristas aren't openly on Voldemort's side, so their only reaction would be to sniff "A half-blood? I'm not surprised." It would make things harder for Harry and the other half-bloods if it got out that Riddle was one of them.<< Magda: > No, I completely disagree with that. None of the pureblood types we've seen so far seem bright enough to get their heads around the idea of following a halfblood leader. Except for Lucius, who might be playing his own game. Raising doubts about Voldemort's status can only hurt DE recruitment, if it's going on. > > And I don't understand how it would make things harder for Harry.< Pippin: The rap on Muggleborns and Halfbloods is that they can't be trusted, so pointing out that the notorious criminal Voldemort is a halfblood isn't going to do the halfblood cause any good. To most of the wizards, even the purebloods like Sirius's parents, Voldemort is no longer regarded as a hero and DE recruitment isn't voluntary this time around, according to Sirius. Voldemort isn't passing out leaflets, he's using tricks, jinxes and blackmail -- at least on his fellow wizards. Wizards who are willing to serve Voldemort despite knowing the criminal nature of his enterprise aren't going to throw in the towel just because Master is a halfblood. Bella was a little shaken by Harry's announcement, but she's not going to quit just because Master's pedigree is tainted. Where would she go? Back to her nice cell in Azkaban? Dumbledore is trying to get the wizards to stop making racial distinctions. It would look very bad if he started acting like they were important. Hermione would be completely disgusted with him (and so would I). Pippin From Tenou0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 01:06:12 2004 From: Tenou0 at gmail.com (Tenou) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:06:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's doorstep ... basket or blankets - Swaddled/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115502 bboyminn thus spoke: > But I would like to introduce the ancient (sort of) concept of > /swaddling/. It means to wrap a baby in a blanket, but it also means > more than that. Swaddling would explain why Harry was still wrapped come morning, but again, there are problems with that as well. Swaddling has been linked to SIDS - though some would argue that. While it is traditional in some areas - my Grand-grandm?re and Great Grandmama both swaddled their many children - in recent years it has fallen out of favour with many people and institutions. Though I do not know how it is regarded in England. If swaddling is not in favour in England JKR may not have intended to imply swaddling. Anyway, this is getting more than a little off topic, so I'll finish by saying that swaddling may be a common practice in the WW since it keeps many of the traditions that have been forgotten because I'm sure no witch has ever worried about SIDS - and if it's not broke, don't fix it. Ten'ou From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 02:20:05 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:20:05 -0000 Subject: Will Viktor Krum be one of the deaths? (SHIP-ish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115503 > Alshain wrote: > > Summary of post: Rambling essay-let on reasons for Viktor Krum to a) > return to Great Britain for the fight against Voldemort, and b) die. > Neri: Thanks for an entertaining post, Alshain. Perhaps I can calm your fears for Vicky a bit: J.K. Rowling's World Book Day Chat: March 4, 2004 bertieana: Will we be seeing Krum again any time soon? JK Rowling replies -> You will see Krum again, though not soon. (Neri again) I interpret this answer as "not in book 6, but in book 7". So if he dies, at least it won't be in book 6, and there's a good chance that he will volunteer for the VWII in book 7. In fact, about a year ago someone in this forum (can't remember whom right now, sorry) suggested that (1) Krum is already an agent for the Order in eastern Europe and that (2) Hermione is his contact woman and that's why (apart from the SHIP thing) she writes him these long letters. I personally thought that (1) is quite likely but (2) doesn't seem reasonable for technical reasons. I agree that Ron and Hermione are going to get together in HBP, and it will be a very dramatic event, because JKR had invested a lot of effort in delaying the inevitable in OotP, and this must be for a good reason. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 02:28:21 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:28:21 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115504 > Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > Minerva McGonagall. What do we know about her? > Neri: I have one point I wanted to add, SSSusan: MM is one of seven "good" wizards, all of them Gryffindors, who ever pronounced Voldemort's name in canon. True, she only did so several times in the first chapter, but that's already more than Hagrid, whom I also count among these Incredible Seven and pronounced Voldemort's name only once. So this criterion places MM as 6th from the top in the hierarchy of all the anti-Voldemort heroes in the series. MM fans would perhaps make it 5th now that Sirius is gone, and 3rd among the grownups, trailing only DD and Lupin. I think this reflects JKR's esteem for MM. I see MM as both DD's right hand woman AND a secondary character. IMO there isn't a contradiction between the two. Even a character with admirable qualities and a central importance to the plot may still be undeveloped. True, we see MM a lot, but this is because she is an important installation in the Hogwarts environment. Her character is very well drawn, but still undeveloped relative to the stage time she gets, and that's perfectly OK by me. You can't expect an author to develop all the characters that are important to the plot or the books would be three times as long (and besides, we have to leave something for FF writers). That said, I won't object at all if JKR will manage to add some depth or an unexpected twist to MM's character. Maybe the "lion man" is her husband? Neri From averyhaze at hotmail.com Wed Oct 13 03:22:26 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:22:26 -0000 Subject: African Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115505 macfotuk wrote: I posted a few months back a question about whether there was any canon for WW royalty. there were some answers about historical figures, but nothing contemporary. I have just spotted one. Hope this isn't a belated me too post (in which case apologies). In Philosopher's Stone, Quirrel tells his first year Gryffindors in their very first DADA class with him that his turban was '... given to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a troublesome zombie, ...'. Another of those things that make you go hmmmm eh? Dharma replies: That could be a hint to something interesting, however, it occurs to me that a Muggle in a position of power could be aware of the Wizarding World. Just as the Prime Minister is aware of the Wizarding Britain, other leaders may have similar knowledge. Is the permanent split between the Wizarding World and Muggle World relevant on an international scale? I'm assuming that Wizards around the world live separately from Muggles, but I'm not sure that this fact. Then there is just the possibility that Quirrel lied about the origins of the turban. It might be a great clue, or a wonderful distraction!! From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 04:10:03 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:10:03 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115506 Geoff: I seem to recall that most of the staff use his "Professor title". Can you quote a specific instance of him /asking/ someone to call him Albus? Snow: No! Not staff but Albus does appear to make light of his own title and the respect for it. Albus does demand for other professors, when he tells an inferior house elf (dobby) that he may call him a barmy old codger if he likes, what he does not demand for himself. (GOF The house-elf liberation front) Dumbledore demands respect for a colleague's title though he does not appear to demand the same respect for himself, why? Talk about self-confidence or is it self- doubt? I guess it would depend on how Dumbledore perceives himself. Does Dumbledore feel worthy of a respected title or does he feel that he is nothing more than a barmy old codger? Just what has Dumbledore done, or thinks he has done, that he does not insist on respect for his many anointed positions? When I first read this statement from Dobby, I took it as a gesture from Dumbledore to make Dobby feel welcome enough but perceiving it from this angle, thank you Susan for the great post and its many attributes, puts a new light on how Dumbledore perceives himself. Geoff: Speaking as a teacher who taught during the period in which this is set, I do believe that it indicates familiarity. In my situation, the Head would either call us by "Mr. So-and-so" or "Miss So-and-so" if the relationship was no more than professional or by our Christian name if we knew each other better but it was quite normal to refer to the head as "Mr.......". Very few people would use his first name and it would be considered impolite to use his surname without the "Mr." unless there was a very close friendship. Snow: I defiantly agree with you here, which is why I question Dumbledore's lack of self-respect statement to Dobby. I, personally, demand such respect from my children for their aunts or uncles. No matter how close a child is to their aunt or uncle they should always acknowledge that this person holds a title, which should be respected. This person is not Joe this is Uncle Joe because you should honor the person with acknowledgement of their relationship to you. It may be old school to demand that a child look up to a person merely because they are related but in doing so they have acknowledged that you are of importance and therefore they are. Dumbledore's admittance to Dobby that he may purposely disrespect him is quite questioning. Snow-who has very little time anymore for one of my favorite vices From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 04:51:30 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:51:30 -0000 Subject: Two-way mirror at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115507 Mhbobbin: And then there are are the additional mysteries of what truly happened in the attack, was Pettigrew there and did he take the wand, and why the house fell down and so forth. Not to mention where did baby Harry go between Hagrid pulling him out of the wreckage and Hagrid delivering him to Privet Drive. And why was Hagrid at Hogwarts to tell McGonagall that DD was going to be at Privet Drive that night. Was Hagrid at two places at the same time? (uh-oh. we know what loathsome literary device that implies.) Snow: I think the loathsome literary device you are speaking of is exactly where JKR has gone, the time-travel paradox. Dumbledore, Oops made a mistake, and now has to correct what he does know with what has not yet happened. Very, very interesting! No matter how much you dislike the use of time travel, it has already been presented. The manner in which time travel has been presented is still questionable to the degree of a paradox. A paradox can have any and all results. This would be a whole lot to think about. I'm actually betting on it though! It could defiantly simplify matters as to why etc. Snow From ramyamicro at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 03:36:19 2004 From: ramyamicro at yahoo.com (Ramya Rajagopalan) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:36:19 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115508 Hi everyone! I'm new and this is my first post here. JKR recently answered a question about the whereabouts of Sirius' flying motorcycle saying that we should be able to figure that out. My take is that it is roaming around in the Forbidden forest, where it is running wild, like Mr. Weasley's Flying Ford. Perhaps it will have a cameo in future books... On a similar note, why on earth did Hagrid let Fluffy loose in the forbidden forest, when he obviously cares(obsessively) about his pets, the more dangerous, the better? Perhaps it was Dumbledore's doing, and Hagrid just had to agree... But the fact that he never mentions Fluffy again is so strange! The forbidden forest seems to be a sort of 'garbage dump' for such creatures and 'machinery'. Hagrid alone is responsible for half of those-starting from Aragog (did he have to get him a mate!) to Gwarpy! Rams From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Wed Oct 13 04:22:16 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:22:16 -0400 Subject: African Prince Message-ID: <52BD877A.20A9B4DC.39E60FE2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115509 macfotuk said: > In Philosopher's Stone, Quirrel tells his first year Gryffindors in their very first DADA class with him that his turban was '... given to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a troublesome zombie, ...'. > Another of those things that make you go hmmmm eh? Fuzzlebub85 here: OR, or...it could be a pointer to Dean Thomas as HBP. After all, he is black, as PS/SS also pointed out, and JKR said that Dean's real father is a wizard, though Dean thinks his stepfather is his real father. Which now pops a new question into my head...IF Quirrel WASN'T lying, maybe, just MAYBE, that African prince was Dean's REAL father? Or some relation? A stretch, I know, and I hope the List Elves forgive me... Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, proud to think of tonks-op as her mum From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Tue Oct 12 20:25:29 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:25:29 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115510 dcgmck: > I wonder, though, how you can possibly think that McGonagall never > had her own "loosening" influences. If she didn't, where does that > wry, dry, sly humor come from? Where does her authentically rabid > enthusiasm for Quidditch come from? From whence stems the creativity > to favor the Gryffindors on detention by sending them with Hagrid, > thus minimizing their punishment while simultaneously torturing and > terrorizing Malfoy? > > Just because the callow youth through whose eyes we must peer in > frustration cannot see the rascal lurking behind those glasses > doesn't mean I can't project such qualities on her. My personal > experience is that the strictest teachers tend to be the most fun and > radical outside the classroom and in faculty meetings. Toto: It would seem that way yes, but a few details make us wonder if she is accustomated at all with dealing with feelings. She has feeling of her own, and she is a quirky and intelligent adult, but she more than once goes a tad too far in her punishments, especially people she likes. She seems unable to cope with fear, and thus takes it down on others, as did hermione at the very beginning. toto From tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr Tue Oct 12 19:27:50 2004 From: tombadgerlock at freesurf.fr (totorivers) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:27:50 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <1056477445.20041011175157@vcem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115511 Susanne wrote: > Also, Ron does not seem threatened or annoyed by Hermione's > brains whatsoever, in the books, and there are plenty of > important jobs out there that don't require you to have an > outrageously high IQ to be successful and helpful to > society. toto: But he does. In PS, that was the whole point about bullying her. And through the years, he has reserved the right to make fun of her and make her feel extremely bad (e.g. POA and her crying). When she dates Krum, no small part of his "jealousies" is because it is "Krum", a famous guy who is out of Ron's league. Ron is afraid to be left alone, and I can understand him; it "is" a chilling thought, and he "is" part of a trio where one is a genius and the other the most famous boy of the wizarding world. Susanne again: > I don't understand this prejudice that the husband > should/would feel like a failure if the wife makes more money. > Isn't that kind of thinking a bit outdated and offensive? toto: It is sad but true. There is the male mentality about "doing" something that makes you better than others. Ron is a very good case (Mirror of Erised, GoF and Krum) of just that, and he won't take being a "failure" easily. He needs to be equal to his peers and friends, hence JK has Harry banned from quidditch and made Ron the new hero. It's also why I think Harry won't come back too play quidditch. toto From alex51324 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 13 06:18:07 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 06:18:07 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts job, was, Dumbledore's motive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115512 A couple of folks have speculated today as to why DD hasn't been able to fill the DADA position. I've long thought that Harry is going to end up the DADA professor at the end of the series, and the DADA professorship revolving door is simultaneously a device to introduce new major adult characters every book and to have the spot open for Harry when he grows up. (That also explains why JKR claims* there are no wizarding universities--if there were, we'd wonder how Harry manages to get the job right out of school.) * I say "JKR claims" because I think there are things about the wizarding world she does not know. :) One of those "how many bathrooms are there aboard the Enterprise?" things. Alex From swirskyr at rogers.com Tue Oct 12 17:02:16 2004 From: swirskyr at rogers.com (Rachel) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:02:16 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115513 > Geoff: > > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling fok by > > their title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity > > and informality between them. > > Finwitch: > > Most of the time when he calls her by title and surname, it's > so that using first name would make it sound like talking to a > child. Particularly as Dumbledore is over twice her age. Doing > so would probably result to an angry response saying she's an > adult and has a right to be there. Dumbledore doesn't want that > so he uses a more formal manner of address. Just a thought, I know a set of married teachers who use each other's titles in public in all but the most stressful of circumstances where one might forget such a thing and just should out the first name that comes to mind. They use separate surnames and many of the teachers in their own school do not know the familial relationship. This is also true of another set of teachers we know who are merely relatives with the same last name. Many think they are a couple even though they are in truth, only cousins. Just a thought. "Rachel" From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 09:53:26 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:53:26 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115514 Rams: > > Hi everyone! I'm new and this is my first post here. > > JKR recently answered a question about the whereabouts of Sirius' > flying motorcycle saying that we should be able to figure that out. > My take is that it is roaming around in the Forbidden forest, where > it is running wild, like Mr. Weasley's Flying Ford. Perhaps it will > have a cameo in future books... Finwitch: In the very first *mention* of the motorcycle, is when Hagrid flies it to Privet Drive. He tells Dumbledore that Sirius lent it to him. Then he flies off to return it. However, by that time, Sirius is *already* on his way to Azkaban, framed by that rat. So the bike must have stayed with Hagrid. (And it suits him much better than a broomstick, don't you think?) Later on, going to zoo, Harry tells he's had a *dream* of a flying motorcycle. (A memory, a prediction or something else?) Next we see Hagrid: A Hut on a Rock. Harry sleeps on the floor without so much as a blanket (curse those Dursleys!) Midnight and Harry's birthday approaches. Harry hears roaring (like thunder) from outside as he draws a Happy birthday card for himself in the dust. At midnight, exactly, a giant-like man, Hagrid, stands on the doorway. At some point of the discussion, Harry asks how he got there. 'I flew' was Hagrid's response. Then he and Harry leave to buy Harry's schoolthings on the only boat. I'd say it's *obvious* that Hagrid arrived on the flying motorcycle! There's no thundering or even rain when he and Harry leave, and Hagrid DID fly there! As to where the bike's now, well... 1)I think Hagrid returned the boat to the Dursleys later and left on the motorcycle (how else would they have managed to get off the Rock?) 2)it may have been hidden somewhere in the Forbidden Forest for a while, or behind Hagrid's hut (I'm certain Sirius installed Invisibility booster, and a better one than Arthur at that, possibly just because he had more money to spend, so Harry has not seen it) 3) After Sirius was proven innocent, it's entirely possible that Hagrid returned the bike to him at 12 Grimmauld Place. 4) If, as I think, Sirius had a wand in the saddlepack of his motorcycle, it would explain where he got the wand he has in DM- fight... Sirius may have flown the bike to the ministry invisibly. (Safer than apparating, I think) Now that he's dead, no one knows where he left the bike that's still invisible... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 10:09:11 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:09:11 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115515 > > Potioncat: --- > But it seemed to me that there was a small simularity between her > perception that Harry had tricked Draco into looking for a dragon in > the middle of the night (SS/PS) and the Whomping Willow incident > (Prank) from years earlier. However, we don't know if she even knew > about that. And the punishment was for being out of bounds at night, > which all 4 suffered. > Finwitch: You know, MM thought then that Harry&Ron *lied* about the dragon for no other reason than to trick Draco. Harry doesn't correct her out of loyalty to Hagrid. Later, I believe, Hagrid told her the truth: there WAS a Dragon, and Harry&Ron were shifting Norbert off to Romania to be taken care of by Charlie Weasley. And *that* is why the detention got taken place with Hagrid, and not Filch. So no need for it to be unfairness between houses even this way! Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 10:14:38 2004 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:14:38 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115516 Doddiemoe wrote: Or it may be how Draco gets Dad and his cronies out of Azkaban. Even if Draco did not get the hand of glory that particular day--he knows where it is and has the money to purchase said hand. Doddie--who wonders who guards Azkaban prison these days. vmonte responds: Oh, I like the way you think! vivian From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 10:26:32 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:26:32 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ramya Rajagopalan" wrote: > > snip> On a similar note, why on earth did Hagrid let Fluffy loose in the > forbidden forest, when he obviously cares(obsessively) about his > pets, the more dangerous, the better? Perhaps it was Dumbledore's > doing, and Hagrid just had to agree... But the fact that he never > mentions Fluffy again is so strange! > > mhbobbin: I don't remember Fluffy being let lose in the forest--can you point me to where you found that. Interesting--then Grawp could have a pet dog. (aaarrch!!!) mhbobbin From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 11:10:42 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:10:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115518 > Sophierom: > --- > I always assumed that DD, powerful as he is, simply wasn't able to > find someone before Umbridge/Fudge came up with their plan to > infiltrate Hogwarts. Remember, Dumbledore can't just choose anyone at > this point. I think he's realized, after Crouch!Moody, that if > he's not extremely careful, he could bring an LV supporter into the > safety of Hogwarts. By the timeline below, DD probably didn't have > anyone by August 30, the day the Ministry passes the law stating that > it can appoint a professor if the headmaster can't find anyone. > I'm wondering if Dumbledore was, at this point, either 1. trying to > convince the real Moody to take the job or perhaps trying to finagle a > way for Lupin to return or 2. willing to let the position remain open, > perhaps having various professors fill in, perhaps filling in > himself?, until he could find someon he trusted. Then again, he > could, as Patrick has suggested, have left it open on purpose. Or, > worst of all, it could simply be a plot device to allow evil Umbridge > into the picture! -------- > > August 31 - Booklists arrive, finally. As Ron says, "About time, I > thought they'd forgotten, they usually come much earlier than this." > The only two new books: Standard Book of Spells Grade 5 and Defensive > Magical Theory. Booklists couldn't arrive until there was a > DADA professor to assign texts, and apparently this didn't happen > until August 30, when the Ministry passes Educational Decree #22, > effectively appointing Dolores Umbridge to be quite possibly the worst > DADA teacher ever. > > (I say this because Quirrell!Mort probably did teach the students at > least a few basic things; Lockhart is ridiculous, true, but at least > he starts the duelling club wherein students can see Snape practice > defense at work (Harry learns the "expelliarmus" spell from Snape's > duel with Lockhart); Lupin is of course a wonderful teacher (well, > that's mine and Harry's opinion); and Crouch!Moody, evil as he was, > did actually allow the students to learn some important DADA lessons. > Umbridge's only contribution: she forces the creation of the DA > because she refuses to teach (having them read from textbooks is not > teaching!). Okay, I also say that Umbridge is the worst because I > simply cannot stand the woman!) Finwitch: I agree completely about Dumbridge. (I like to put the D from Dolores so it forms Dumb with 3 first letters of her surname...) She does not teach. At most, she leads a reading practice that's completely useless. She also treats the students like they were a decade younger in the class. Makes my teeth edge, that. And she's also abusive when someone stands up to her (like Harry). Those Blood Quills MUST be Dark Arts! Only good thing about her was that she created great demand for Weasley Wizard Wheezes + excellent opportunities for Fred&George to advertise... Don't know if they could have had such a good start otherwise. I do think Dumbledore tried to find someone proper he trusted to teach, but could not. Alastor Moody refused flat out (Don't want a repeat of last year, Albus)... and Remus quit when everyone found out he was a werewolf. I wonder: Aberforth Dumbledore for next DADA teacher? Maybe. (Hermione is not going to like him!) Another possibility suggested in a few fanfics I've come across: Dumbledore (or Lupin) makes the lessonplans and is the primary teacher, but Harry (who already has proven he *can* teach DADA with his club) becomes assistant teacher, with a duty to teach the younger children. As assistant teacher, Harry's privileges are between that of a full professor and that of a student. (He can issue detentions and take points for example). What comes to Harry's own studies, he gets private education before this from McGonagall, Moony & Tonks just to mention a few... Now let's bring up Dumbledore's Lemon Drops/Sherbet Lemons and McGonagall's bisquits. I think I know why they do that. It's a reward for doing the *right* thing, when they can't give you what you'd want (release from punishment, an answer/details about things and what not), and also provides as a distraction so you don't get lost in your anger. Only thing that baffles me of McGonagall, is how she takes off those 5 points. She says: 'This is not about truth and lies, this is about keeping your temper in check'; whereas Harry thinks: 'she took points off because I got a detention?' I just don't see how Harry had lost his temper? Nothing exploded, right? Umbridge didn't turn into a balloon, now did she? What DID McGonagall expect of Harry? Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 13 11:42:27 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:42:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and respect was Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115519 > Snow: > No! Not staff but Albus does appear to make light of his own title > and the respect for it. Albus does demand for other professors, when he tells an inferior house elf (dobby) that he may call him a barmy old codger if he likes, what he does not demand for himself. (GOF The house-elf liberation front) Dumbledore demands respect for a colleague's title though he does not appear to demand the same > respect for himself, why? Talk about self-confidence or is it self- > doubt? snip Potioncat: But he didn't mean for Dobby to address him as "barmy old codger." Remember, Dobby couldn't say anything bad at all about his family. DD was taking that restriction off. I'll bet Snape and McGonagall, in the privacy of the staff room have had a few choice words about DD...but I'll bet neither of them ironed their hands. Besides, DD seems to enjoy playing the fool all the while fooling others. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 13 11:48:58 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:48:58 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115520 > Susanne wrote: > > Also, Ron does not seem threatened or annoyed by Hermione's brains whatsoever, in the books, and there are plenty of important jobs out there that don't require you to have an outrageously high IQ to be successful and helpful to society.<< > > toto: > > But he does. In PS, that was the whole point about bullying her. And through the years, he has reserved the right to make fun of her and make her feel extremely bad (e.g. POA and her crying). < Pippin: In PS and PoA, it wasn't her intelligence he objected to, it was her interfering ways, along with, in PoA, her refusal to take responsibility for her pet. Of course Hermione doesn't *mean* to be interfering. She's been socialized to help without being asked, like mama's little angel, and doesn't realize that to people like Harry and Ron, who are hoping to prove themselves, her help comes across as patronizing. Ron does tease her about her overachieving sometimes, but no more than she teases him about being clueless. > toto: > > It is sad but true. There is the male mentality about "doing" something that makes you better than others. Ron is a very good case (Mirror of Erised, GoF and Krum) of just that, and he won't take being a "failure" easily. < I concede that Ron probably has all the "normal" prejudices in the wizarding world, in fact, he's our indicator about which prejudices are shared by most wizards and which aren't. What we don't know is whether in the wizarding world it's thought normal for the male to be the chief breadwinner in a household. In the WW, women have been working in paid jobs alongside men in sports, government and education for hundreds and hundreds of years, so wizarding society has probably adjusted to it. In any case, the question may not arise. Hermione seems to be leaning toward political activism for the downtrodden as a career. That isn't likely to pay well. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 13 12:03:53 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:03:53 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115521 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ramya Rajagopalan" > wrote: > > > > snip> On a similar note, why on earth did Hagrid let Fluffy loose in the forbidden forest, when he obviously cares(obsessively) about his pets, the more dangerous, the better? Perhaps it was Dumbledore's doing, and Hagrid just had to agree... But the fact that he never mentions Fluffy again is so strange!<< > > > > > mhbobbin: > > I don't remember Fluffy being let lose in the forest--can you point me to where you found that. > Pippin: It's the Blue Peter interview, which isn't on Quick Quotes. --- What happened to Fluffy? Well, basically anything that is dangerous is released to the forest, so that's where fluffy is now, roaming the forest ---- I presume that Hagrid, being a conscientious gamekeeper, made sure that Fluffy was fit to survive in the wild before turning him loose. Fluffy's not an ordinary domestic dog, after all. Pippin From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 13:27:49 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:27:49 -0000 Subject: Filk: I am Muggle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115522 Petunia has no solo! Yeegads, must rectify that! I am Muggle! to the tune of I am Woman, by Helen Reddy (words and music by Helen Reddy and Ray Burton) To EST!Neri Newlywed Petunia sings: I am Muggle, hear me roar As I redisinfect the floor. Though I've scrubbed it once, I'll scrub it once again. Though for some, housework's a chore, I do it twice, and my encore Is to scour the bath and rearrange the den. CHORUS Oh, yes, timewise, Magic's faster, that is plain. But think about the price: Those wizards are insane. Without magic, I can clean anything. 'Monia's strong. Bleach is invincible. I am Muggle! If it's dirty, I will clean it, Not half-way, but like I mean it, And I'll polish each tureen and fingerbowl. Let them have a Leaky Cauldron- I will polish, scour and scald one. Just don't stop me now, cuz, man, I'm on a roll! CHORUS I am Muggle, watch me go- See me with my Mop N Glo As I banish all dust bunnies from the land. Yes, the Muggle way is slow- I still have half the house to go, But in this house, every form of Magic's banned. CHORUS repeat and fade Ginger, who doesn't like Petunia, but allow her to clean my house From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 13:54:00 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:54:00 -0000 Subject: FILK: I've Got Friends with Stone Faces Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115523 I've Got Friends with Stone Faces to the tune of Friends in Low Places, sung by Garth Brooks (written by Dewayne Blackwell and Bud Lee) To CMC Ron, facing his greatest fear, heads into the Forest: Blame it all on my bros, I just up and froze- They transfigured my Teddy Bear. The next thing you know, Legs started to grow, And the darn thing was covered with hair. It was a surprise With too many eyes; A phobia that does remain. This I must do (Despite my need for a loo): Priorities I must retain! CHORUS 'Cause I've got friends with stone faces And the mystery's found, But my fear chases The clues away. But I'll be OK. I'm not big on scary places Guess we've got to cover all the bases. Oh, I've got friends with stone faces. Well, I'll have to be strong, And muddle along 'Cause Herm, she's stiff as a door. If I just hang tight, It'll soon be all right And we'll find out what we're looking for. But that doesn't mean I'm not turning green. This won't take an hour and then I'll be up high in that Gryffindor tower We're living in. CHORUS Ginger, who's Godson was once afraid of her "Darth Brooks" tape. Yeah, I've trained him well in Star Wars knowledge. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 14:00:17 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:00:17 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115524 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ramya > Rajagopalan" > > wrote: > > > > > > snip> On a similar note, why on earth did Hagrid let Fluffy > loose in the forbidden forest, when he obviously > cares(obsessively) about his pets, the more dangerous, the > better? Perhaps it was Dumbledore's doing, and Hagrid just > had to agree... But the fact that he never mentions Fluffy again is > so strange!<< > Pippin: > I presume that Hagrid, being a conscientious gamekeeper, > made sure that Fluffy was fit to survive in the wild before turning > him loose. Fluffy's not an ordinary domestic dog, after all. > Frugalarugala: Three heads have got to be better than one when it comes to bringing down game. Coming from an area where feral and wild dogs have replaced wolves with the deer population, I can too easily picture Fluffy chewing on a unicorn... I wonder if some of the centaurs hostility has anything to do with "interesting" things being introduced and disrupting the local ecology? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 13 14:02:47 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:02:47 +0100 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) Message-ID: <8FAB6885-1D20-11D9-AAD9-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohnooboe" wrote: > > Finwitch: > > > 2) She's obviously in awe of Dumbledore's *powers*, and finds Dumbledore to be such a great wizard. Particularly when Dumbledore recognizes her in cat-form! She's registered, fine, but no one's done that before! > > > Patrick here: > I don't think it's necessarily safe to say "no-one" has recognized her in cat form. > Now this little exchange set me furiously to thinking. We know of two instances where animagi are recognised as such when in animal form: MM by DD in PS/SS and Sirius by Lucius in OoP. The latter is explicable in that although there is no evidence that Lucius has ever seen Sirius as a dog, he'll know all about him. Down at the DE social evenings Pettigrew would have whined about Sirius trying to kill him, about how Sirius says he escaped from Azkaban, about an affinity between Harry and his Godfather; he'd have spilled the beans for sure. Now DD may well be familiar with Minerva's particular animal form, but that's not the way it reads:_ "How did you know it was me?" "...I've never seen a cat sit so stiffly" Not only that, but the recognition was immediate, at a distance, at night, under street lighting. Just how far away he was is admittedly not certain, but after putting out the lights DD "...set off down the street" - not a phrase you'd expect if he was only going a few paces. "Ooh, Grandma! What big eyes you've got!" "All the better to see you with, my dear." We've seen(!) DD's ocular omniscience in action in CoS - he saw through the Invisibility Cloak in Hagrid's hut - what else can he see through that's magical? An animagus disguise perhaps? Certainly his Legilimancy skills would be a great help, but does it go further? Can he actually *see* who's in there? It's a logical surmise that if animagi exist then the WW would develop a way to identify them - though as animagi are rare it would not be a magic that many would bother to master. Some would of course; the greatest wizard in the world would, plus one or two others - oddball specialists who need to track down and identify exactly who and what they are dealing with - Moody for instance. That occult optic sees a hell of a lot. Unfortunately we have no textual encounters between Moody and animagi that're not already known to him, nor between Crouch!Moody and Bug!Rita when Moody's eye was on forced loan. Pity that. There's just one scene where DD and Bug!Rita apparently appear in close proximity, that's in the hospital - and later Hermione says she caught Rita on the window sill, one of Rita's favourite spots for bugging. And there is no indication as to whether the window was open or closed. Would DD have noticed her if she was hiding on the *outside* window sill? As is often the case in the HP saga, we wish we were told just a *little* bit more. But there's a much more important animagus that DD must have seen wandering about Hogwarts over the years - Pettigrew. He's such a stand-out. "Students may bring an owl or a cat or a toad" yet a succession of Weasleys blithely turn up with a rat - a very long-lived rat - with no questions asked. Then there's the question of why the hell El Ratto would for years deliberately put himself in the position of being right under DD's nose, the committed opponent of everything Peter's supposed to support. But that's just our point of view - to the wider WW Peter is a fallen hero. Is he hero to DD before old Albus finds out he's still alive? Possibly - DD never admits to doubting that Sirius was guilty of the offences he wasn't tried for. Mind you, he never seems to condemn Peter either. Interesting. And then there's all that delicious ambiguity at the end of CoS - Sybill and the second Prophecy that could apply to Peter or to Sirius; DD saying that Harry has saved an innocent man from a terrible fate while failing to point out that Harry saved *two* men from horrible fates - Peter at the end of a pair of wands and Sirius at the sucking end of a Dementor. So which was he referring to? You see, given all we're told about DD I've never been able to swallow certain suppositions, namely that he didn't know about the Marauders in the first place and that he wouldn't identify one of them when he turned up at Hogwarts as a pet. It just stretches credulity too far, I don't care if DD does drone on about "A extraordinary achievement - not least, keeping it from me." I just don't believe it. It's DD flim-flam - again; all of a piece with his comment later in the same passage where he lays the syrup on with a trowel "So you did see your father last night Harry....you found him inside yourself." Urk. Pass the bucket somebody. All this sort of stuff seems to tie in with suspicions that some of us have that on occasion DD seems to be aware of future developments in the plot. He's totally unconcerned when Peter escapes, he jokes about Sybill's second Prophecy, it's almost as if the episode was played out to get someone owing Harry next to Voldy. What makes him think that a mass-murdering traitor would honour such a debt at some unknown future date? He might if he already knew who Scabbers was. He might if he had already 'turned' Peter; wouldn't be the first time. He did exactly the same with Snape. No matter what Snape had done as a DE all was forgiven when DD stood up and said "He's on our side now." Was the same promise made to Peter - "Work for us and I'll do what I can."? In which case why did he leave Sirius to rot in durance vile for all those years? Good question. Perhaps he doesn't think that Sirius is all that innocent a character after all. DD never even attempted to get his name cleared, did he? I wonder why? Kneasy From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 14:36:23 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:36:23 -0000 Subject: Filk: Me and Minnie McG Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115527 Me and Minnie McG, as you probably guessed, to the tune of Me and Bobby McGee, words and music by Kris Kristofferson. Most popularly done by Janis Joplin. To Siriously Snapey Susan, with thanks for starting the "McG" thread This is one of those filks where the singer would probably rather eat slugs than sing it. Snape (at no particular match) sings: Waiting at the Quidditch pitch, vict'ry to attain. My accustomed black robes traded in for green. Weasley thumped a Bludger down, Flint is out again, Angelina just scored goal thirteen. I cursed Harry Potter, and his second red banana, Who's Keeping missed a lot, to tell the truth. Snitch was caught in too short time, I's shaking Minnie's hand with mine. Victory was hers again, I knew. CHROUS Quidditch is another word I hate to pair with lose. Losing, I hate losing up against McG. Yeah, winning sure was easy, before Potter came to cruise. Yeah winning, it was good enough for me. Winning against good old Minnie McG. >From the time kids are firsties, to the time they're grown and done Minnie and I share a single goal- A good education, a house cup to be won, But Quidditch really is the heart and soul. With Draco on our team, oh no, he lets it slip away. He's looking for that Snitch, and I hope he finds it. But I'd trade all the Crabbes and Goyles for the team of yesterday To be holding Minnie's trophy that was mine. CHORUS La-da-da-da-da-da La-da-da-da-da La-da-da-da-da-da Minnie McG, yeah La-da-da-da-da-da La-da-da-da-da La-da-da-da-da-da Minnie McG. La-da-da La-da-da-da-da-da La-da-da La-da-da-da-da-da La-da-da Hey, my Minnie, Minnie, Minnie McG, Yeah. Lo-da-lo-da-lo-da-lo-da-lo-da-lo-da-lo-da yeah, Hey, my Minnie, Minnie, Minnie McG. Well, I call her my cohort, I call her my friend I said I call her my colleague, With her to the end, c'mon Hey now Minnie, now, Hey now, Minnie McG, yeah La-da La-da La-da La-da La-da La-da La-da La Hey, Hey, Hey, Minnie McG. Yeah etc. Ginger, binge-filking today and really sick of typing La-da. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 14:42:13 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:42:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Finwitch: > Only thing that baffles me of McGonagall, is how she takes off those > 5 points. She says: 'This is not about truth and lies, this is about > keeping your temper in check'; whereas Harry thinks: 'she took points > off because I got a detention?' > > I just don't see how Harry had lost his temper? Nothing exploded, > right? Umbridge didn't turn into a balloon, now did she? What DID > McGonagall expect of Harry? > Frugalarugala: I think what she wants is for Harry will treat Dumbridge as if she's Voldie-lite, a serious threat, and toe the line so as not to draw her attention. Not that I'm suggesting that she's a Death Eater, or even an equal threat, but she was a serious threat, far more so than provoking, say, Snape. And MaGonagall (and all the staff) is in an awkward position with her, it had to be foremost in MaGonagall's mind that if SHE got canned they would be truely screwed. But she also had to reign in Prophecy-Boy and make sure he remained in a condition to take on Voldemort if the time came. Between his behavior with Dumbridge and then the MoM, I hope the Order has reolized that Prophecy-Boy needs to learn to think coolly when angry. --'Arugala, who's sorry about the last post being doubled, doesn't know why that happened and hopes this one doesn't do that. And is sorry if it does. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 17:51:37 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:51:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115529 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" wrote: > > > Frugalarugala: > I think what she wants is for Harry will treat Dumbridge as if she's > Voldie-lite, a serious threat, and toe the line so as not to draw her > attention. Not that I'm suggesting that she's a Death Eater, or even > an equal threat, but she was a serious threat, far more so than > provoking, say, Snape. Finwitch: Interesting comparison. In GOF, Harry's decision to defy Voldemort firstly got him off the Imperius (I WON'T). Then, when he chose to fight instead of trying to hide, this decision is what - though not getting rid of the enemy - saved Harry's life and made him able to get back with Cedric's body. I think that Harry WAS taking D Umbridge seriously and chose to defy her, *just like he did with Voldemort*, except that no magic was involved. Partly because it was the right thing to do, and partly because no one else stood up to her. Trying to ignore, step carefully, etc. is not going to make things better. Not with Umbridge (the more she got away with, the worse she got) nor do I believe it would happen in the Real World. I think that Harry knew that, deep down. Like the Finnish saying puts it(Loosely translated): Run away from a wolf and you'll run into a bear. Frugalarugala: And MaGonagall (and all the staff) is in an > awkward position with her, it had to be foremost in MaGonagall's mind > that if SHE got canned they would be truely screwed. Finwitch: I think she was. That's part of the bisquit-scene, after all. Still, with all these teachers side-stepping around Umbridge and practically *letting* her do it, she got more power. Just as the (superstitious?) fear of saying "Voldemort" gives more power to Voldemort. Another saying: "Give the devil the pinky and he'll take the whole hand" - curiously enough, that's *precisely* what happened to Pettigrew, isn't it? He cuts off a finger and ends up cutting off his hand! Frugalarugala: But she also had > to reign in Prophecy-Boy and make sure he remained in a condition to > take on Voldemort if the time came. Between his behavior with > Dumbridge and then the MoM, I hope the Order has reolized that > Prophecy-Boy needs to learn to think coolly when angry. Finwitch: Oh, I do think Harry could do with learning to deal with his emotions, particularly as emotions seem to be the very core of magic. But punishments won't do a thing to help with that. Harry's learned, during his childhood, to pile up his emotions until the figurative steam-kettle exploded. (Not very healthy, that) Now that he's finally beginning to express his emotions, McGonagall decides to punish him for it? That's back to the old way for Harry (except he's absolutely baffled about it). He's probably going to leak soon, as Harry's way of "keeping his temper in check" is to suppress his feelings until he can no more and something explodes. That was, after all, what he tried to do with Aunt Marge. He does know how to deal with Desire (thanks to the Mirror), with Fear/Dread(Boggart) and Depression (Dementor). Much like Hermione and her SPEW, I'd say. Nice idea, wrong methods. Finwitch From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Oct 13 18:03:13 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:03:13 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <8FAB6885-1D20-11D9-AAD9-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115530 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: >>>All this sort of stuff seems to tie in with suspicions that some of us have that on occasion DD seems to be aware of future developments in the plot. He's totally unconcerned when Peter escapes, he jokes about Sybill's second Prophecy, it's almost as if the episode was played out to get someone owing Harry next to Voldy. What makes him think that a mass-murdering traitor would honour such a debt at some unknown future date? He might if he already knew who Scabbers was. He might if he had already 'turned' Peter; wouldn't be the first time. He did exactly the same with Snape. No matter what Snape had done as a DE all was forgiven when DD stood up and said "He's on our side now." Was the same promise made to Peter - "Work for us and I'll do what I can."? In which case why did he leave Sirius to rot in durance vile for all those years? Good question. Perhaps he doesn't think that Sirius is all that innocent a character after all. DD never even attempted to get his name cleared, did he? I wonder why? Kneasy<<<< Carolyn: Well, of course, Peter might not have needed turning, or have done anything very wrong if what you are suggesting is true - ie that he was working undercover for DD on spying activities prior to James & Lily's death. The only information that we have on Peter's life immediately after he left school is that he is photographed sitting between James & Lily at that Order get-together (OOP, Ch.9). He was not only trusted by the other marauders, but by the whole of the Order at this point, so it wasn't just the gullibility of old friends at school. For some reason, Moody also didn't think it would be a problem showing the photograph to Harry either - insensitivity of a battle-hardened old Auror? Or some knowledge on Moody's part of the real truth? There is the matter of the Dark Mark. Could DD have seen such a magical mark, in the same way as he can see through magical cloaks? With DE's he would have known where to look with his x-ray vision. [I'll politely step away from the idea that he's been amusing himself for years seeing through normal clothes as well..hm, haven't had a WW porn thread on HPfGU in a long while]. If Peter had been branded by Voldie at this point, DD would surely have known, although Moody might not as he didn't have his magic eye until later. DD may also have agreed with Peter that for realism's sake, Peter would have to accept that mark. OTH, Voldie might not have branded Peter after he returned to him, when Peter had nursed him back to partial human form, as Voldie was able to use his wand to kill Frank Bryce at the beginning of GOF, and was strong enough in Albania to torture and kill Bertha Jorkins. If Peter was DD's spy, what was his mission? Initially, possibly to spy on Sirius and Lupin, to discover if either of them was the one passing information to Voldie in the year before the Potter's death. The most convincing analysis I have seen recently about Sirius's possible guilt in this respect formed part of a presentation at ConventionAlley this August (Webb & Brown - 'Let's Chat About the Rat'). (Melannen): 'If Sirius really thought that dying under Voldemort's torture would be enough to save the Potters, and any of them would have done so rather than betray, there's no reason he couldn't have done that himself. Either he was too scared to die horribly, or he knew that anyone, including himself, would eventually crack once Voldemort got his hands on him. Either way that leaves him looking little better than Peter.' (Azriona): 'If Sirius were selfless, he would not have given up the position of Secret Keeper. Sirius was chicken. Sirius was a scared twenty-year old kid who dumped responsibility on someone else and tried to make a break for it. Where the hell was he when James and Lily were killed? Where the hell was he before that, when he was supposed to be protecting Peter as the Secret Keeper?' Perhaps DD left Sirius to rot in Azkaban as a fitting punishment for this weakness. This envisages Sirius as not ESE through and through, but unreliable under pressure. DD's little chat with Sirius at the end of POA, before he arranged for Harry and Hermione to rescue him, may have been more about checking up some old facts, and hearing an old confession than any rubbish about hearing for the first time that Sirius was misunderstood and locked up in vain. It's also worth remembering that Sirius was (apparently) never actually the secret keeper. He says: 'I persuaded them to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as Secret Keeper instead of me'. So who performed the spell on Peter in the end? Lily or James? Dumbledore? Flitwick? It is left unsaid. It is clearly a difficult spell, not anyone could do it. If DD performed it, could he have agreed the high risk strategy with Peter of passing it on to Voldie, to see if his other deep-laid strategy, concerning ancient magic, maternal sacrifice and a wand containing Fawkes' tail feather would pay off? High risk indeed. But it did work, and gave the WW 13 years of peace. This strategy would also explain the deep cover Peter maintained for 12 years as Scabbers, and puts the whole Shrieking Shack scene dialogue in a completely different light. We all know from RL spying games that it is not unknown for a person to maintain a false identity for decades; in Peter's case, this massive investment of his life and time was about to be blown before he had a chance to complete his updated mission - which was to return to Voldie and continue acting as a mole, passing information, doing what he could to thwart Voldie's plans. Webb & Brown point to Peter arguing with Voldie about his Triwizard plan, and his failure to guard Barty Crouch Sr effectively, leading to his escape back to Hogwarts, as evidence as to whose side he was really on. Set against all this is the massive difficulty in imagining that Peter could really lie to Voldie to this extent if Voldie is the Legilimens that he is claimed to be. Carolyn ..cheerfully acknowledging the ultimate dark lord of conspiracy, ESE! Kneasy.. From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 18:14:22 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall first subject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041013181422.22204.qmail@web12306.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115531 > > > kmc wrote: > > > > In OotP, McGonagall tells Umbridge that she > had been teaching > > for 39 years this December. Using the dates from > the HP-Lexicon, > > > > McGonagall began teaching in 1956. Dumbledore > did not become > > > > Headmaster until 1970. Dumbledore was the > Transfiguration > > teacher when Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts in 1942. > > > > > > > > What subject did McGonagall teach when she > started at Hogwarts > > > > December 1956? > > > > > > > > If she started as the Transfiguration teacher, > did Dumbledore > > > > teach anther subject like DADA or Potions? (snip) > Mac: (snip) > As for DD not being up to potions (Yb), as someone > else (sorry not > to be able to recall who) pointed out (much better) > a few weeks back > DD was, according to the chocolate frog card, the > discoverer of 12 > uses of dragon's blood and helped Flamel (himself > perhaps the best > alchemist ever) as well as defeating Grindenwald by > means unknown. I > doubt there is much he isn't good at, including > potions. bamf here: There is also the possibility that MM was brought in when DD went on a sabbatical to do research with Flammel. Or fight Grendel (yes, I know, wrong name. I can't remember the name of the wizard DD defeated.) Professors can take sabbaticals from time to time, and sometimes sabbaticals can be quite lengthy. It also would have given Hogwarts a chance to try out a new teacher to see how they fit and if they don't work it's not a great loss as the original professor will return. bamf ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 18:15:12 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:15:12 -0000 Subject: Saving People? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115532 vekkel1 wrote: " The 'saving people' comment has always eaten at me. How is it she can say it like it's a bad thing when it has actually saved people's lives?" Del replies : She doesn't mean to say that it's a bad thing in itself. But it can be used by LV to harm Harry. It's a good thing that can be used to bring about bad things. Quite like Hermione's brains, if you will :-) She needs to temper her reason with emotion, and Harry needs to temper his saving-people thing with reason - sometimes. Del From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 13 18:33:04 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: African Prince In-Reply-To: <52BD877A.20A9B4DC.39E60FE2@aol.com> Message-ID: <20041013183304.405.qmail@web52002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115533 I posted a similar theory a short while ago. The only flaw being that Jo said she had discontinued Deans storyline in favor of Neville's and she wasn't sure Dean's story would be included. I theorized that Neville's father was African royalty, possibly related to witchdoctors who helped LV achieve his immortality. fuzzlebub85 at aol.com wrote: macfotuk said: > In Philosopher's Stone, Quirrel tells his first year Gryffindors in their very first DADA class with him that his turban was '... given to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a troublesome zombie, ...'. > Another of those things that make you go hmmmm eh? Fuzzlebub85 here: OR, or...it could be a pointer to Dean Thomas as HBP. After all, he is black, as PS/SS also pointed out, and JKR said that Dean's real father is a wizard, though Dean thinks his stepfather is his real father. Which now pops a new question into my head...IF Quirrel WASN'T lying, maybe, just MAYBE, that African prince was Dean's REAL father? Or some relation? A stretch, I know, and I hope the List Elves forgive me... Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, proud to think of tonks-op as her mum Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT --------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 13 18:59:43 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:59:43 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Set against all this is the massive difficulty in imagining that > Peter could really lie to Voldie to this extent if Voldie is the > Legilimens that he is claimed to be. > Why bother pretending when actions speak louder than words? He participates in the murder of Bertha, Frank Bryce, Barty Crouch Snr and actually performs the deed on Cedric. Do you think DD sleeps sound o'nights? Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 19:15:28 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:15:28 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115536 Finwitch wrote : "Harry's Mom never prevented Harry from coming to Hogwarts, never believed any nasty rumours... and they're DEAD. Harry's emotional response to Mom&Dad is *very* different than response to those who raised him.. At this situation, Seamus mother comes out like a Dursley." Del replies : Maybe. But if Harry can't figure out that other kids don't like it when he insults their parents, then he's got a BIG relationship problem. After all, he already knows that both Ron and Draco don't take it well when someone insults their mother, so why should he expect Seamus to react differently ? Finwitch wrote : "Teenager challenge: If you're such a big Mommy's boy, go ahead, or stay if you have a mind of your own. In effect, Seamus *has* to stay in order to keep his face with his peers." Del replies : Issuing that challenge was quite unfair and unnecessary, since Seamus had *already* proven that he wasn't a Mommy's boy, by coming back to school against his mother's will. Finwitch wrote : "Oh well. Kid's dead. Dumbledore tells briely what happened (so far as he knows)." Del replies : Oh no ! DD knows MUCH MUCH MORE than he tells the students. In particular, he knows the whole story about what happened in the Graveyard. But what does he tell the students ? That Harry and Cedric were transported somewhere (where ? how ?), that Cedric was killed there (why ? The kid isn't a Muggleborn), that LV was reborn (how ? by who ??), that Harry fought him (and *beat* him ? Please !) and that Harry managed to come back with Cedric's body. No matter how much emotion DD put into it, and how conspirational he managed to sound, his speech quite simply didn't hold water. Finwitch wrote : "Cedric is dead. *How* did he die?" Del replies : What about "the simplest explanation is often the right one" ? Harry killed Cedric. Whether by accident, or out of spite because Cedric had managed to win along with him, the simplest explanation is that Harry killed Cedric. And it wouldn't be the first time Harry tried to kill another student either : many students saw him set a snake on Justin in his second-year. Now, whether Harry himself invented this grandiose story to cover his misdeeds, or whether DD invented it to protect his pet student, it doesn't change that fact : DD's story doesn't hold water, when compared with the official stories of Harry's imbalanced behaviour, and with all the odd happenings that the students have noticed about Harry. Finwitch wrote : "You can't expect full details in a funeral speech. I for one wouldn't WANT them in that context." Del replies : Agreed. But two full months passed since then, and still neither DD nor Harry gave any more details. Just the same old limerick : LV is resurrected and he killed a (pure-blood) student. Finwitch wrote : "Follows a series of articles and what not discrediting Harry Potter about it. This adds evidence to Dumbledore, that Harry DID tell him all that, regardless of whether you believe the article or not. (Otherwise, why discredit HARRY?)" Del replies : You and I know that the Ministry is indeed trying to discredit Harry, but this is not necessarily how it appears to the WW at large. To most people, the Daily Prophet only seems to report Harry's odd behaviour, and to investigate his claims and find them completely unfounded. We must remember that because we've been following Harry all these years, we've known about LV returning for years, but the WW was not prepared at all. All they see is that a boy who has been described as seriously imbalanced all year long is now claiming that LV has returned. No wonder they won't believe him !! Finwitch wrote : "The question is back on whether you believe Harry, who has already *said* that Voldemort is back." Del replies : When did he do that ? I can't remember Harry making a *public* statement that LV has returned. All the WW gets is *second-hand* testimonies. Harry himself *never* said a word about it in public. And that DOES make a huge difference. Finwitch wrote : "Mind you, Harry does NOT expect anyone giving him a chance to explain himself." Del replies : But he *does* expect everyone to simply believe what DD says ? How logical is that ? Finwitch wrote : "Asking for details was 'between lines', and Harry certainly didn't see them." Del replies : Between lines ? What Seamus said is : "Look... what *did* happen that night when... you know, when... with Cedric Diggory and all?" And JKR adds that "Seamus sounded nervous and eager at the same time." I don't see any accusation in what Seamus said, or in the way he said it. But I DO see a desire for details. Harry got it wrong because he had already made up his mind that Seamus was against him. Finwitch wrote : "So tell me, why doesn't Seamus tell Harry what he thinks *before* he asks the question? If he had, I think Harry might have told him." Del replies : Maybe precisely because he was trying to make up his *own* mind ? Seamus was torn between two very important authority figures : his mother, and his Headmaster. He was trying to figure out what *he* thought. But no, Harry figures Seamus should *already* have made up his mind to follow Harry and DD blindly. *And* he blames Seamus for his mother's opinion. Totally unfair. Moreover, if you look closely, you'll notice that neither Dean nor Neville seem to have made up their *own* minds either. Dean does *not* say that he believes Harry, and Neville simply follows his Gran's opinion (which of course is OK because Gran believes Harry, but how does Seamus dare defend his mother ? Not fair, I tell you). Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 13 19:50:45 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:50:45 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115537 Neri: > I have one point I wanted to add, SSSusan: MM is one of seven "good" > wizards, all of them Gryffindors, who ever pronounced Voldemort's > name in canon. True, she only did so several times in the first > chapter, but that's already more than Hagrid, whom I also count > among these Incredible Seven and pronounced Voldemort's name only > once. So this criterion places MM as 6th from the top in the > hierarchy of all the anti-Voldemort heroes in the series. MM fans > would perhaps make it 5th now that Sirius is gone, and 3rd among > the grownups, trailing only DD and Lupin. I think this reflects > JKR's esteem for MM. > > I see MM as both DD's right hand woman AND a secondary character. > IMO there isn't a contradiction between the two. Even a character > with admirable qualities and a central importance to the plot may > still be undeveloped. True, we see MM a lot, but this is because > she is an important installation in the Hogwarts environment. Her > character is very well drawn, but still undeveloped relative to the > stage time she gets, and that's perfectly OK by me. You can't > expect an author to develop all the characters that are important > to the plot or the books would be three times as long (and besides, > we have to leave something for FF writers). That said, I won't > object at all if JKR will manage to add some depth or an unexpected > twist to MM's character. Maybe the "lion man" is her husband? SSSusan: Fun post, Neri! Your point that it's NOT necessarily a contradiction to be both DD's right-hand woman *and* a secondary character is valid. I certainly didn't make my "either/or" polar opposites, did I? How did you rank *within* your "Incredible Seven" who've spoken Voldemort's name? By the number of times they've said "Voldemort," or by some more subjective means? I am especially interested in the thought of "lion man" being Mr. McGonagall. ;-) I'd, not very creatively, figured it was Godric Gryffindor. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 20:17:54 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:17:54 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115538 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > > > Set against all this is the massive difficulty in imagining that > > Peter could really lie to Voldie to this extent if Voldie is the > > Legilimens that he is claimed to be. > > > > Why bother pretending when actions speak louder than words? > He participates in the murder of Bertha, Frank Bryce, > Barty Crouch Snr and actually performs the deed on Cedric. > > Do you think DD sleeps sound o'nights? Umm, do I get you right, Kneasy--arguing that DD is *currently* actually using Peter as a deep cover spy, and that DD needs that spy so much that he would put aside the moral qualms about using a spy who does the things mentioned above? Now, I know you like to argue for a ruthless DD, but I think that's even a little beyond the pale for the (oft-cited) epitome of goodness. I'll eat crow if this is wrong, but I think, regarding Peter, the more straightforward reading is the more accurate one. Peter was the chained servant who escaped, Peter has been running around helping to resurrect his boss, Peter was the spy within the Order in VW1. This is not to say that Peter hasn't had at least *some* qualms about this, and I think he's most likely on the 'Big BANGy Redemption Scenes List', but he's fallen pretty low at present. (On the SK switch thing: to support the statements quoted above, we do almost have to assume this sort of thing: Sirius: Guys, I'm really sorry--I'm such a loser that I can't bear the thought of actually being the one to keep your secret, so I'm going to shove it off on Peter. James: Lily, sounds good to me. Lily: Whatever you say, James--I'm the obedient housewife. I mean, at least theoretically, L&J both had to think it was a decent enough idea, and Lily could have cast the charm herself. I don't think there are any strong reasons to doubt the account we've been given so far; it would have been a fine plan, if Peter hadn't been a traitor. But he did canonically fool everyone--and it makes it a LOT more complicated and manipulative to argue that he didn't fool DD. It also demands a very, very exact string of coincidences/events falling out exactly as predicted--and I'll bet against it. DD not pulling Black out of the slammer--we argued about that a little while ago. High on the list of questions I'd like to ask her.) Kneasy, you up for that bet? -Nora returns to the land of the not-quite-sick From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 20:27:50 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041013202750.603.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115539 >> Magda: >> No, I completely disagree with that. None of the pureblood >> types we've seen so far seem bright enough to get their heads >> around the idea of following a halfblood leader. Except for >> Lucius, who might be playing his own game. Raising doubts >> about Voldemort's status can only hurt DE recruitment, if it's >> going on. And I don't understand how it would make things harder >> for Harry. > > Pippin: > The rap on Muggleborns and Halfbloods is that they can't be > trusted, so pointing out that the notorious criminal Voldemort is a > halfblood isn't going to do the halfblood cause any good. To > most of the wizards, even the purebloods like Sirius's parents, > Voldemort is no longer regarded as a hero and DE recruitment > isn't voluntary this time around, according to Sirius. Voldemort > isn't passing out leaflets, he's using tricks, jinxes and blackmail > -- at least on his fellow wizards. Magda again: Welll, it would show that Voldemort is lying and that this scary bogey-man image that he's created for himself and that the wizarding world fears so much is nothing but a lie. That would deflate VOldy's image more than somewhat in the WW. It's hard to be mindlessly terrified of someone who used to be a Head Boy at Hogwarts. And I don't think that halfbloods would suddenly become the focus of irrational WW suspicion or dislike. Everyone thinks Voldemort's a pureblood and there hasn't been a corresponding hatred of purebloods in the WW, no indication that people are taking out anti-Voldemort feeling on purebloods. So I still disagree here. > Pippin: > Wizards who are willing to serve Voldemort despite knowing the > criminal nature of his enterprise aren't going to throw in the > towel just because Master is a halfblood. Bella was a little shaken > by Harry's announcement, but she's not going to quit just because > Master's pedigree is tainted. Where would she go? Back to her > nice cell in Azkaban? Never said it would. I referred to recruitment, not to current DE members although I cited their intelligence level as an indication of what kind of intellect usually became a DE. And there's no way that recruitment is completely involuntary this time around - you can't have all your old-time sincere DE's supervising reluctant newbie DE's activities; eventually nobody would get anything. You've got to have at least some enthusiasm for the job. > Pippin: > Dumbledore is trying to get the wizards to stop making racial > distinctions. It would look very bad if he started acting like they > were important. Hermione would be completely disgusted with > him (and so would I). No, actually he'd be pointing out that Voldemort is a liar and hypocrite as I said above. Racial distinctions won't die out any faster by ignoring the truth. And it's not like Dumbledore would be making comments about how much better it would be to be a pureblood Dark Lord than a halfblood one. He'd simply be identifying Voldemort's true identify. After all, if Dumbledore can call him "Tom", why can't other people? Would you really fear an Evil Overlord named "Tom"? Wouldn't you feel like a prat if you did? Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 13 21:41:05 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:41:05 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115540 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > Umm, do I get you right, Kneasy--arguing that DD is *currently* > actually using Peter as a deep cover spy, and that DD needs that spy > so much that he would put aside the moral qualms about using a spy > who does the things mentioned above? > > Now, I know you like to argue for a ruthless DD, but I think that's > even a little beyond the pale for the (oft-cited) epitome of goodness. > Kneasy: All the dirty deeds I mention are done *after* El Ratto has returned to Voldy. No way DD could influence them. It's just possible he had no choice. Mind you, can you imagine what would happen if Peter showed that he had doubts? "No, no, Dark Lord. I cannot do this thing, for I have seen the light of goodness and truth." "Uh? Right then." *zap* "That's sorted that silly sod out. Next!" There're things about Peter that don't quite add up. A member of the Order in the first Voldy War. Why join a team that was losing? Who knew he was Secret Keeper? Just the Potters and Sirius. How convenient then that Sirius's first act is to attempt to kill Peter. The only person who could prove his innocence. No; rephrase that, the only person who could testify to the truth. He betrays the Potters - but hangs around to confront Sirius even though according to McGonagall Pettigrew was useless at duelling. He went for his wand, but Black was quicker, according to witnesses. And what does he say as he's being outdrawn? "James and Lily - Sirius how could you?" And if Black was quicker...what happened to his spell? A not-so-hot wizard who (according to Sirius) can kill 13 behind his back with one spell, cut off a digit, drop bloodstained robes and wand, transform into a rat and dive down the sewer before Sirius can react even though he's drawn first. Pull the other one, sonny; it's got bells on. Yet after the Shrieking Shack, when Lupin transforms to the general consternation, he gets a wand, casts two spells - but only to escape; he doesn't attempt to kill anyone; not Sirius his bitterest enemy, not Harry, the death he tried to encompass at GH - or so we are meant to assume. And DD has no qualms; he tells Harry he did the right thing in sparing Pettigrew. Now you may be happy with this farrago of nonsense, but not I. It doesn't add up. I'm looking for alternatives. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 22:00:54 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:00:54 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > All the dirty deeds I mention are done *after* El Ratto has > returned to Voldy. No way DD could influence them. It's just > possible he had no choice. Okay. I think I see your point...but I can't get my mind around DD using Peter as a deep cover spy when Peter is *helping* his boss come back to life. Unless you have a very, very well-planned conspiracy theory that DD wants LV to be reincarnated so that he can be destroyed. I suppose you *could* think of it that way. I'll be disappointed and surprised if it turns out so (but if it's canon, it's canon, que sera sera). > Mind you, can you imagine what would happen if Peter showed that > he had doubts? "No, no, Dark Lord. I cannot do this thing, for I > have seen the light of goodness and truth." "Uh? Right then." > *zap* "That's sorted that silly sod out. Next!" > > There're things about Peter that don't quite add up. > > A member of the Order in the first Voldy War. Why join a team > that was losing? Was it losing at first? It's really unclear how things started out; seems to have been a quasi-political movement at first (the DEs) that mutated into a more typical evil-overlord-minions situation. But joining the Order doesn't seem to have been an automatic death sentence at FIRST. It's telling that Peter seems to have ditched the Good Guys when the going got hard--his 'what was there to be gained by refusing him?' is a whine of 'Oh, so HARD to fight the bad guys, so dangerous...' that encodes a 'I didn't think it would be like this when I joined up...'. > Who knew he was Secret Keeper? Just the Potters and Sirius. How > convenient then that Sirius's first act is to attempt to kill Peter. > The only person who could prove his innocence. No; rephrase that, > the only person who could testify to the truth. Was it an attempt to right-out kill, or was it some other kind of confrontation? That's been raised before. Sirius, not aware of the depths of the betrayal/Peter's intense self-preservation instinct, goes to confront him along the lines of 'What the hell was that?', and gets blown away instead. (Sorry, my mind is currently supplying Marilyn Horne: 'What the hell is this? I'm supposed to be a vestal virgin in a temple, not the last of the Red Hot Mamas!') > He betrays the Potters - but hangs around to confront Sirius even > though according to McGonagall Pettigrew was useless at duelling. > He went for his wand, but Black was quicker, according to witnesses. > And what does he say as he's being outdrawn? "James and Lily - > Sirius how could you?" And if Black was quicker...what happened > to his spell? > > A not-so-hot wizard who (according to Sirius) can kill 13 behind his > back with one spell, cut off a digit, drop bloodstained robes and > wand, transform into a rat and dive down the sewer before Sirius > can react even though he's drawn first. Pull the other one, sonny; > it's got bells on. Our consensus has to be that Peter was somewhat more competent than the picture we've been presented of him. Is it not impossible that he got an upgrade from working with the DEs--that his accusation towards Sirius that Sirius had been learning things personally from LV is rather a projection of his own situation? Oh, I agree it's messy...but I don't see such a deep subversion helping out. > Yet after the Shrieking Shack, when Lupin transforms to the general > consternation, he gets a wand, casts two spells - but only to > escape; he doesn't attempt to kill anyone; not Sirius his bitterest > enemy, not Harry, the death he tried to encompass at GH - or so we > are meant to assume. If I were to give a character analysis on Peter, I'd say that he's really not the type to out and TRY to kill anyone. He's more the type to 1) only do it on direct command and 2) then rationalize it to himself. Left to his own devices, he's more concerned about taking care of Number One (getting the hell out of there) than killing anyone. > And DD has no qualms; he tells Harry he did the right thing in > sparing Pettigrew. DD also says that he wouldn't be content with LV's death--and she's TOLD us there's something up there. I suspect this is DD as carrier of a moral code poking through, the whole 'not right to kill people' thing. > Now you may be happy with this farrago of nonsense, but not I. > It doesn't add up. I'm looking for alternatives. It's messy, but I don't think 'Peter as DD's spy' makes things add up any better... Join Faith and I for a drink in the Safe House, Kneasy? -Nora ascends the many, many steps to Parnassus From siskiou at vcem.com Wed Oct 13 23:18:51 2004 From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:18:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: References: <1056477445.20041011175157@vcem.com> Message-ID: <1792560708.20041013161851@vcem.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115542 Hi, Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 12:27:50 PM, totorivers wrote: > Susanne wrote: >> Also, Ron does not seem threatened or annoyed by Hermione's >> brains whatsoever,... > toto: > But he does. In PS, that was the whole point about bullying her. He was annoyed by her bossiness and her pushy know-it-all ways. He wasn't bullying her, nor was he threatened or annoyed by her *brains*. It was her behavior that turned everyone off Hermione. > And through the years, he has reserved the right to make fun of her and > make her feel extremely bad (e.g. POA and her crying). I thought this was because Hermione refused to keep her cat away from Scabbers (after saying she would), nor show any sympathetic feelings when Ron thought Scabbers had been killed by Crookshanks. > When she dates > Krum, no small part of his "jealousies" is because it > is "Krum", a famous guy who is out of Ron's league. Ron is afraid > to be left alone, and I can understand him; it "is" a chilling > thought, and he "is" part of a trio where one is a genius and the > other the most famous boy of the wizarding world. Where was Ron threatened by her brains here? He was jealous, and not because he doesn't want to feel "left behind", but because he has feelings for Hermione he is just now starting to get an inkling of. This has nothing to do with seeing Hermione and Harry as far superior to himself (as you are saying her should?), and being afraid they will leave him behind. >Ron is a very good case > (Mirror of Erised, GoF and Krum) of just that, and he won't take > being a "failure" easily. He needs to be equal to his peers and > friends, hence JK has Harry banned from quidditch and made Ron > the new hero. It's also why I think Harry won't come back too play > quidditch. You mean, you think JKR has had Ron try out for Quidditch to show he needs to feel equal to his peers? I thought it was to show Ron that accomplishing something involves hard work (for most! Harry is lucky to have instant seeker talent and no need to work up to the skill), which Ron ultimately lived up to. And I hope Harry will come back to Quidditch, since it's one of the few joyful distractions for him. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at vcem.com From hautbois1 at comcast.net Wed Oct 13 17:21:39 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:21:39 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts job, was, Dumbledore's motive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115543 Alex wrote: > > I've long thought that Harry is going to end up the DADA professor at the end of the series, and the DADA professorship revolving door is > simultaneously a device to introduce new major adult characters every book and to have the spot open for Harry when he grows up. Patio here: I agree that it functions well as an introduction to new characters, but I still feel as though DD had his reasons to keep the position "open" as it were, hence all my questions(see post 115489). This could be a possible reason Severus "I'm not a vampire" Snape :) wasn't given the position. His taking the position would keep a professor in the position. If DD is trying to lasso some DE's or darky-arty types then the DADA position is the place to do it. I know there are infinite theories on Snape not securing that position, but my point is ONLY that Snape in the position would close the position. Perhaps that's part of the reason DD keeps turning him down. Alex says: > * I say "JKR claims" [there are no wizarding universities] because I think there are things about the wizarding world she does not know. :) One of those "how many bathrooms are there aboard the Enterprise?" things. Patrick now: I agree, and she probably does too, that there are things she doesn't know (though, I bet she could tell us how many bathrooms there are in Hogwarts!) but if she said this, I think she's right. After OWLS students get to choose what to take in order to get the NEWTS they need for their chosen future field of work. A few of these we've seen require some post-Hogwarts training (Aurors, healers, etc.) I think in the WW the training for your position either happens in a specialized forum (i.e. the Aurors) or with some sort of internship or apprenticeship (i.e. healers) Thats my thought, anyway! Patrick From imthruthelookinglass at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 19:39:06 2004 From: imthruthelookinglass at yahoo.com (imthruthelookinglass) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:39:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115544 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohnooboe" > wrote: Why is it that Dumbledore have such a hard time appointing a DADA teacher in 15 YOOH (Year of our Harry)? While it's seemingly been a hard position to fill, it's always had a prof. Why NOW can he not fill it? > Sophierom wrote: Because DD has to make a great escape, he's not there to counsel Harry. Neither is McGonagall or Hagrid or any of Harry's traditional allies because Umbridge makes sure to get rid of them all once she takes over. Only Snape is left, and Harry doesn't trust Snape. Imthruthelookinglass: I wonder if this is part of the master plan? Did DD want Harry to be alone, as that is how he must face LV in the end? Was this one of the many lessons that Harry is meant to learn before the final battle? DD's methods have been somewhat questionable prior to this, so it seems to me entirely possible that this was contrived. While I doubt DD would put Hogwarts or its student in serious danger, sometimes plans to go awry. This just came to mind: Could this have been a way for DD to bring Snape and Harry together (along with Occlumency)? I doubt it, as there is much more to Snape than we are let to know as yet. I'm on the Snape in a bad guy side of the fence. We'll see. Good theories, though. From hautbois1 at comcast.net Wed Oct 13 20:30:11 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:30:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115545 > Finwitch: > > Oh, I do think Harry could do with learning to deal with his > emotions, particularly as emotions seem to be the very core of magic. But punishments won't do a thing to help with that. Harry's learned, > during his childhood, to pile up his emotions until the figurative > steam-kettle exploded. (Not very healthy, that) > > Now that he's finally beginning to express his emotions, McGonagall > decides to punish him for it? Patrick: I agree completely! I also need to say that JKR BRILLIANTLY writes the whims and temperments of a 15 old! As one who deals with 160 14yr olds daily, I see this A LOT. Negalleus said it best when he talks to Harry about (paraphrase) Why teenagers think they are the only ones who have ever FELT before. It's the mentality... Patrick From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 20:39:43 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (mercy_72476) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:39:43 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115546 Laura B.: > To right it would... but I agree, there is no need for Snape to > interfear with DA or any of its members... as of yet. Unless DD see > some reason to take their "extra curricular actvities" to a higher > level or purpose, let them have DA to their selves. If there is a > reason for the teachers to interject... it will be done, if not... > let them have their fun. > Hey, I'm a poet and didn't know it! Caution: First posting. Please be patient! :) First of all, I agree that Snape has no reason to "interfere" with the activities of the DA yet. There may well be a call for Snape to use his extensive knowledge of the Dark Arts to arm Hogwarts students. At any rate, we can't rule it out, as we do not know much about Snape's "double-agent" activities or what he actually does for the order. As for Neville standing up to Snape: I don't think it's likely to be a stand-off situation. As for the DA freaking out about being instructed by Snape, I think that's a 2-way street, especially where Harry is concerned. Their (Harry's and Snape's) loathing for one another is a good example of that discord and disunity that everyone (including the Sorting Hat) is so worried about. I think that, before the end, both Harry (+the DA members) and Snape will have to let go of long-held prejudices and grudges in order to be effective against Voldemort, and thus Neville, being in the DA, will have a new understanding of Snape, and Snape of Neville, so the conflict will be resolved. Of course, this could all be "codswollop" and nothing but my sentimental wishful thinking. If so, dismiss them at will. :) Lisa Marie From hautbois1 at comcast.net Wed Oct 13 20:57:21 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:57:21 -0000 Subject: Another Dumbledore motive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115547 In my first post on this subject 115489, I speculated as to whether or not DD has purposely not filled the DADA in a more permenant way. In the same way, do you suppose DD kept Trelawney around in the same way? As a sort of "psychic antenna"? Sure, she's mostly a fraud, but apperently a bit of her g-g-gma Cassandra has stuck around because she made 2 important prophesies. Did DD expect her to work again and therefore "kept her in arms reach" or do you suppose it was just a happy accident? Patrick From ABadgerFan2 at msn.com Wed Oct 13 21:08:01 2004 From: ABadgerFan2 at msn.com (abadgerfan2) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:08:01 -0000 Subject: Payment of Wormtail's Debt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115548 Harry saves Wormtail from death in the Prisoner of Azakaban segment of this series, earning Dumbledore's comment that it may later prove useful for Harry to have Wormtail in his debt. Clearly this was the author's foreshadowing of future events. There has been no evidence since then of any attempt by Wormtail to repay his debt to Harry, just hints of his possible inclination to do something, seen by his clumsy attempt to get Lord Voldemort to use another wizard's blood in the process of regaining human form at the end of Book 4, Goblet of Fire. I ask, do any of you have a theory as to when and how this portion of the plot will play itself out? From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 21:38:41 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:38:41 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115549 big snip Nora wrote: > Umm, do I get you right, Kneasy--arguing that DD is *currently* > actually using Peter as a deep cover spy, and that DD needs that spy > so much that he would put aside the moral qualms about using a spy > who does the things mentioned above? > > Now, I know you like to argue for a ruthless DD, but I think that's > even a little beyond the pale for the (oft-cited) epitome of goodness. big snip And what would be the point? Peter would have had many chances while nursing LV -- keeping him alive until he gets his body back -- to not nurse him and not keep him alive. Why would DD want to keep LV alive. I guess it could be to draw out the DE's so that they can be id'ed. The costs, Cedric's life being only the tip of the iceburg, are just too high for this to make sence. (IMHO) --barmaid From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 21:58:06 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (mercy_72476) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:58:06 -0000 Subject: LV's wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "maren243" wrote: > > There is one thing I absolutely did not understand ever since reading > GOF the first time. Where got LV his wand back? > After he had tried to kill Harry and the curse had reflected on him > he was not corporal any more, so he was not able to take the wand > with him. LV himself tells the Death Eater that he was in a state > where he was not able to hold a wand the night he returns. > But the wand he has got that night is his old one because it contains > the feather from Fawkes and Harry's parents are coming out of it. > And speaking of that why isn't the curse with which LV tried to kill > Harry coming out of it in some form? Shouldn't a shadow of LVs body > come out of it? > Well I hope you understand what I mean. My English is not that good > (as you may have noticed). Maren243: It is a commonly held view (though not the only one) that Wormtail (Peter Pettigrew) was present at Godric's Hollow when James and Lily were murdered, and when LV was blasted by his own spell, Wormtail picked up his wand and kept it. By the way, your English is excellent! I would never have known you were not a native English speaker (and I am an English teacher)!! Happy Posting! Lisa Marie From chinaskinotes at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 13 22:13:04 2004 From: chinaskinotes at sbcglobal.net (chinaskisnotes) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:13:04 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115551 Snipping from a very interesting thread: > Finwitch: > > As to why we don't talk about her much, (unlike the never-ending > > discussion on Snape) I think it's because there's nothing to point > > that she has secrets, quite the opposite, as she's the only > > *Registered* animagus we have been introduced to > > SSSusan: > So you mean she's just more "What you see is what you get," then? > With no deep, dark past or closet full of skeletons? > Though I have little *specific* canon proof for this, I had begun to think recently that it was strange that there are two muggle born witches we know of- Lily and Hermoine (excluding Dean Thomas who may or may not be...). Hermoine is often compared to McGonagall-her strictness, work ethic, nostril flaring, etc.... It seems to me that the reason Hermoine tows the line and works so hard is partly to prove herself- she is the outsider, the one who doesn't belong, the Malfoys of the WW expect and want her to fail. Wouldn't it be interesting if McGonagall were also a muggle-born witch? Of course she wouldn't advertise it, having lived in times where muggles and 'mudbloods' were persecuted- much like ex-slaves post-US Civil War who were able to "blend in". Being muggle born doesn't stop her from being an accomplished and talented witch, much like it hasn't stopped Hermoine. It does seem odd that there are no living adult examples of muggle born witches or wizards, especially when one of the dominant themes of the novels is acceptance and tolerance. Just a thought- feel free to tear it to shreds- I'll return to my lurking corner! :) chinaski From Tenou0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 23:34:49 2004 From: Tenou0 at gmail.com (Tenou) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:34:49 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts job, was, Dumbledore's motive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115552 Alex thus spoke: > A couple of folks have speculated today as to why DD hasn't been able > to fill the DADA position. > > I've long thought that Harry is going to end up the DADA professor at > the end of the series, and the DADA professorship revolving door is > simultaneously a device to introduce new major adult characters every > book and to have the spot open for Harry when he grows up. (That also > explains why JKR claims* there are no wizarding universities--if there > were, we'd wonder how Harry manages to get the job right out of school.) I think that in the first and second books the only reason for a DADA professor was to allow the villain an easy in, easy way to introduce a new adult character with out question, plus an easy clue as to who the real villain was. But it grew into a running gag. Or - and here's one of Ten'ou's inspirations that is either genius or complete insanity... The position attracts evil. Like when you have a ley line that's turned dark, it attracts dark things to it... (like attracting like) This even explains Lupin, who has the tendency to gnaw on people during a full moon unless he takes his medicine like a good doggie. I for one think that is just a little bit evil. But, as evil has to be vanquished, the DADA professor has to be offed - or in Lupin's case knows he is a danger to those around him and resigns. And that's why a DADA professor doesn't stick around for more than a year. Ok, I think this theory needs a little more... time. > * I say "JKR claims" because I think there are things about the > wizarding world she does not know. :) One of those "how many > bathrooms are there aboard the Enterprise?" things. Being a fan, I just have to comment on this: I think the `how many bathrooms' question was answered a number of years ago on the TNG good bye special. There is only one bathroom on the entire ship, I think it was Jonathan Frakes gave viewers this little tidbit. Ten'ou From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 00:00:08 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:00:08 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > Kneasy: > All the dirty deeds I mention are done *after* El Ratto has > returned to Voldy. No way DD could influence them. It's just > possible he had no choice. Nora: .. I can't get my mind around DD using Peter as a deep cover spy when Peter is *helping* his boss come back to life. Unless you have a very, very well-planned conspiracy theory that DD wants LV to be reincarnated so that he can be destroyed. Carolyn: DD may well have known the potion ingredients that Voldie would have to use to reincarnate himself. Don't forget, transfiguration and alchemy are his core subjects. You have to admit they are pretty odd - the bones of a hated *muggle* father, the hand of a whimpering, cowardly rat-man servant, and just a little, nervous drop of Harry's blood. Voldie is by no means in his old position of power, he's got to make do with what he can find in his desperation to return. DD reads the Muggle newspapers, he knew about Frank Bryce's death, and that Riddle House was at Little Hangleton, and who was buried in the graveyard. Voldie also may not fully understand that Harry spared Pettigrew's life, he may just think the rat escaped to return to him. Although he is supposed to be an accomplished legilimens, maybe it's a question of what you don't look for, you don't find. Peter would not need to fake any remembered terror of Sirius and Lupin to try and fool him. Voldie even says: 'You returned to me, not out of loyalty, but out of fear of your old friends.' And DD probably would not have given Peter any specific instructions - too risky - just engineered a situation to enable Peter to go back, and let events take their course. Undoubtably just one of many strategies - this is not a re-run of LOTR, where everything hangs on one fateful journey. Nora: It's telling that Peter seems to have ditched the Good Guys when the going got hard--his 'what was there to be gained by refusing him?' is a whine of 'Oh, so HARD to fight the bad guys, so dangerous...' that encodes a 'I didn't think it would be like this when I joined up...'. Carolyn: But why did Peter go back to Voldemort after he escaped from Sirius and Lupin? If he was capable of making it to Albania, why didn't he go bury himself someplace else, far away on another continent rather than bring trouble on himself? He's supposed to be a coward? Why go and help resurrect a noxious cloud of malignant vapour? Sure, he might have anticipated someone might eventually come and hunt him down, but not for a while? For the same reasons, why on earth did he hang around with the Weasleys all those years? Or stay around at Hogwarts after he realised that Sirius had escaped Azkaban? At no point do we see him excited about following Voldemort in the way that it thrills sick Bella, or envy the powergames it offers Lucius. > Kneasy: He betrays the Potters - but hangs around to confront Sirius even > though according to McGonagall Pettigrew was useless at duelling. > > A not-so-hot wizard who (according to Sirius) can kill 13 behind his > back with one spell, cut off a digit, drop bloodstained robes and > wand, transform into a rat and dive down the sewer before Sirius > can react even though he's drawn first. Pull the other one, sonny; > it's got bells on. Nora: Our consensus has to be that Peter was somewhat more competent than the picture we've been presented of him. Is it not impossible that he got an upgrade from working with the DEs--that his accusation towards Sirius that Sirius had been learning things personally from LV is rather a projection of his own situation? Carolyn: This scene is hard to analyse as we only have one person's word for it - Sirius - plus Fudge's account of what he found when he arrived on the scene shortly afterwards. Neither have the greatest credentials as witnesses, and Fudge made very sure Sirius didn't get his day in court, or have his wand tested for the last spell performed. You also have to ask why Peter was not already transformed into a rat. Why on earth was he still in human form at this point? Sirius does not mention forcing him to reveal himself with the kind of spell used at the Shrieking Shack. To my mind, Sirius is either not telling the whole truth or there was a third person involved, which might have been Fudge himself. Nora: If I were to give a character analysis on Peter, I'd say that he's really not the type to out and TRY to kill anyone. He's more the type to 1) only do it on direct command and 2) then rationalize it to himself. Left to his own devices, he's more concerned about taking care of Number One (getting the hell out of there) than killing anyone. Carolyn: So it's rather unlike him to use a spell which causes multiple deaths, and extremely odd that he is still even in the UK, let alone cornered by Sirius at this point - after all he has had several hours, or the best part of a day to get away. Kneasy: > And DD has no qualms; he tells Harry he did the right thing in > sparing Pettigrew. Nora: DD also says that he wouldn't be content with LV's death--and she's TOLD us there's something up there. I suspect this is DD as carrier of a moral code poking through, the whole 'not right to kill people' thing. Carolyn: That would be the same DD that says to Harry: ..'I cared ..more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed' ? From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 00:15:12 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:15:12 -0000 Subject: African Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > I posted a few months back a question about whether there was any > canon for WW royalty. there were some answers about historical > figures, but nothing contemporary. I have just spotted one. Hope > this isn't a belated me too post (in which case apologies). > > In Philosopher's Stone, Quirrel tells his first year Gryffindors in > their very first DADA class with him that his turban was '... given > to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a > troublesome zombie, ...'. > > Another of those things that make you go hmmmm eh? It is also possible that a member of a royal family was born a wizard. I mean, a bit farfetched, but perhaps as a wizard he was the only one in the royal family to recognize the zombie for what it was and to recognize Quirell for his ability to help. I mean, there are Muggle borns in every other level of society so why not royals? Meri - amusing herself for a moment imagining the lipstick carrying autograph seekers from GoF freaking out as first year students "Windsor, Harry" and Windsor, William" get Sorted! From revealme4u at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 09:45:03 2004 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:45:03 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115555 toto: > > It is sad but true. There is the male mentality about "doing" > something that makes you better than others. Ron is a very good case > (Mirror of Erised, GoF and Krum) of just that, and he won't take > being a "failure" easily. He needs to be equal to his peers and > friends, hence JK has Harry banned from quidditch and made Ron > the new hero. It's also why I think Harry won't come back too play > quidditch. > > toto vivek: Well I don't totally agree with toto, about the last part. I think Harry will come back and play quidditch. He is the hero of the series,like everyone he is having his ups-downs in life, but he will come back stronger both in life and quidditch. (I even think that it will be him who will become the the captain ot team, maybe even next year as there is no rule that you have to be in last year to be the captain. And he is an awesome seeker. Also I think he like his father will become the eventual head boy of the school.) As far as Ron is concerned, I will say that even I live in a joint family, and there is always a thrust to prove yourself, but you don't improve or get satisfaction, if you are doing it at the expence of your friend. Ron and I share the same sun sign, and by his nature I can say that he is mature enough now (specially in Ootp) that he can live with both his super genious and super famous friends. He has grown up since GoF. He will prove his mantel on his own steam. From revealme4u at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 10:10:32 2004 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:10:32 -0000 Subject: snape:second chance? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115556 I am a new member so don't know about previous posts. And as I was reading GoF for the n'th time I came across an incident were Harry Hermoine and Ron are discussing Snape. Harry remarks "if Snape is on his second chance, I want to know what he did with his first one?"(something like this). Has it already been discussed about Snape's 1st chance, if so can anyone please tell me where to look for? Else can someone suggest what this first chance was??? Awaiting replies eagerly vivek From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 13:42:21 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:42:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115557 Finwitch wrote: > I wonder: Aberforth Dumbledore for next DADA teacher? Maybe. > (Hermione is not going to like him!) > > Another possibility suggested in a few fanfics I've come across: > Dumbledore (or Lupin) makes the lessonplans and is the primary > teacher, but Harry (who already has proven he *can* teach DADA with > his club) becomes assistant teacher, with a duty to teach the younger > children. As assistant teacher, Harry's privileges are between that > of a full professor and that of a student. (He can issue detentions > and take points for example). What comes to Harry's own studies, he > gets private education before this from McGonagall, Moony & Tonks > just to mention a few... Jennifer: But if there was a possibility that Harry could become "assistant teacher" wouldn't that undermine Ron's position as prefect? Or what it meant to Ron to get the badge and what kind of lessons he's going to have to learn (like things dont come easy and you have to work to get there)? I like your theory with McGonagall's biscuits! I always wondered if there was something about them just because she's so insistent that he has one? Why? From legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 13 14:38:55 2004 From: legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk (legobaty29) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:38:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115558 I also like the idea that Dumbledore is a "natural" animagus. But invisibility skills aside, wouldn't his animagus be a phoenix? Given that he has a strong affiliation with the bird. I thought I saw a reference to Dumbledore's patronus as being a phoenix and I don't know whether one would have both the patronus and animagus in the same form. Perhaps the patronus is always the protector/father figure - hence Harry's being the Stag his father turned into, and the animagus is more an animal representation of oneself. From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 00:12:51 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (mercy_72476) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:12:51 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry again (forgive me for beating a dead horse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115559 Ally: > 5. FreedomNow!Snape - Snape really hates being a slave to >Voldemort, having been basically manipulated into his service. He >is still morally ambiguous and mean-spirited at heart, genuinely >hates Harry and loathes most of the students > And Oscar-Winner! > Snape is my least favorite. I DO NOT subscribe to the notion that > Snape is really a sweetheart forced to play a charade to fool the > DEs. He's nasty at heart in my mind - I just don't think that > necessarily means he's evil. Hi! Just joined. Sorry to harp on an old discussion, but I can't help saying that I completely agree with the dismissal of Oscar- Winner!Snape. Let us not forget what Harry saw once when he entered Snape's memories: "a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy [presumably Snape] cried in a corner..." (OotP, p 591, US version) These are not the type of memories that make for a happy childhood; they are they type that help in creating very UNBALANCED adults, which Snape clearly is. He's horrible, but that doesn't mean he's evil. Good point, Ally!!! He's horrible, yes, but perhaps due, at least in part, to his horrible childhood? Maybe his affinity for the Dark Arts led him to Voldy and the DE initially, and he was disappointed when he didn't find whatever he was looking for? Maybe this accounts for how DD was able to "turn" him? Just postulating. Please, don't rip me to shreds -- I'm a newbie!! Lisa Marie From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 00:28:07 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:28:07 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115560 > wrote: > > snip> On a similar note, why on earth did Hagrid let Fluffy > loose in the forbidden forest, when he obviously > cares(obsessively) about his pets, the more dangerous, the > better? Perhaps it was Dumbledore's doing, and Hagrid just > had to agree... But the fact that he never mentions Fluffy again is > so strange!<< > Pippin: > I presume that Hagrid, being a conscientious gamekeeper, > made sure that Fluffy was fit to survive in the wild before turning > him loose. Fluffy's not an ordinary domestic dog, after all. > > Frugalarugala: > > Three heads have got to be better than one when it comes to bringing > down game. Coming from an area where feral and wild dogs have > replaced wolves with the deer population, I can too easily picture > Fluffy chewing on a unicorn... I wonder if some of the centaurs > hostility has anything to do with "interesting" things being > introduced and disrupting the local ecology? cunning spirit says: I've wondered a lot about Fluffy and his possible "true' identity. What if he is indeed really Cerberus, the warden of the underworld in Greco/Roman mythology? Could he possibly still have a part to play in the remaining books, especially if Harry has anything further to do with the room with the Veil? I can't imagine that Hades or Pluto or whatever embodiment Death happens to take in the Potterverse is greatly thrilled that his favorite guard dog is currently romping in the Forbidden Forest. And, yes, Frugalarugala, I find the wizarding attitude toward stewardship of the ecology questionable. Even though Rowling inserted an amusing story into"Fabulous Beasts" about dodos really being magical creatures with the ability to hidethemselves from muggle view, I think the WW is just as guilty of ecological arrogance as the muggles. I have wondered, for instance, about the possible affects the 1692 Secrecy Act has had to some of the larger magical beings, especially the centaurs and theunicorns (this came after reading David Quammen's "Song of the Dodo", a book about the affects of environmental fragmentation). What if, because of the restrictions imposed by the Act, the centaursno longer find it easy to find mates from other forested areas besides their own? They couldbe suffering from inbreeding. One thing that struck me about centaur culture is howsimilar it seems to what we know about the culture of the Easter Islanders, who also had to cope with genetic, cultural and psychological isolation ....to disastrous results. I realize that I'm spinning out my own riff on all of this. There's no actual support as far as I can tell in canon, but the odd thoughts do come anyway.... cunning spirit From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 01:59:54 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:59:54 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" > wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > > wrote: Carolyn: > And DD probably would not have given Peter any specific > instructions - too risky - just engineered a situation to enable > Peter to go back, and let events take their course. Undoubtably > just one of many strategies - this is not a re-run of LOTR, where > everything hangs on one fateful journey. DD knowing about the resurrection spell is a separable quantity from Peter being his agent. I can readily buy that he knows what and how Voldemort is doing what he's doing, and I think he's not, perhaps, *upset* that Voldemort used Harry's blood, but I don't think there's anything to support the idea that DD is doing anything to urge this process along, as sending Peter back implies. I think DD would have been happy for Vapor!Mort to remain that while Harry learns and grows and all of that good stuff. I don't think he knew about Crouch! Moody, and I think the end of the book was not a *shock*, but not a planned event. Am I seeing bubbles coming out of the DISHWASHER? > Nora: > It's telling that Peter seems to have ditched the > Good Guys when the going got hard--his 'what was there to be gained > by refusing him?' is a whine of 'Oh, so HARD to fight the bad guys, > so dangerous...' that encodes a 'I didn't think it would be like this > when I joined up...'. > > Carolyn: > But why did Peter go back to Voldemort after he escaped from Sirius > and Lupin? If he was capable of making it to Albania, why didn't he > go bury himself someplace else, far away on another continent > rather than bring trouble on himself? He's supposed to be a coward? > Why go and help resurrect a noxious cloud of malignant vapour? > Sure, he might have anticipated someone might eventually come and > hunt him down, but not for a while? For the same reasons, why on > earth did he hang around with the Weasleys all those years? Or stay > around at Hogwarts after he realised that Sirius had escaped > Azkaban? At no point do we see him excited about following > Voldemort in the way that it thrills sick Bella, or envy the > powergames it offers Lucius. Because Peter has been outed, and Peter is *scared*. Albus Dumbledore, who is very well connected and powerful, is now likely to be on his tail, and Peter is going to go running to the one thing that is 1) a known quality 2) has some chance of protecting him. Sure, there are a lot of questions about the dynamic between Voldie and Wormtail, so there's not too much more one can say, without some authorial revelation. C'mon, we wanna know where he was.... > Kneasy: > > And DD has no qualms; he tells Harry he did the right thing in > > sparing Pettigrew. > > Nora: > DD also says that he wouldn't be content with LV's death--and she's > TOLD us there's something up there. I suspect this is DD as carrier > of a moral code poking through, the whole 'not right to kill people' > thing. > > Carolyn: > That would be the same DD that says to Harry: ..'I cared ..more for > your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed' ? The plan, such as it is, seems to involve keeping Harry safe because DD knows that he's the only one who can vanquish Voldie. But don't forget what comes before the part you've snipped out: "I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth..." He's apologizing for the lack of information. There's also an implicit "And I was wrong to do so" lurking in there, I think. What seems to weigh heavily on DD's mind is the same thing that bugs Harry so badly at the end of the book--kill or be killed. That fits in with a DD who says "not right to kill anyone". Big difference between sins of omission and comission, as well. Dumbledore has a plan, but I think postulating the level of involvement/manipulation that the Agent!Peter theory does makes DD out to be Preposterously Competent. He's good, but he's not *that* good. He makes some whammies of mistakes. I'm not sure he really knows whatever happened at GH. I'm pretty sure that he's actually wrong in his interpretation of the Prophecy, and Harry's going to do something elegantly different. But I'm probably wrong. -Nora descends from Parnassus via the ski lift From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 02:13:48 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:13:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" > wrote: > > > > > > > Frugalarugala: > > I think what she wants is for Harry will treat Dumbridge as if > she's > > Voldie-lite, a serious threat, and toe the line so as not to draw > her > > attention. Not that I'm suggesting that she's a Death Eater, or > even > > an equal threat, but she was a serious threat, far more so than > > provoking, say, Snape. > > Finwitch: > > Interesting comparison. In GOF, Harry's decision to defy Voldemort > firstly got him off the Imperius (I WON'T). Then, when he chose to > fight instead of trying to hide, this decision is what - though not > getting rid of the enemy - saved Harry's life and made him able to > get back with Cedric's body. > > I think that Harry WAS taking D Umbridge seriously and chose to defy > her, *just like he did with Voldemort*, except that no magic was > involved. Partly because it was the right thing to do, and partly > because no one else stood up to her. > > Trying to ignore, step carefully, etc. is not going to make things > better. Not with Umbridge (the more she got away with, the worse she > got) nor do I believe it would happen in the Real World. I think that > Harry knew that, deep down. Like the Finnish saying puts it(Loosely > translated): Run away from a wolf and you'll run into a bear. > Frugalarugala: When I called her Voldie-lite, I meant in terms of threat. As you said, he chose to defy her *just like Voldemort*, but she's not. Handling her required a different approach. More of a guerrilla war approach than open defiance. The whole thing with Umbridge nicely parallels the MoM battle--and Harry's first impulse was still to rush in and face an enemy directly. > Frugalarugala: > But she also had > > to reign in Prophecy-Boy and make sure he remained in a condition > to > > take on Voldemort if the time came. Between his behavior with > > Dumbridge and then the MoM, I hope the Order has reolized that > > Prophecy-Boy needs to learn to think coolly when angry. > > Finwitch: > > Oh, I do think Harry could do with learning to deal with his > emotions, particularly as emotions seem to be the very core of magic. > But punishments won't do a thing to help with that. Harry's learned, > during his childhood, to pile up his emotions until the figurative > steam-kettle exploded. (Not very healthy, that) > > Now that he's finally beginning to express his emotions, McGonagall > decides to punish him for it? That's back to the old way for Harry > (except he's absolutely baffled about it). He's probably going to > leak soon, as Harry's way of "keeping his temper in check" is to > suppress his feelings until he can no more and something explodes. > That was, after all, what he tried to do with Aunt Marge. > Frug: I agree Harry has to open up and life with the Dursleys taught him not to do that, but emotional maturity isn't just expressing emotions, it's knowing when and how and to whom. As for point-taking, I'm sure it was born of frustration and that McGonagall would have liked to take him and shake him while yelling, 'Don't give her any excuses! You're on her hit list! Don't give her any excuses!' But that's the sort of non-aloof McGonagall we only occationally see, like when she's under stress or the influence of quidditch... For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that McGonagall actually knows how to handle Harry's emotional problems--yes, he *has* emotional problems, he was raised in a closet by the Dursley's *of course* he has problems, the only question is why he doesn't have more problems! But I'm not getting into the whole Harry thing, I'm just talking McGonagall, here--I mean, she is very aloof, very self-restrained. I think she does care for Harry deeply, but I don't see her as knowing how to deal with his emotional needs. --Frugalarugala, who CAN spell 'McGonagall', just not correctly. From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 01:15:44 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (mercy_72476) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:15:44 -0000 Subject: snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "revealme4u" wrote: > > I am a new member so don't know about previous posts. And as I was > reading GoF for the n'th time I came across an incident were Harry > Hermoine and Ron are discussing Snape. Harry remarks "if Snape is on > his second chance, I want to know what he did with his first > one?"(something like this). > Has it already been discussed about Snape's 1st chance, if so can > anyone please tell me where to look for? > Else can someone suggest what this first chance was??? > > Awaiting replies eagerly Lisa Marie: Hi, vivek. I'm also a new member! I have a possible answer to your question, however unsatisfactory it may be: there is no real "first chance," and it's just a figure of speech. I assume that, in the WW, everyone starts out with the "chance" to be good and only joining LV would require the giving of a "second chance." I think that Snape squandered his "first chance" when he joined the DE in the first place. DD knew him as a student (presumably on the same level as every other student, as we never hear of a school-aged Snape having a run-in with DD) and that was his "first chance." The only way to waste a so-called first chance is to join Voldie, which Snape did. After returning to "our side," Snape is given a second chance. I'm sorry. Was that more confusing than it was worth? I hope not!! Lisa Marie From patientx3 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 03:22:43 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:22:43 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115564 Carolyn wrote: >>The most convincing analysis I have seen recently about Sirius's possible guilt in this respect formed part of a presentation at ConventionAlley this August (Webb & Brown - 'Let's Chat About the Rat'). (Melannen): 'If Sirius really thought that dying under Voldemort's torture would be enough to save the Potters, and any of them would have done so rather than betray, there's no reason he couldn't have done that himself. Either he was too scared to die horribly, or he knew that anyone, including himself, would eventually crack once Voldemort got his hands on him. Either way that leaves him looking little better than Peter.'<< HunterGreen: I understand that you didn't write the above quote, but you quoted it, so I assume you agree with it. The whole secret-keeper switch has always been rather clear to me: James and Lily would use Peter as the secret-keeper, but no one besides the four of them would know. So Voldemort would still go after Sirius, and still torture and kill him, and would have no idea to go after Peter. If Sirius was the secret-keeper that might be enough to break the spell (how can the charm work if the secret-keeper is dead?). Even if it doesn't, Voldemort is wasting his time torturing and killing someone who has no information. If Sirius died, it would act as a warning for Peter that Voldemort might start pursuing other options (probably Lupin or one of Lily's friends first though). Sirius breaking under torture is quite a bit different than Peter willingly going to Voldemort and telling him where the Potters were (which is what he did). I think Sirius (and James and Lily, who went along with the plan) was trying to make a backup plan in case he did break under torture. Unless he planned on telling everyone that he wasn't the secret-keeper, he was hardly saving himself from Voldemort. The only reason Voldemort never went after Sirius is because Peter *already* was a traitor. Carolyn: >>Perhaps DD left Sirius to rot in Azkaban as a fitting punishment for this weakness.<< HunterGreen: Fitting punishment? Even if Sirius switched the secret-keeper to Peter purely because he was afraid he might crack under *torture*, that is hardly something he needs to be punished for. In the end it was Lily and James' decision, and *they* chose Peter. Since when is Dumbledore vengeful enough to let someone sit in prison for 12 years when they haven't committed any crime? He didn't punish Sirius nearly as severely for the prank incident, which was much more than a simple personal weakness (the action was worse, not the results). The explanation we've been given makes the most sense in this situation: Dumbledore thought Sirius was guilty, therefore he didn't see a reason to get him out of jail. From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 03:27:20 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:27:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and respect was Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Snow: > > No! Not staff but Albus does appear to make light of his own title > > and the respect for it. Albus does demand for other professors, > when he tells an inferior house elf (dobby) that he may call him a > barmy old codger if he likes, what he does not demand for himself. > (GOF The house-elf liberation front) Dumbledore demands respect for > a colleague's title though he does not appear to demand the same > > respect for himself, why? Talk about self-confidence or is it self- > > doubt? > snip > > Potioncat: > But he didn't mean for Dobby to address him as "barmy old codger." > Remember, Dobby couldn't say anything bad at all about his family. > DD was taking that restriction off. I'll bet Snape and McGonagall, > in the privacy of the staff room have had a few choice words about > DD...but I'll bet neither of them ironed their hands. > > Besides, DD seems to enjoy playing the fool all the while fooling > others. Snow replies: Yes, I think Dumbledore did offer Dobby the actual quote from Dobby sounds as though Dumbledore was definitely offering for him to call him a barmy old codger: GOF pg. 380 Scholastic "Oh no, sir, no," said Dobby, looking suddenly serious. "Tis part of the house-elf's enslavement, sir. We keeps their secrets and our silence, sir. We upholds the family's honor, and we never speaks ill of them- though Professor Dumbledore told Dobby he does not `insist' upon this. Professor Dumbledore said we is free-to- to-" (my emphasis on insist) " Dobby whispered, "He said we is free to call him a ?a barmy old codger if we likes, sir!" After which Dobby replies that he could never do such a thing morally: GOF pg. 380 Dobby gave a frightened sort of giggle. But Dobby is not wanting to, Harry Potter," he said, talking normally again, and shaking his head so that his ears flapped. "Dobby likes Professor Dumbledore very much, sir, and is proud to keep his secrets and our silence for him." This is not demanded of Dobby at this point to keep anyone's secrets because he is now free. Dobby is free to say whatever he likes but is still intimidated by how he was brought up to act. It is Dobby who ultimately gives the respect deserved of the position as headmaster and professor, which causes him not to take Dumbledore up on his offer to call him anything other than his title. Dobby gives credit to two people; one is Harry Potter for apparently changing things as far as house elves are concerned, the other is for Dumbledore's apparent acceptance of Dobby's rebellion of his elf status by offering him pay yet Dobby refused the suggested amount bickering over wages as though he had won. The relevance still stands, IMHO, as to why Dumbledore offered such disrespect for his title(s) when the whole of the wizarding world holds Dumbledore in the deepest regard. Why does Dumbledore offer a mere house-elf the privilege of disrespect to his known accomplishments by suggesting that Dobby be allowed to call him anything but professor? Snow From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 03:36:00 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:36:00 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115566 > Carolyn: > But why did Peter go back to Voldemort after he escaped from Sirius > and Lupin? If he was capable of making it to Albania, why didn't he > go bury himself someplace else, far away on another continent rather > than bring trouble on himself? He's supposed to be a coward? Why go > and help resurrect a noxious cloud of malignant vapour? Sure, he > might have anticipated someone might eventually come and hunt him > down, but not for a while? For the same reasons, why on earth did he > hang around with the Weasleys all those years? Or stay around at > Hogwarts after he realised that Sirius had escaped Azkaban? At no > point do we see him excited about following Voldemort in the way that > it thrills sick Bella, or envy the powergames it offers Lucius. Frugalarugala: Not to even get into Peter's motivation--I just want more insight into his ratty little head--but... Anyone think he might owe Ron a life-debt, as well as Harry? Didn't Ron safe him from Cruckshanks? I mean, we've been hit over his life-debt to Harry and that Rowling chick is nothing is not sneaky, does anybody else smell a plot-twist? From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 14 03:43:15 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:43:15 -0000 Subject: Hitler Alive! ...Student Dead! In-Reply-To: <20041013202750.603.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115567 > > Pippin: > > The rap on Muggleborns and Halfbloods is that they can't be > > trusted, so pointing out that the notorious criminal Voldemort is a halfblood isn't going to do the halfblood cause any good. To most of the wizards, even the purebloods like Sirius's parents, Voldemort is no longer regarded as a hero and DE recruitment isn't voluntary this time around, according to Sirius. Voldemort isn't passing out leaflets, he's using tricks, jinxes and blackmail -- at least on his fellow wizards. > > Magda again: > > Welll, it would show that Voldemort is lying and that this scary > bogey-man image that he's created for himself and that the wizarding world fears so much is nothing but a lie. < Pippin: But it isn't a lie! Voldemort really is a powerful dark wizard who holds life very cheaply and kills without a second thought and he is going to be yet greater and more terrible than before. He's a story-book villain to *us*, but to the WW people he's very real. Dumbledore is not denying that Voldemort is scary when he tries to get people to say "Voldemort" , he's trying to get people to accept that there's this powerful scary dark wizard that's loose, and the WW is going to have to deal with it, so please let's not be afraid to use his name. Magda: > And I don't think that halfbloods would suddenly become the focus of irrational WW suspicion or dislike.< Pippin: They're *already* the focus of irrational WW suspicion or dislike, going back to Salazar Slytherin. JKR, on her website : ---- The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore, Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents. ---- I just don't think Dumbledore would present himself as somebody to whom those distinctions matter. As Voldemort's lies go, it's not a very important one. Wizards who are joining Voldemort at the present time in the story already know that he's an outlaw, a dark wizard, and a murderer. Would they really be put off to discover he's a liar and a hypocrite too? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 03:47:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:47:10 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115568 I (Carol) wrote: > > For the record, vengeance is not justice. Merriam-Webster defines "justice" (in part) as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal," which forces us to define "just" (again partially) "2 a (1): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS." > > > > "Vengeance," OTOH, is "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION." > > Dzeytoun responded: > Very good, Carol. I will agree with you that vengeance and justice > are not the same thing. Having said that, it does not, in my own > opinion, particularly remove my desire to see Snape put in his place > firmly and in an entertaining fashion. As Alla has pointed out, > vengeance may not be very nice in real life but there's nothing wrong with it in a book (particularly if its well-deserved and juicy). > After all, when discussing Snape's behavior, some people constantly > point out that Hogwarts is not RL and Snape is not bound by RL > expectations. I think it is somewhat inconsistent and very unfair to expect Harry to be bound by RL rules when Snape is not. > > Actually, if you want my guess as to how this will turn out, I think > the whole thing will be moot because Snape will be dead. After all, > what would he do after the war? His whole adult life has been > dedicated to getting revenge on James and Voldemort. With the one > gone and Harry either dead or in ascendency, Snape will be a man > leftover from another time. Particularly if he does not change he > will be a rather pathetic figure. > > Now, on the subject of vengeance vs justice, how do you see that in > the following situations: > > 1) The trio vs Draco. The trio are not "properly appointed > officials," yet they punish Draco regularly and in an entertaining > manner > > 2) Harry vs Voldemort. Harry has to kill Voldemort. Is that > Justice? If it is, how is he the one to carry it out? Harry is not > a "properly appointed official." Or do we consider the prophecy, as > the voice of God, so to speak, to override existing social and legal > arrangements? If so there is probably a brisk trade in fake > prophecies. > > Finally, on the subject of vengeance and justice, I agree that > philosophically, theologically, and legally they are two different > matters. Having said that, in real life they are rarely, if ever, > separate. I once heard, for instance, a superior court judge say > that "one legitimate function of the criminal court is to provide a > socially approved and controlled form of vengeance." Now, he wasn't > speaking from legal theory so much as his personal experience of how > the "justice" system actually works and its social and psychological > functions in real society. > > Also I would agree, as I believe you have pointed out and Alla has > pointed out, that justice is at root a moral concept. As such, > ultimately it parts ways with questions of authority, legitimate or > not. > But all of that is separate from the issue of Snape, and I will stand by my belief that if he does not change, some form of humiliating experience in the form of justice and/or vengeance would be entertaining, satisfying, and perfectly appropriate within the bounds of a novel as well as a way of wrapping up that particular conflict. Carol responds: I think we've reached a point where we're dealing with preferences rather than rational arguments. I don't like the scenes where Harry and friends hex Draco and company, however much they may deserve it. Retribution isn't righteousness; vengeance isn't justice. As for Snape, he has every right to hand out detentions and deduct points. Note that the points may be deducted unfairly, but detentions are always deserved. As for the marks Harry receives, it's the end-of-the-year marks (and the OWLS) that matter, and Harry always passes. I'm not bothered by Snape's teaching methods; they're far outweighed, for me, by his courage, his loyalty to Dumbledore, and his repeated attempts to save Harry despite his dislike. And I would not be at all entertained by any form of retribution by Harry or Neville against him. (I didn't mind the twins' retribution against Umbridge, but she had no redeeming qualities as a character.) I want to see Harry mature, to put childish grudges behind him, to accept Snape's contribution to the Order (as Snape simultaneously recognizes that Harry is not James). I don't see Snape as at all superfluous or "leftover from another time." He'll be all of forty when the series is over, hardly a senior citiaen even by Muggle standards and quite a young man within the WW. Moreover, he's highly intelligent and gifted. I would love to see his gifts acknowledged--maybe a position with the WW as a reward for his services to the Order. He's make a hell of an auror, IMO. As for Harry killing Voldemort, I hope it won't come to that, but if it does, I want it to be an act of justice for the good of the entire WW, not a personal act of vengeance for the death of his parents. But I'm hoping for a way to destroy Voldemort without resorting to the means and methods of the enemy--no Unforgiveable Curses, which apparently corrupt the soul. It would be better, however sappy it may sound, to kill him with kindness somehow. I don't know what I want, exactly, except that I don't want Harry motivated by the petty and ignoble desire to punish or get even, whether the enemy (or perceived enemy) is Snape, Draco, or Voldemort. We saw that ignominious motive with Sirius Black's vicious crusade to murder Peter Pettigrew. What chance Black had to grow and develop as a character occurred only because his quest for vengeance failed and Harry prevented him from tainting his soul with murder. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 04:39:43 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:39:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115569 I (Carol) wrote: > I agree that the violation of his [Snape's] tentative and fragile trust of Harry made his reaction much worse than it would have been the previous year (when he believed that Harry had stolen potion ingredients out of his office). He expected to come back to a closed and empty office and instead found Harry violating his privacy and witnessing his humiliation. Of course he's furious, and as other posters have pointed out, he throws Harry *from* him, as if he's afraid he'll do more than shake him if he's too near. > > But does he actually *throw* the cockroaches? IIIRD, the jar bursts > over Harry's head as he's leaving. I wonder if it was an instance of > involuntary wandless magic like Harry blowing up Aunt Marge. (And > Snape will have to deal with the escaped cockroaches after he's > gone--surely if he'd thrown something he'd have chosen a different > object?) If so, Snape's fury is genuine, not a performance for Harry's benefit as some posters have suggested. And of course he has no idea that Harry felt compassion after witnessing that scene. Instead he's back to his view that Harry is James reincarnated--a sad and ironic misunderstanding all around. And yet Snape tried yet again to rescue Harry, searching for him in the forest and contacting the Order to tell them he'd gone to the MoM. Maybe the breach isn't irreparable even now. Carol responds to her own post: IIIRD? Maybe that's some distorted, backwards form of Richard III? It was intended, however, to be IIRC, but of course I didn't see the error till it flew by, winking Peevesishly, as I hit the Send button. So, on the theory that people didn't respond because they found my post unintelligible, I'll repeat my question: Does anyone besides me think that the jar of cockroaches exploded as a result of Snape's fury, not because he threw it? Was it involuntary, wandless magic like Harry's blowing up of Aunt Marge? If so, the anger wasn't an act (but did not remain at white heat, either). Carol, who really hates typos, especially her own From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 05:44:12 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 05:44:12 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall--DD's Right-Hand Woman or Truly a Secondary Character? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > I'm also interested in your closing remark that we haven't discussed McGonagall enough. I'm so curious about WHY people think that is! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Tonks here: I think that MM is not as mysterious as some of the others. DD and Snape, for example, are something of a mystery and this is why we talk more about them. But MM is straight forward. We know who she is. I like her. Good sense of humor. Strong, intellegent, self assured women who doesn't taken any nonsense from her students. Fair and kind. Like Harry say, she is dependable, etc. Tonks_op From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 08:35:27 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:35:27 -0000 Subject: What became of the Chamber of Secrets? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > > Have just posted on another thread the not original idea of the CoS > possibly figuring later on as a weapon for LV to fight Harry. > > Please someone alert me and other elative newbies to any posts there > may have been in HPfGU (or other sources) about what was done with > the chamber after the end of CoS. > > Was it sealed forever? Destroyed? or what? Is it still there? Does > it still have secret(s) (I do recall this question asked in the last > three months)? > > A great place for DD to disappear to in OoP since noone, but noone > knows where it is apart from Harry, Ron and, arguably, Myrtle. Doddiemoe here: And since reading your post some days ago I haven't been able to get the question out of my head! I'm guessing that Harry closed the chamber sometime after he left it or the chamber resealed itself after the "heir" had left it. It is afteral the chamber of secretS. And we never really found out any secrets, nor do we find out how and why Tom Riddle opened the chamber and what if any secrets he discovered beyond the basilisk. Those snake statues and statue of Sal. Slytheryn were not down in the chamber to keep the basilisk company all those years! I think the basilisk was left there to protect something, but what? Doddiemoe From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Oct 14 08:56:46 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:56:46 -0400 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) Message-ID: <001401c4b1cb$bc8affc0$60c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115572 HunterGreen: "Even if it doesn't, Voldemort is wasting his time torturing and killing someone who has no information. If Sirius died, it would act as a warning for Peter that Voldemort might start pursuing other options (probably Lupin or one of Lily's friends first though). " DuffyPoo: You've just convinced me that not even Sirius knew the whereabouts of the Potters after the FC was produced making Peter the SK. I've always thought it would be silly to let a lot of people in on it as LV could certainly use his magic to torture them into telling. The problem with it, still, is that Sirius knew where to go to look for them when he couldn't find Peter that night. However, I still maintain that the address is blocked from the memories of those who knew when the FC is produced, so when it is broken - in this case by the destruction of the house - that it comes back to those memories and that is how DD knew to send Hagrid and how Sirius knew where to go. Similarly, I don't think anybody - apart from DD and HP - know all of the prophecy (and I'm not sure HP or *we* do, yet). Perhaps the person who had to get it into crystal ball form knew/knows the whole thing, or that could be something that DD was able to create. But I don't think McGonnagal, Snape, or perhaps even Lily/James and Alice/Frank knew exactly what was said. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 14 09:06:39 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:06:39 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: >snip> > Dumbledore has a plan, but I think postulating the level of > involvement/manipulation that the Agent!Peter theory does makes DD > out to be Preposterously Competent. He's good, but he's not *that* > good. He makes some whammies of mistakes. I'm not sure he really > knows whatever happened at GH. I'm pretty sure that he's actually > wrong in his interpretation of the Prophecy, and Harry's going to do > something elegantly different. > > But I'm probably wrong. > Oh, I hope not. Not much point in all the theorising if everything's going to be obvious, cut and dried and worst of all - fluffy. But I think that most of us scour through canon, snapping up unconsidered trifles precisely because we don't think things are cut and dried or obvious. And with more deaths promised there's a good chance it won't be fluffy either. Splendid! But this Agent!Peter thingy - I wouldn't go so far as to postulate that the Rat is more than an Agent of Influence, not unless I find more canon. There's somebody close to Voldy who DD hopes has a divergence of motivations - no more than that. And that could be very useful indeed. Maybe it's already showing - Peter does seem to be the only DE that offers even tentative opposition to Voldy's ideas. GH and it's aftermath will continue to be a frustrating, murky episode I think. And the fact that JKR has kept it that way for 5 books leads this paranoid conspiracy theorist to hope, nay, expect that JKR will pull a fairly substantial rabbit out of the hat when all is finally revealed. Kneasy From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 09:07:58 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:07:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115574 > Frugalarugala: > When I called her Voldie-lite, I meant in terms of threat. As you > said, he chose to defy her *just like Voldemort*, but she's not. > Handling her required a different approach. More of a guerrilla war > approach than open defiance. The whole thing with Umbridge nicely > parallels the MoM battle--and Harry's first impulse was still to rush > in and face an enemy directly. Finwitch: I've never heard the term Guerilla war before. Don't know what you're getting at here. What I see Umbridge as doing, is well - it's alike to what I've heard that wife-beaters do. They start by ridding the wife from social contacts, making all she says to seem like a lie, accusing her for things she didn't do etc. None seeming like much to start with, but the longer she tries to avoid 'giving him an excuse' the worse it gets. JKR has her own life-experience of this sort of man. (The date of Trelawney's prediction for that dreadful thing about (Turned out to be a Rabbit dying? Reference to the first story she wrote, perhaps?) to happen is the day she wed her first, abusive husband. > Frug: > I agree Harry has to open up and life with the Dursleys taught him > not to do that, but emotional maturity isn't just expressing > emotions, it's knowing when and how and to whom. Finwitch: Maturity, yes - but 15-year olds are NOT emotionally mature, and certainly not someone raised in a cupboard. (Seems to me that Snape isn't either, BTW, and just how old is Snape in this? 36?) Frug: As for point-taking, > I'm sure it was born of frustration and that McGonagall would have > liked to take him and shake him while yelling, 'Don't give her any > excuses! You're on her hit list! Don't give her any excuses!' But > that's the sort of non-aloof McGonagall we only occationally see, > like when she's under stress or the influence of quidditch... Finwitch: Adults ought not to take their frustrations on children - or teenagers either for that matter. Taking responsibility over your own emotions is what I think emotional maturity is all about. And if she was up to with 'Don't give her excuses', that's just plain WRONG, and certainly not the way Harry should take. How come no one did anything to stop all those 'educational decrees' Umbridge made up? Frug: > For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that McGonagall actually knows > how to handle Harry's emotional problems--yes, he *has* emotional > problems, he was raised in a closet by the Dursley's *of course* he > has problems, the only question is why he doesn't have more problems! > But I'm not getting into the whole Harry thing, I'm just talking > McGonagall, here--I mean, she is very aloof, very self-restrained. I > think she does care for Harry deeply, but I don't see her as knowing > how to deal with his emotional needs. Finwitch: I suppose she doesn't. Neither does Hermione and definately not Snape. Dumbledore does, though. "Go ahead and break my things. I dare say I have too many" - AND he says this calmly. Harry calms down pretty fast. Mainly because DUMBLEDORE isn't losing his temper, I'd say. Actually... Teenagers doing what ever they can to anger the adults - I guess they want to see how an adult handles anger, so that they can learn it, too. If an adult wants an angry teenager to calm down, they must teach/show them HOW first. Finwitch From fkilc at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 09:13:05 2004 From: fkilc at yahoo.com (fkilc) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:13:05 -0000 Subject: Another Dumbledore motive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ohnooboe" wrote: > > > In my first post on this subject 115489, I speculated as to whether > or not DD has purposely not filled the DADA in a more permenant way. > > In the same way, do you suppose DD kept Trelawney around in the same > way? As a sort of "psychic antenna"? Sure, she's mostly a fraud, > but apperently a bit of her g-g-gma Cassandra has stuck around > because she made 2 important prophesies. Did DD expect her to work > again and therefore "kept her in arms reach" or do you suppose it was > just a happy accident? Nah, Dumbledore kept her around under his protection, as it were, so that Voldie, when he would come back (something DD always suspected), wouldn't be able to get prophesy information from her. --Francois From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 10:31:58 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:31:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115576 > > Jennifer: > > But if there was a possibility that Harry could become "assistant > teacher" wouldn't that undermine Ron's position as prefect? Or what > it meant to Ron to get the badge and what kind of lessons he's going > to have to learn (like things dont come easy and you have to work to > get there)? I like your theory with McGonagall's biscuits! I always > wondered if there was something about them just because she's so > insistent that he has one? Why? Finwitch: Well.. how do you think it affected when those *brains* attacked Ron? And Harry couldn't/wouldn't help him? Sure, there would be trouble between them, but oh well... For Harry's lesson to learn of this, well There are good and bad sides in ALL the houses. (After all, he'd be seeing a LOT of first years and see the peculiarities) ----- But personally, I'd prefer Aberforth as their next DADA teacher. It would fit the kind of pattern... 1st one: Quirrell. Knows DADA, but pretends he doesn't. Voldy's league, though possibly not by his own choice. Dies in a failed attempt to kill Harry. Acts as Harry-fan in Diagon Alley. 2nd one: Gilderoy Lockhart. Doesn't know, isn't brave, but pretends that he does. Wants publicity more than anything. (As to knowing the stuff, he's the opposite of Quirrell). Not a DE, but he has a nasty *secret* of willingly using memory charm to take credit of other people's heroics. In the end, he gets to taste his own medicine.) Acts as Harry-friend, Hermione has a crush on him. 3rd. Remus Lupin. Unlike the two others, Lupin truly KNOWS what he teaches and shows it, too. Avoids publicity, and when his secret - over which he has no control over - comes out to public, he leaves. (His relationship to public is opposite of that of Lockhart). Definately a good person when he can help it. No pretending, apart from keeping secrets. IS a Harry-friend, who also was friend of Harry's father. 4th Barty Crouch!Alastor Moody, a *devoted* DE who pretends to be an ex-Auror to the extreme measure of using Polyjuice. In this, he also pretends to be a Harry-friend, while in truth is just the opposite (very un-Lupin, here). Crouch!Moody Opposes Lupin's gentle manner of teaching to the near extreme, but also the two others in that he KNOWS what he's doing and does so as well. His pretence is finally revealed. 5th. Dolores Jane Umbridge. Is no Harry friend and makes no pretence of it. (and this opposes all 4 before her). Does not really teach DADA, but what ever she can to make the children vulnerable. Insists that all the kids do, is read a text she tells them to, and no more. Wants to limit all student activity promoting learning, including teaching/playing Quidditch/forming groups. Ends up as general prank target for *Everyone* (except Malfoy&gang) with full? approval of the other teachers, attacked by Centaurs and saved by Albus Dumbledore. 6th. This teacher, I think, is to be someone who *somehow* opposes all 5 previous DADA teachers, especially Umbridge. Aberforth could do that, so that 1) no books. (Harry's 1st letter mentions a book for DADA, and Quirrell does *very* little practical - Lockhart wrote several, and students were to get them, Umbridge issues another book and insists on staying in that). 2) Doesn't explain anything, but may ask the kids to do so (unlike Lupin who's for explaining things). 3) is no pretender like Crouch!Moody. Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Oct 14 10:49:04 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:49:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115577 Replying to Finwitch (115576) Erm... About Aberforth being DADA teacher... Doesn't DD say he's not sure that Aberforth can read? How's he going to mark homework? And if he can't read, how did he get through Hogwarts? Is DD so desperate to fill the post that he'll employ an illiterate and totally unqualified bar-keeper with a record for doing odd things to goats? If that happens, I'll buy a hat so I can eat it. Dungrollin. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 14 11:32:41 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:32:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115578 Carol wrote: > Does anyone besides me think that the jar of cockroaches exploded as a result of Snape's fury, not because he threw it? Was it involuntary, wandless magic like Harry's blowing up of Aunt Marge? If so, the anger wasn't an act (but did not remain at white heat, either).< Sigune delurks to agree: Yes, I sort of instinctively read it that way. Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker of English, but the verb 'explode' does not suggest to me that the jar was thrown; besides there is no other indication that Snape picks something up and launches it across the room. Yours severely, Sigune From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 14 11:31:42 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:31:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115579 Carol wrote: > Does anyone besides me think that the jar of cockroaches exploded as a > result of Snape's fury, not because he threw it? Was it involuntary, > wandless magic like Harry's blowing up of Aunt Marge? If so, the anger > wasn't an act (but did not remain at white heat, either). > > Potioncat: Well, I never did before. But then I never thought about it before. It would be interesting to find out what JKR intended, wouldn't it. Rather than blowing up Aunt Marge, it reminds me of the wine glass bursting. Although, I never thought he was acting. I have more wonderful, indepth thoughts about this scenario. But suddenly they remind me of all my Mark Evans ideas! BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge that Carol always maintained that all the Heads came from the House they headed. She has been confirmed correct by JKR herself. Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 14 11:41:54 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:41:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115580 > Finwitch: > > Adults ought not to take their frustrations on children - or teenagers > either for that matter. Taking responsibility over your own emotions > is what I think emotional maturity is all about. And if she was up to > with 'Don't give her excuses', that's just plain WRONG, and certainly > not the way Harry should take. > > How come no one did anything to stop all those 'educational decrees' Umbridge made up? > >Potioncat: However it came about, Umbridge was put into Hogwarts and given authority and the teachers had no control over the situation. McGonagall had to hold her temper in check just as much as Harry did. Sure, she could have resigned in protest. She could have challenged Umbridge in the Great Hall and been sacked. But what would that have accomplished? This was one more example that having magic doesn't make your problems go away. Potioncat (who restrained herself before telling you all about the Coach Umbridge at her school... Perhaps I should get in a supply of ginger newts for my daughter) From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 14 11:47:11 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:47:11 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115581 Nora wrote: > Dumbledore has a plan, but I think postulating the level of involvement/manipulation that the Agent!Peter theory does makes DD out to be Preposterously Competent. He's good, but he's not *that* good. He makes some whammies of mistakes. I'm not sure he really knows whatever happened at GH. I'm pretty sure that he's actually wrong in his interpretation of the Prophecy, and Harry's going to do something elegantly different. But I'm probably wrong. < Sigune: Frankly I have always found it astonishing that DD bases so many of his actions on a prophecy - or at least tells Harry he does. Surely a man who has reached the age of 150 ought to know a thing or two about prophecies, such as the fact that they are invariably interpreted the wrong way. This is the man who tells Harry he seriously considered removing Divination from the Hogwarts curriculum; and at the end of OotP he sends the boy home with the Doom of a Prophecy hanging over him. There was a Sphinx in the TTT-labyrinth: to me, that brought Oedipus to mind, and all the tragedies that ensue when people listen to oracles and seers and such. My first thought at the OotP end-of-the- year chat was: Dumbly's wrong. I'm not a fan of fluffy endings and solutions, but, with Nora, I frown upon an ending that involves Harry butchering Voldie. There has to be a better means of getting rid of the old Dark Lord. So, Nora: I hope you're right. Yours severely, Sigune From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 12:38:53 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:38:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Finwitch: > > I've never heard the term Guerilla war before. Don't know what you're > getting at here. > > What I see Umbridge as doing, is well - it's alike to what I've heard > that wife-beaters do. They start by ridding the wife from social > contacts, making all she says to seem like a lie, accusing her for > things she didn't do etc. None seeming like much to start with, but > the longer she tries to avoid 'giving him an excuse' the worse it gets. > > JKR has her own life-experience of this sort of man. (The date of > Trelawney's prediction for that dreadful thing about (Turned out to be > a Rabbit dying? Reference to the first story she wrote, perhaps?) to > happen is the day she wed her first, abusive husband. > Frugala: (from freedictionary.com) Gue`ril?la Noun 1. guerilla - a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment guerrilla, irregular, insurgent guerilla force, guerrilla force - an irregular armed force that fights by sabotage and harassment; often rural and organized in large groups Maquis, Maquisard - a guerrilla fighter in the French underground in World War II urban guerrilla - a guerrilla who fights only in cities and towns warrior - someone engaged in or experienced in warfare Adj. 1. guerilla - used of independent armed resistance forces; "guerrilla warfare"; "partisan forces" guerrilla, underground, irregular partisan, partizan - devoted to a cause or party (\quote) Harry's plan of attack is always direct, even when direct is suicidal. Guerrilla warfare is basically what the staff used against her. Although the idea of Umbridge as spouse-beater is interesting, especially since she replaced the grandfatherly Dumbledore... > Frug: > > As for point-taking, > > I'm sure it was born of frustration and that McGonagall would have > > liked to take him and shake him while yelling, 'Don't give her any > > excuses! You're on her hit list! Don't give her any excuses!' But > > that's the sort of non-aloof McGonagall we only occationally see, > > like when she's under stress or the influence of quidditch... > > Finwitch: > > Adults ought not to take their frustrations on children - or teenagers > either for that matter. Taking responsibility over your own emotions > is what I think emotional maturity is all about. And if she was up to > with 'Don't give her excuses', that's just plain WRONG, and certainly > not the way Harry should take. > > How come no one did anything to stop all those 'educational decrees' > Umbridge made up? > Well, if we're going to extend that Umbridge-as-abusive-spouse view, then we could see McGonagall as the co-dependent spouse who excuses the behavior. A similar situation, yes, but I don't see McGonagall as excusing Umbridge because she doesn't want or can't to face that theres a problem. But I don't actually buy that. I don't see her as trying to tell Harry to supress it and not deal with it, just to deal with it differently. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 13:07:23 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:07:23 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115583 > Del replies : > Maybe. But if Harry can't figure out that other kids don't like it > when he insults their parents, then he's got a BIG relationship > problem. After all, he already knows that both Ron and Draco don't > take it well when someone insults their mother, so why should he > expect Seamus to react differently ? Finwitch: Seamus came to Hogwarts. > Finwitch wrote : > "The question is back on whether you believe Harry, who has already > *said* that Voldemort is back." > > Del replies : > When did he do that ? I can't remember Harry making a *public* > statement that LV has returned. All the WW gets is *second-hand* > testimonies. Harry himself *never* said a word about it in public. And > that DOES make a huge difference. He's said it twice. Sure, first time around it was only Dumbledore and Sirius to hear it, next time it's at *Fudge* (who refuses to believe him), whereas Hermione&Ron as well as Molly&Bill&Madam Pomfrey hear him. Sure, Seamus didn't hear, but Harry doesn't know that. He did SAY it to the Minister... > Finwitch wrote : > "Mind you, Harry does NOT expect anyone giving him a chance to explain > himself." > > Del replies : > But he *does* expect everyone to simply believe what DD says ? How > logical is that ? Dumbledore isn't Harry, that's why. Harry doesn't emotionally expect anyone to give him a fair chance, or treat him fairly, because that's how his childhood with Dursleys was spent. Moreover, Harry believes that everyone will automatically blame him or believe the worst of him. That's what Dursleys did, after all, for 10 years, and every summer after that. That's how he *feels*, and as unrational as it is, he can't help it. > Finwitch wrote : > "Asking for details was 'between lines', and Harry certainly didn't > see them." > > Del replies : > Between lines ? What Seamus said is : "Look... what *did* happen that > night when... you know, when... with Cedric Diggory and all?" And JKR > adds that "Seamus sounded nervous and eager at the same time." > > I don't see any accusation in what Seamus said, or in the way he said > it. But I DO see a desire for details. Harry got it wrong because he > had already made up his mind that Seamus was against him. Finwitch: Harry's conditioned to expect that everyone is against him. Dursleys were. Hagrid doesn't listen to him when he tries to tell what he's seen; McGonagall doesn't believe him when he's trying to testify that the stone is in danger. Then he saves the stone, nearly dying. (Dumbledore tells him that everyone knows what happened, and no one's asking Harry anything). Dursleys treat him badly at the summer, he gets no letters except one where he's wrongly accused for doing underage magic. Twins get scolded for rescuing him. Big trouble getting to Hogwarts. Almost everyone believes Harry's the one doing the petrifications, and being Heir of Slytherin, to the extenct of Harry doubting himself! No one bothers to ask Harry - and if someone does, they don't believe him (except Dumbledore/Ron/Hermione.). At summer before third year, there's Aunt Marge with her accusations. In addition, there's the trouble of Buckbeak and his trial - NO one there believes Hagrid, Harry, Hermione & Ron. Nor are they given a chance to testify for Sirius. (No one will believe it, says Dumbledore). At summer, Harry gets accused for the Dark Mark, Winky is accused for it... During the fourth year, everyone, *including* Ron, accuses Harry of putting his name into the Goblet and lying about it. While Gryffindors think it's great, No ONE believes Harry when he tries to tell them he didn't. And while Hermione believes Harry didn't do it, it's because she trusts the *age line* and Dumbledore - not because she trusts Harry. Harry gets accused of a lie by Vernon during the summer. Dudley accuses Harry for the Dementors while all Harry did was SAVING him, and Vernon nearly kills Harry. No support there, and then he gets all these notes about the trial. There's all that trickery about the trial even taking place, and then Harry's not *allowed* to speak out details (as Fudge keeps interrupting). While Dumbledore defends him, he avoids contact with Harry. (leaving Harry believe that Dumbledore doesn't trust him). And nearly half of Wizengamot don't believe that there were Dementors at all... With all that, why would Harry think anyone will believe *him*? And besides, the truth, that Cedric was killed by Pettigrew, believed dead, is even MORE unbelievable than that Voldemort killed him. > Finwitch wrote : > "So tell me, why doesn't Seamus tell Harry what he thinks *before* he > asks the question? If he had, I think Harry might have told him." > > Del replies : > Maybe precisely because he was trying to make up his *own* mind ? Finwitch: So, why doesn't he say so? Probably just assumes that Harry grasps it? Del: > Seamus was torn between two very important authority figures : his > mother, and his Headmaster. He was trying to figure out what *he* thought. Finwitch: Harry doesn't know that. After all, Harry's been defying Dursleys all his life, making his own conclusions about things... He fantasises about having a supporting, loving family where he's allowed to be himself and make his own mind... Del: > But no, Harry figures Seamus should *already* have made up his mind to > follow Harry and DD blindly. *And* he blames Seamus for his mother's > opinion. Totally unfair. Finwitch: Harry sees only two options. Either Seamus believes him and Dumbledore and has completely deserted his mother or came to Hogwarts despite of believing her for the sake of education. They DO have their OWLs this year, after all. That's what the challenge was for. Del: > Moreover, if you look closely, you'll notice that neither Dean nor > Neville seem to have made up their *own* minds either. Dean does *not* > say that he believes Harry, and Neville simply follows his Gran's > opinion (which of course is OK because Gran believes Harry, but how > does Seamus dare defend his mother ? Not fair, I tell you). Finwitch: Dean simply says his parents don't know because he's not stupid enough to tell them. Apparently he's content to wait or doesn't care either way. Neville - the way he says it, reporting first what his guardian says (like the others did, and only that) We believe Harry - states that he has decided to believe Harry. Just because he happens to agree with his Gran, doesn't mean he's *following* her blindly. I think Neville's visits to his parents - tortured into insanity by Voldemort's followers AFTER Voldemort was defeated - no doubt Gran's told Neville all about it. About what happened last time Voldemort was raising - I think Gran's told him all about *that* as well! And um - Neville witnessed the event that started the whole 'Harry's disturbed'-business. Trelawney stating he had a vision, wanting to hear what he saw and for Harry to see MORE, and Harry complaining about the head ache and running off. Neville may have concluded that Harry had a vision that gave him a head ache, and that in Harry's place, he wouldn't want that powerful vision to be interpreted as an omen of his death... Finwitch From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Oct 14 13:11:53 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:11:53 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > He betrays the Potters - but hangs around to confront Sirius even > > though according to McGonagall Pettigrew was useless at duelling. > > He went for his wand, but Black was quicker, according to witnesses. > > And what does he say as he's being outdrawn? "James and Lily - > > Sirius how could you?" And if Black was quicker...what happened > > to his spell? > > > > A not-so-hot wizard who (according to Sirius) can kill 13 behind his > > back with one spell, cut off a digit, drop bloodstained robes and > > wand, transform into a rat and dive down the sewer before Sirius > > can react even though he's drawn first. Pull the other one, sonny; > > it's got bells on. > > Our consensus has to be that Peter was somewhat more competent than > the picture we've been presented of him. Is it not impossible that > he got an upgrade from working with the DEs--that his accusation > towards Sirius that Sirius had been learning things personally from > LV is rather a projection of his own situation? > > Oh, I agree it's messy...but I don't see such a deep subversion > helping out. I concur with everything Nora said, and I'd like to add to it. When Sirius confronted Pettigrew, the whole point is that Peter was ready and prepared. Like Nora said, Sirius didn't come prepared for a duel, so it was easy for Peter to carry out his well thought out plan. I imagine that only when he finally transformed into a rat and disappeared, Sirius grasped what he had done - looking around, seeing the blasted street, seeing the corpses, seeing the bloody robes; realizing that Peter is a traitor, and that NOBODY alive now knows about the switch. People have speculated about his laugh - it's the insane laughter of despair, facing the final absurdity of life. Another reason why conspiracy theories in this instance are completely unconvincing in my mind. Naama From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 13:34:29 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:34:29 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > But this Agent!Peter thingy - I wouldn't go so far as to > postulate that the Rat is more than an Agent of Influence, not > unless I find more canon. There's somebody close to Voldy who DD > hopes has a divergence of motivations - no more than that. And that > could be very useful indeed. You know, *that* I can understand. DD had nothing with Peter escaping, etc., but he hopes/whatever that Peter will, umm, see the light--and he knows that Peter owes Harry a Big One. I'd put it at the level of 'DD hoping that Peter will end up doing something significant for Harry, but not pinning anything on it'. I do see a redemption plot in Peter's future, because he's fallen so far. > Maybe it's already showing - Peter does seem to be the only DE that > offers even tentative opposition to Voldy's ideas. That was really pre-resurrection though, right? Now that Voldie is reincarnated and suffering from some sort of near-permanent PMS, I don't see Wormtail getting nearly as uppity. It was telling that he was trying to argue at least a little during book 4, though. > GH and it's aftermath will continue to be a frustrating, murky > episode I think. And the fact that JKR has kept it that way for 5 > books leads this paranoid conspiracy theorist to hope, nay, expect > that JKR will pull a fairly substantial rabbit out of the hat when > all is finally revealed. One can hope. I'd hate for you to be disappointed...TOO much, dear Kneasy. :) But she has to have had exactly what happened there planned out, as too much depends on it. There are cases where I don't think she worked out all the details of timing/etc., and cases where she did, and I sure hope GH is one of the latter. -Nora sits in the spotlight (no, literally!) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 13:44:07 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:44:07 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > Sirius breaking under torture is quite a bit different than Peter willingly going to Voldemort and telling him where the Potters were (which is what he did). I think Sirius (and James and Lily, who went along with the plan) was trying to make a backup plan in case he did break under torture. Unless he planned on telling everyone that he wasn't the secret-keeper, he was hardly saving himself from Voldemort. The only reason Voldemort never went after Sirius is because Peter *already* was a traitor. Carolyn: Another way of looking at it is that James and Sirius, accustomed to treating their 'friend' Peter with semi-contempt, and sure in their own arrogance that they could do without Dumbledore's help, arbitrarily decided on the plan between them. And yes, Lily probably connived at this, she's far from being a saint. Even in the middle of the great Snape underwear incident, we are told that her: 'furious expression had twitched for an instant as though she was going to smile'.. and when sneered at by Snape she quickly changes her tack: 'And I'd wash your pants if I were you, Snivellus.' It's a nice moral episode that fans love to crawl over to show the difference between James and Harry's characters, but Lily comes across to me as easily persuadable to James' point of view. You could even argue that she stepped into the row to get his attention, in exactly the same way as he kept trying to get hers, and it was not a lot to do with Snape in the first place. Just another preliminary skirmish between two people who were attracted and who subsequently married. And after..well, she probably found out the hard way that there were aspects of her husband's character that she would just have to live with. So, we have three twenty-somethings, who think they are so smart, trying to protect a toddler. All very touching. Their bright idea, possibly found at lastminute.com, is to volunteer Peter for the job, who unfortunately is just what he says on the tin - frightened out of his wits at the responsibility, but they don't notice this. Sirius instead 'bravely' discusses how long he might hold out under torture and how much time that might give them. All Peter can think about is that he wouldn't last three seconds if Voldie wants to know his secret. So, in his distress, and worry that this is the stupidist plan he'd ever heard of, does he go to the strongest person he could think of to protect him - Dumbledore, and confess what he'd been doing up to now? Or did Dumbledore get wind of the plan, and intercept Peter and run him through the old 'it's our choices' routine? Or neither, and Dumbledore, accepting he could not change the actions of three headstrong people, or give courage to a coward, quietly hoped that his other surmises - the possible effects of sacrificial love, plus Voldie's wand (containing Fawkes' tail feather) not working properly against Harry might save the day? Carolyn: >>Perhaps DD left Sirius to rot in Azkaban as a fitting punishment for this weakness.<< HunterGreen: Fitting punishment? Even if Sirius switched the secret-keeper to Peter purely because he was afraid he might crack under *torture*, that is hardly something he needs to be punished for. In the end it was Lily and James' decision, and *they* chose Peter. Since when is Dumbledore vengeful enough to let someone sit in prison for 12 years when they haven't committed any crime? Carolyn: You've said above that you thought it was Sirius's plan, that James and Lily went along with. Whatever, Dumbledore made no effort to clear Sirius' name, or even visit him in prison to hear his side of the story. He'd managed to hush up the Shrieking Shack incident when MWPP were at school, but this time Sirius was an adult, and could take the consequences of his rash, impetuous decision. From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 14:02:20 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:02:20 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > Carolyn: > So, in his distress, and worry that this is the stupidist plan he'd > ever heard of, does he go to the strongest person he could think of > to protect him - Dumbledore, and confess what he'd been doing up to > now? Or did Dumbledore get wind of the plan, and intercept Peter > and run him through the old 'it's our choices' routine? > > Or neither, and Dumbledore, accepting he could not change the > actions of three headstrong people, or give courage to a coward, > quietly hoped that his other surmises - the possible effects of > sacrificial love, plus Voldie's wand (containing Fawkes' tail > feather) not working properly against Harry might save the day? Or, canonically, does Peter go to Voldemort for whom he's been the spy (he doesn't bother to deny it in the Shack, and unless you're now positing Sirius as *also* lying about having heard people screaming things in Azkaban...well, analysis gets harder and harder when you start cheerfully discounting all information given), tell the secret, and have Lily and James slaughtered? Putting Dumbledore *in* on this renders DD morally repugnant, shrugging off the deaths of Lily and James with a 'Well, I hope this works' or even deliberately sacrificing them. While we've got that ambiguous canon for DD being willing to put Harry's life above others, that was more in a sense of *neglect* for others--never in a more active sense, as this scenario would imply. I think it's one of DD's moral principles that all life is important, and that's coming straight from JKR--the thing she finds most repugnant and immoral about Voldie is that he kills early and often. > Carolyn: > You've said above that you thought it was Sirius's plan, that James > and Lily went along with. Whatever, Dumbledore made no effort to > clear Sirius' name, or even visit him in prison to hear his side of > the story. He'd managed to hush up the Shrieking Shack incident > when MWPP were at school, but this time Sirius was an adult, and > could take the consequences of his rash, impetuous decision. This is the same DD who, however, deeply disapproves of the Dementors on principle, and has never liked them guarding Azkaban. This is the DD who does not, generally, believe in the kind of 'you're being punished for what you deserve' approach to justice. He gives second chances. It's been hypothesized that DD was not allowed to go to Azkaban, so I won't drag that long argument up out of the archives. I think that this is, perhaps, another one of the Big Mistakes that DD has made--putting two and two together and getting five but thinking he has four, and not bothering to examine it more closely. But are you saying that DD *knew* about the SK switch, got the result that he wanted with Vapor!Mort, and then let Sirius rot in jail for what he deserved for 'killing Lily and James'? I think, until proven wrong and supplemented with a lot of evidence, having DD know about the SK switch screws things up very, very badly, in terms of trying to read DD's character, as well as the events in question. My 'epitome of goodness' doesn't do things like that deliberately. But I know that's not provable at present. -Nora thinks theorizing, both accurate and more wishful, is driven by the reading of ambiguity into everything; problem is, not everything is ambiguous From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 14 14:07:20 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:07:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115588 Frugalarugala: > > I think what she wants is for Harry will treat Dumbridge as if > > she's Voldie-lite, a serious threat, and toe the line so as not > > to draw her attention. Not that I'm suggesting that she's a Death > > Eater, or even an equal threat, but she was a serious threat, far > > more so than provoking, say, Snape. Finwitch: > Trying to ignore, step carefully, etc. is not going to make things > better. Not with Umbridge (the more she got away with, the worse > she got) nor do I believe it would happen in the Real World. I > think that Harry knew that, deep down. Like the Finnish saying puts > it(Loosely translated): Run away from a wolf and you'll run into a > bear. Frugalarugala: > > And MaGonagall (and all the staff) is in an awkward position with > > her, it had to be foremost in MaGonagall's mind that if SHE got > > canned they would be truely screwed. Finwitch: > I think she was. That's part of the bisquit-scene, after all. > Still, with all these teachers side-stepping around Umbridge and > practically *letting* her do it, she got more power. Just as the > (superstitious?) fear of saying "Voldemort" gives more power to > Voldemort. Another saying: "Give the devil the pinky and he'll take > take the whole hand SSSusan: I don't agree with this view myself. I think that McGonagall's comments to Harry were all about TACTICS and SELF-PRESERVATION (for Harry & those loyal to The Order/DD). To me this situation *isn't* like one where, if you give a person a pinky, she takes the whole hand. Umbridge *always* wanted the whole hand. The question is, how long will it take before she grabs it? Fudge made it clear that he's *allowed* DD to make some decisions he (Fudge) thought questionable over the years, without stepping in. The implication, then, is that Fudge CAN step in. At this point-- with Umbridge's appointment--it's clear Fudge is just waiting for any excuse to have the Ministry take over Hogwarts. *This* is what I think McGonagall is referring to when she's advising Harry. It may be inevitable that Umbridge/Fudge are going to chip away at the Hogwarts leadership & manner of doing things, but at first it *is* a chipping away, not a wholesale takeover. I think MM wants Harry (and others) to do everything possible to NOT give Umbridge/Fudge any excuses for cracking down, even if it's only a delay of the inevitable. The comparison to Snape by Frugalarugula is noteworthy. Standing up to Snape in the way Harry stood up to Umbridge likely WOULDN'T have done as much damage, I agree. Snape, for all his nastiness, *is* apparently on the same side as Harry. So while he'd punish Harry, the consequences of that punishment would like impact Harry alone. Whereas standing up to Umbridge could carry consequences much more far-reaching, such as putting DD in the position of having to defend Harry, which could get him sacked. I think MM knows this, and that's exactly why she took 5 points from Harry and warned him to cool it -- she's trying to get his attention! Siriusly Snapey Susan From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 14:23:37 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:23:37 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115589 Replying to Dungrollin: > Erm... About Aberforth being DADA teacher... Doesn't DD say he's > not sure that Aberforth can read? How's he going to mark homework? > And if he can't read, how did he get through Hogwarts? That's the point. Practical magic only. (Contrast to Umbridge) We don't know how good Aberforth is in casting spells. Maybe he's the expert of Ancient Magic (Possibly even more so than Albus because he's not spending his time reading but observing), a Legimens, an Occlumens and who knows what else. It's possible that Aberforth never attended Hogwarts, but contacted Nicolas Flamel instead... I'm certain he knows how to use a Pensieve etc. As for homework: Tasks for all year: Learn to know each other so you'll know when someone's posing as your friend - (and then he gets Polyjuice Potion - either brewing it himself or having Snape do it - to test them) Constant Vigilance. Taught by several pranks. Dungrollin: > Is DD so desperate to fill the post that he'll employ an illiterate > and totally unqualified bar-keeper with a record for doing odd > things to goats? Finwitch: Aberforth was *accused* of doing it. Nothing states he was guilty of anything - presumably Albus knows the truth about it. For all we know, Aberforth was attempting to get bezoars from their stomachs with a new spell that wouldn't kill the goat, or was simply near a goat, or the whole story had no truth in it. (the comment about that accusation was just to tell Hagrid he's not the only one of whom people say nasty things in press). And even that could have happened 100 years ago... ------- But off the line: What *would* happen to a magically powerful child who never learned to read? Or one who learned even less, one who grew up in woods, raised by animals, not learning about how to socialise with humans? Would such a child even *go* to Hogwarts? Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Oct 14 15:16:35 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:16:35 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115590 Dungrollin previously: > > Erm... About Aberforth being DADA teacher... Doesn't DD say he's > > not sure that Aberforth can read? How's he going to mark > > homework? And if he can't read, how did he get through Hogwarts? Finwitch: > We don't know how good Aberforth is in casting spells. Maybe he's > the expert of Ancient Magic (Possibly even more so than Albus > because he's not spending his time reading but observing), a > Legimens, an Occlumens and who knows what else. It's possible that > Aberforth never attended Hogwarts, but contacted Nicolas Flamel > instead... > > I'm certain he knows how to use a Pensieve etc Please believe me when I say I mean absolutely no offence by this, but those arguments apply equally to every other peripheral character in the books, including the giant squid. (And Aberforth wasn't just accused, he was prosecuted too.) I will still, however, be absolutely delighted to scoff the hat of your choice with vinaigrette-au-woolly-bobble if the need should arise... Dungrollin From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 15:17:22 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:17:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115591 > > SSSusan: > I don't agree with this view myself. I think that McGonagall's > comments to Harry were all about TACTICS and SELF-PRESERVATION (for > Harry & those loyal to The Order/DD). ---- > > The comparison to Snape by Frugalarugula is noteworthy. Standing up > to Snape in the way Harry stood up to Umbridge likely WOULDN'T have > done as much damage, I agree. Snape, for all his nastiness, *is* > apparently on the same side as Harry. So while he'd punish Harry, > the consequences of that punishment would like impact Harry alone. > Whereas standing up to Umbridge could carry consequences much more > far-reaching, such as putting DD in the position of having to defend > Harry, which could get him sacked. I think MM knows this, and that's > exactly why she took 5 points from Harry and warned him to cool it -- > she's trying to get his attention! Finwitch: Oh, that way... And she only managed with it was to make Harry baffled and lose some of his trust for her. Also, if Harry had not defied Umbridge openly, his magic would have exploded before the class was over. I wonder what would have happened after THAT. (Did MM ever hear about the Aunt Marge-incident?) Which effect MM would prefer? Uncontrolled MAGIC against Umbridge or Verbal, open Defiance for the truth? Harry had no other options. Finwitch From patientx3 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 15:17:53 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:17:53 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115592 Carolyn wrote: >>So, we have three twenty-somethings, who think they are so smart, trying to protect a toddler. All very touching. Their bright idea, possibly found at lastminute.com, is to volunteer Peter for the job, who unfortunately is just what he says on the tin - frightened out of his wits at the responsibility, but they don't notice this. Sirius instead 'bravely' discusses how long he might hold out under torture and how much time that might give them. All Peter can think about is that he wouldn't last three seconds if Voldie wants to know his secret.<< HunterGreen: Or perhaps Peter, who's been a spy for about a year at this point, is happily thinking of bringing the information to Voldemort? You think the three of them "bullied" him into it? He could have easily refused, all he had to say was 'no'. The reason he didn't is because he was on Voldemort's side by this point, he *wanted* to be the secret-keeper. Remember, Peter didn't just get assigned the role of secret-keeper, have Voldemort find out and threaten him, and then switch sides and give up the information. If that was the case I could see the point you are trying to make. However, its not the case, Peter *already* was a spy, which is why the plan didn't work. If he wasn't Voldemort would have taken a bit longer to find out who the secret-keeper was. Carolyn: >>So, in his distress, and worry that this is the stupidist plan he'd ever heard of, does he go to the strongest person he could think of to protect him - Dumbledore, and confess what he'd been doing up to now? Or did Dumbledore get wind of the plan, and intercept Peter and run him through the old 'it's our choices' routine?<< HunterGreen: I'm not seeing where the distress comes from. And if Dumbledore knew about the switch and knew Peter was the secret-keeper, why did Voldemort find out? Why wouldn't Dumbledore guard Peter, or go to James and Lily and insist they changed the SK to him? Whatever happened because of it, Dumbledore did *not* want Voldemort going to the Potter's house. Even if he was willing to sacrifice James and Lily, the chances of Harry getting killed were too high. Carolyn: >>Dumbledore made no effort to clear Sirius' name, or even visit him in prison to hear his side of the story. He'd managed to hush up the Shrieking Shack incident when MWPP were at school, but this time Sirius was an adult, and could take the consequences of his rash, impetuous decision.<< HunterGreen: Sirius was about 22 at the time, which is barely an adult (especially by the WW standards of long lives). Why should Dumbledore attempt to clear Sirius' name unless he thinks he's innocent? If Dumbledore believed Sirius was the SK (and all evidence points to that fact), and then Peter Pettigrew turns up "dead" along with 12 muggles, and Sirius is standing there in the middle of them, laughing insanely, then there's little reason to suspect his innocence, isn't there? Especially if Sirius was acting as guilty as he was in the Shrieking Shack in PoA ("I as good as killed them."), which after everything that just happened, he might have been. He could have easily just been in shock, and didn't say anything to anyone. Dumbledore finds out Sirius is innocent at the end of PoA when he talks to him. After that he gets Harry and Hermione to use the time- turner (breaking serious rules), to rescue him. If he thought Sirius deserved what he got, why'd he stop then? Why not let Sirius be killed by the Dementors? Did escaping from prison make him less guilty? He did just try to kill Peter again, who according to you is a spy for Dumbledore, and his actions made Peter take off to Voldemort, which is just as bad as his bad decision getting James and Lily killed. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 16:52:09 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:52:09 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115593 Finwitch, I understand everything you're trying to say. But what I'm trying to explain is that Seamus acted in a perfectly normal way, while Harry did not ! Now, Harry has all the reasons in the world for reacting strangely, I totally agree with that, but do you really expect 15-year-old Seamus to realise that ?? Do you really expect Seamus to realise that when Harry insults his mother, it's only because he's identifying his mother to the Dursleys ?? Do you really expect Seamus to figure out that if Harry doesn't give him more details, it's because he subconsciously expects Seamus not to believe him anyway because nobody ever did ?? *We* can figure those things out maybe, because we've been spending the last 4 years inside Harry's head, but Seamus hasn't, and all he sees is that Harry's behaviour is exactly what the Daily Prophet says it is : irrational. And if anyone is to change that impression, it's *Harry*, not Seamus and the rest of the world. It's unfair, I agree, but that's the way it is. Only somebody's friends can understand why somebody is acting weirdly and accept it, but the rest fo the world won't accept it, no matter how justified the behaviour is. That's a rule : to be accepted, you have to conform. If Harry keeps acting oddly, he will keep pushing people away, maybe even his own friends. Just look at DD : as long as he didn't shock people too much, his odd behaviour was looked upon nicely. But as soon as he started saying things that people didn't want to hear, he became a crackpot. It's not fair, for sure, but then it's not fair for Seamus and the rest of the world to suffer Harry's anger just because he reacts differently than other people to what normal people do. Del From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 18:01:27 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:01:27 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: [I'm combining replies to Nora's and HunterGreen's post (115592) here, since they make similar points.] Carolyn wrote: >>So, we have three twenty-somethings, who think they are so smart, trying to protect a toddler. All very touching. Their bright idea, possibly found at lastminute.com, is to volunteer Peter for the job, who unfortunately is just what he says on the tin - frightened out of his wits at the responsibility, but they don't notice this. HunterGreen: Or perhaps Peter, who's been a spy for about a year at this point, is happily thinking of bringing the information to Voldemort? You think the three of them "bullied" him into it? He could have easily refused, all he had to say was 'no'. Carolyn: No, I cannot imagine Peter doing anything 'happily'. His phrases, when Sirius lets him speak are: 'what could I have done? ..he has weapons you can't imagine..I was scared Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen.. he was taking over everywhere..what was there to be gained by refusing him?' We are all repelled and have a lovely time, self-righteously saying 'huh, I'd never do that'. Hang him! But in fact, Lily, James and Sirius have mistakenly treated Peter just as Sirius later treats Kreacher - as a nonentity, a worm. Sirius repeats their thinking at their time: 'a bluff..Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, talentless thing like you.' The point I am making here is that they created their own nemesis. No one, especially not the supposedly saintly Lily thought to consider who Peter really was, why he hung around them so creepily, what the effect of their constant contempt might be. JKR might be drawing a parallel by letting us see how Harry reacts to the tiresome Creevey brothers. So far, he hasn't really been nasty to them, but he might be; it is very tempting. Of course Peter should not have gone over to Voldemort, but how many people on this list would really be that brave if they were in genuine fear of torture and death? It is so simple how people get sucked in - fiddling your tax, buying stuff on the black market, a bit of hash for a roll up..all seems pretty small beer until suddenly it isn't. Carolyn: > So, in his distress, and worry that this is the stupidist plan he'd > ever heard of, does he go to the strongest person he could think of > to protect him - Dumbledore, and confess what he'd been doing up to > now? Or did Dumbledore get wind of the plan, and intercept Peter > and run him through the old 'it's our choices' routine? > > Or neither, and Dumbledore, accepting he could not change the > actions of three headstrong people, or give courage to a coward, > quietly hoped that his other surmises - the possible effects of > sacrificial love, plus Voldie's wand (containing Fawkes' tail > feather) not working properly against Harry might save the day? Nora: Putting Dumbledore *in* on this renders DD morally repugnant, shrugging off the deaths of Lily and James with a 'Well, I hope this works' or even deliberately sacrificing them. While we've got that ambiguous canon for DD being willing to put Harry's life above others, that was more in a sense of *neglect* for others--never in a more active sense, as this scenario would imply. I think it's one of DD's moral principles that all life is important, and that's coming straight from JKR--the thing she finds most repugnant and immoral about Voldie is that he kills early and often. HunterGreen: .. if Dumbledore knew about the switch and knew Peter was the secret- keeper, why did Voldemort find out? Why wouldn't Dumbledore guard Peter, or go to James and Lily and insist they changed the SK to him? Whatever happened because of it, Dumbledore did *not* want Voldemort going to the Potter's house. Even if he was willing to sacrifice James and Lily, the chances of Harry getting killed were too high. Carolyn: All I hear here is extreme worries that Dumbledore might not be as 'good' as you, and many others, want him to be. What I think is closer to the truth is that he trusts almost no one, and is old enough to have seen just about everything human nature is capable of, including many shades of weakness and betrayal. What canon says is, in the words of Fudge: 'DD..had a number of useful spies..One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James & Lily at once...told them that their best chance was the Fidelius Charm'. What Sirius says is: 'I persuaded Lily & James to change to Peter at the last moment'.. There is no canon to suggest that Peter went directly to Dumbledore, and I think DD guessed what had happened after it was too late to act. McGonagall says 'James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were...and yet, Dumbledore remained worried.' Sirius and Lupin admit at the Shrieking Shack that they suspected each other of being the spy that Dumbledore had detected in their ranks. I think Dumbledore will have coolly and calmly assessed each of them in terms of their likelihood to crack under pressure, how they might be tempted, what might be the consequences in each case, even Lily. We have discussed before on this list what a mother might do to save her child - here she was given the chance to die for Harry, which is nice and clean and suitably heroic. What if she had had to make a messier choice? James to die to save Harry? Everyone has their price. For this reason, I think Dumbledore will have had a pretty good idea of the risk Pettigrew represented, and yes, some sense of futility in trying to intervene. Time and again in the series he has allowed fantastically high risk situations to develop - the protections guarding the Philosopher's Stone; having student's still at the school when a monster was obviously on the loose; giving Hermione permission to use the TT; allowing Harry to participate in the Tri- wizard contest; leaving Harry to mind-wrestle Voldemort on his own. He is a cold man, IMO, a calculator of odds.. just look at the first chapter of PS/SS again. One of his calculations has come true, the trio of Sirius, James & Lily have screwed up big time, I think he knows immediately that it was Pettigrew that did it, and why. Yes, I think he his indifferent about Sirius rotting in Azkaban for his hubris, and that although not technically guilty of the crime he was in for, Sirius is as good as guilty and might as well stay there. I think his mind immediately moved on to considering the next moves - what it might mean that Pettigrew was still loose..planning, always planning.. Carolyn From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Thu Oct 14 18:04:07 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:04:07 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > During the fourth year, everyone, *including* Ron, accuses Harry of > putting his name into the Goblet and lying about it. While Gryffindors > think it's great, No ONE believes Harry when he tries to tell them he > didn't. And while Hermione believes Harry didn't do it, it's because > she trusts the *age line* and Dumbledore - not because she trusts Harry. > I'm away from home and I don't have the books with me - but if IIRC Hermione says that she knew by the look on Harry's face when DD called his name from the Goblet that he hadn't put his own name in (she trusts Harry, in part because she thinks he can't act). - CMC From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 14 20:40:14 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:40:14 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115596 > HunterGreen: > .. if Dumbledore knew about the switch and knew Peter was the secret- keeper, why did Voldemort find out? Why wouldn't Dumbledore guard Peter, or go to James and Lily and insist they changed the SK to him? Whatever happened because of it, Dumbledore did *not* want Voldemort going to the Potter's house. Even if he was willing to sacrifice James and Lily, the chances of Harry getting killed were too high.< > > > Carolyn: > All I hear here is extreme worries that Dumbledore might not be as 'good' as you, and many others, want him to be. What I think is closer to the truth is that he trusts almost no one, and is old enough to have seen just about everything human nature is capable of, including many shades of weakness and betrayal. > > What canon says is, in the words of Fudge: 'DD..had a number of useful spies..One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James & Lily at once...told them that their best chance was the Fidelius Charm'. > What Sirius says is: 'I persuaded Lily & James to change to Peter at the last moment'.. > > There is no canon to suggest that Peter went directly to Dumbledore, and I think DD guessed what had happened after it was too late to act. McGonagall says 'James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were...and yet, Dumbledore remained worried.' Sirius and Lupin admit at the Shrieking Shack that they suspected each other of being the spy that Dumbledore had detected in their ranks. > Pippin: That isn't quite it, though. *James* and Sirius suspected Lupin of being the spy -- that was why they didn't tell him about the switch. But they did tell him that Sirius would be the secret keeper. This information was clearly *supposed* to get to Voldemort, via Lupin. Sirius was to go into hiding, in the hopes that Voldemort would be misled. Even if Sirius were captured, he could not betray the secret. Voldemort would only believe that Sirius was holding out. But I think Lily, champion of the downtrodden, wanted to prove to Lupin that she trusted him. She told him about the switch. Lupin, who IMO was indeed the spy, betrayed Peter to Voldemort, with the promise that Lily would be spared. Peter was captured, broken and marked, I would guess, a few hours before Godric's Hollow. Peter must have thought that Sirius was the spy after all...who else knew that he, Peter, had been the secret keeper? But that information is Peter's death warrant --Traitor!Sirius can't afford to let Peter live. Peter must have made his plans quickly. He'd let Sirius draw, shout out "Lily and James, how could you?" and turn himself into a rat, leaving a severed finger behind to show that he had died in the explosion. Possibly he had a Filibuster Firework behind his back, not a wand. If all went well, Traitor!Sirius would be blamed for the deaths of the Potters as he deserved to be. But then Peter learned that there was evidence that Sirius was planning to reveal himself on the occasion of the Potters' deaths. This made no sense to Peter, and neither did the deaths of the Muggles. A Filibuster Firework wouldn't have done that. And why do the secret keeper switch if Sirius was going to out himself anyway? Perhaps Lupin tried to kill him and the missed AK blew up the street, and killed those Muggles. Maybe they're *all* spies. Peter had no intention of returning to Voldemort, but he couldn't disappear altogether either. Sirius was safe in Azkaban, but Peter couldn't be sure his charade had convinced Lupin. Let the Dark Lord grow strong enough to protect his allies once more, and Peter will be toast. So Peter ensconced himself at the Weasleys, there to await developments. That way he would know if the Dark Lord showed signs of stirring again, without the danger of hiding among Death Eaters. But when Lupin and Sirius forced Peter out of hiding, he had no choice but to turn to the Dark Lord for protection from his old friends. This answers another question; why, now that Peter has lent Voldemort a hand, is the Dark Lord still keeping him around? Surely he's more liability than asset...unless the Dark Lord needs Peter as blackmail material to keep Lupin in line. This fits very nicely with Peter's protestations, and the questions he can't or isn't allowed to answer about why he went into hiding after GH. It makes sense out of Fudge's account and Dumbledore's belief that Sirius must be guilty. I don't think there was any way Dumbledore knew about the rat. Even if Dumbledore went to Azkaban and interviewed Sirius, would Sirius have revealed that he, James and Peter were animagi if he thought it would get Lupin in trouble? Pippin From patientx3 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 20:58:43 2004 From: patientx3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:58:43 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115597 HunterGreen previously: >>Or perhaps Peter, who's been a spy for about a year at this point, is happily thinking of bringing the information to Voldemort? You think the three of them "bullied" him into it? He could have easily refused, all he had to say was 'no'.<< Carolyn replied: >>No, I cannot imagine Peter doing anything 'happily'. His phrases, when Sirius lets him speak are: 'what could I have done? ..he has weapons you can't imagine..I was scared Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen.. he was taking over everywhere..what was there to be gained by refusing him?' We are all repelled and have a lovely time, self-righteously saying 'huh, I'd never do that'. Hang him!<< HunterGreen: Ah, perhaps, but if you look at the full quote you'll see something different. Peter is being quite specific with his words here. [PoA] "Sirius, Sirius, what could I have done? The Dark Lord... you have no idea... he has weapons you can't imagine....I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen....He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me --" "DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black. "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!" "He -- he was taking over everywhere!" gasped Pettigrew. "Wh -- what was there to be gained by refusing him?" [/PoA] He was *lying* when he said he was forced to give up James and Lily. Perhaps Voldemort forced him to give up information the *first* time, but after that a year passed by before he was made SK and gave up James and Lily. During that time he could have chose to go to Dumbledore or someone else and tell them he had been approached and threatened by DEs or Voldemort himself. But he chose not to. I could forgive him if Voldemort forced the secret-keeper information out of him and that was it, but it wasn't. He had a chance to go back to the good side and he chose not to. Peter is not as innocent as he makes himself out to be. After Voldemort fell he framed Sirius and killed 12 muggles. There was no one threatening him to do that, no Voldemort or DE around then. And after the events of PoA he takes off and joins Voldemort. Right there he had a chance to redeem himself: he could have abandoned baby! Voldemort and took off to tell Dumbledore the killing Harry / resurrection plot, but he doesn't. Whether he joined the DEs out of self-preservation, or wanting to be with the winning side, or because of anger about how James and Sirius treated him, he has proven to be an actual Death Eater. He hasn't shown any interest in going back to the 'good' side (sort of like the inverse of Snape). Carolyn: >>The point I am making here is that they created their own nemesis. No one, especially not the supposedly saintly Lily thought to consider who Peter really was, why he hung around them so creepily, what the effect of their constant contempt might be. JKR might be drawing a parallel by letting us see how Harry reacts to the tiresome Creevey brothers. So far, he hasn't really been nasty to them, but he might be; it is very tempting.<< HunterGreen: The problem with people like Peter (and I witnessed this type of thing many times in middle and high school) is that the friendship they offer is generally very disloyal. He doesn't like James and Sirius for them, but for the place they have in the school, for their mystique, their popularity. If they were to suddenly fall down the social ladder, how long would Peter hang around? Yes, they aren't kind to him, but they never invited him to be their best bud either, and how much kindness should they show him considering he is more of a 'fan' then a friend? Personally, I think they should tell Peter to get lost, or challenge his loyalty somehow, because people like that are dangerous to have around. Peter was never a real friend at all, which is why it was so stupid to trust him, but they clearly didn't see that. Carolyn: >>Of course Peter should not have gone over to Voldemort, but how many people on this list would really be that brave if they were in genuine fear of torture and death? It is so simple how people get sucked in - fiddling your tax, buying stuff on the black market, a bit of hash for a roll up..all seems pretty small beer until suddenly it isn't.<< HunterGreen: Well, going over is one thing, but *staying* over is another. Peter was not threatened for information, then killed, he was threatened then set loose to get more information. He always had the choice to tell someone what was going on, but he didn't. Carolyn: >>All I hear here is extreme worries that Dumbledore might not be as 'good' as you, and many others, want him to be. What I think is closer to the truth is that he trusts almost no one, and is old enough to have seen just about everything human nature is capable of, including many shades of weakness and betrayal. [snip] One of his calculations has come true, the trio of Sirius, James & Lily have screwed up big time, I think he knows immediately that it was Pettigrew that did it, and why. Yes, I think he his indifferent about Sirius rotting in Azkaban for his hubris, and that although not technically guilty of the crime he was in for, Sirius is as good as guilty and might as well stay there.<< HunterGreen: If Dumbledore let Sirius stay in prison for 12 years when he knew he was innocent, that doesn't make him simply "not good", but downright evil. I see nothing in the books to indicate that Dumbledore would do something like that. Sirius may have been indirectly responsible, but he's not guilty of anything other than trusting the wrong person (and perhaps being too clever for his own good). As I asked in my last post, if Dumbledore though Sirius deserved what happened to him, why did he get Harry and Hermione to save him at the end of PoA? Carolyn: >>There is no canon to suggest that Peter went directly to Dumbledore, and I think DD guessed what had happened after it was too late to act. McGonagall says 'James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were...and yet, Dumbledore remained worried.' Sirius and Lupin admit at the Shrieking Shack that they suspected each other of being the spy that Dumbledore had detected in their ranks.<< HunterGreen: Why do you think DD figured it out? James had planned on using Sirius as the SK, what reason would DD have to think that that hadn't happened? From bamf505 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 22:58:33 2004 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and respect was Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041014225833.92706.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115598 (massive snippage) Snow pondered: > Why does > Dumbledore offer a > mere house-elf the privilege of disrespect to his > known > accomplishments by suggesting that Dobby be allowed > to call him > anything but professor? > > Snow > bamf attempting to chime in: Dumbledore, IMHO, take everything he does with a bit of salt. He takes his work seriously, but not himself. I don't remember anytime he's required or corrected anyone on his title, except in the case of OFFICIAL functions - (Cos)signing Buckbeak's execution notice (I know he insisted upon signing in, but I don't have my book in front of my to say HOW he signed it), (OOtP)Harry's trial, or anytime he's quoted in the 'newspaper'. I think it's significant when DD says they don't care how many of his titles/positions they take away, as long as they don't take them off the Chocolate Grog cards. He's got a sense of humor, but also, if you think how many children collect those cards - what better way to make sure people remember what you've done than to put it on something children collect? I also think, and I apologize for getting long winded - I'm tired and hungry, that DD is the type of person who does not need the acolades. *HE* knows what he's done and *HE* knows how powerful he is. DD also knows that his enemies know this. DD does not care about how the rest of the world perceives him. bamf ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From hpfanmatt at gmx.net Thu Oct 14 23:42:44 2004 From: hpfanmatt at gmx.net (Matt) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:42:44 -0000 Subject: African Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115599 Dharma asked: > Is the permanent split between the Wizarding World and > Muggle World relevant on an international scale? Well, the Statute of Secrecy is "International". -- Matt From macfotuk at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 01:03:01 2004 From: macfotuk at yahoo.com (macfotuk at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:03:01 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115600 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" > wrote: > > Macfotuk asked: > > "Just who IS Dorid Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter?" > > > > DuffyPoo: > > Dedalus Diggle is a member of the OotP is he not? He was there in > the picture of the original order and was part of the Advance Guard > that brought HP to GP. > > > > Finwitch: > > He's also the one who a) bumbs into Vernon (I think it was him) and > then *hugs* him, b) bows to Harry in a shop and later at the Leaky > Cauldron. > > If I recall, he's the one setting up those fireworks as well, much to > McGonagalls annoyance. > > Wearing violet and being happy, mostly. > > Finwitch The one who bumps into Vernon is, if I am not mistaken, Professor Flitwick no less (tiny, squeaky voice) - makes you wonder why a charms expert would be just there, just then. Indeed, the whole flurry of owls and gathering of witches and wizards (many of who seem possible DD acquaintances) in the vicinity of the Dursleys the day after GH is distinctly mysterious. I feel sure someone must have noticed/commented on this before. Am still dubious about how McGonagall gets there (Privet drive) almost first thing in the morning after GH and, considering Hagrid is supposed to be the instigator of her presence and yet is clearly in DD's trust and service and gets to GH straight after all hell has let loose there that McG doesn't know what's happened at GH except by clearly hazy rumour. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 01:49:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:49:48 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115601 I (Carol) wrote: I don't see Snape as at all superfluous or "leftover from another time." He'll be all of forty when the series is over, hardly a senior citiaen even by Muggle standards and quite a young man within the WW. Moreover, he's highly intelligent and gifted. I would love to see his gifts acknowledged--maybe a position with the WW as a reward for his services to the Order. He's make a hell of an auror, IMO. That should be "hardly a senior citizen," "a position with the MoM," and "he'd make a hell of an auror." My apologies for the sloppy proofreading, which I hope didn't interfere with the intelligibility of my argument. Carol, wondering whether Peeves was manipulating her fingers as she typed that post! From averyhaze at hotmail.com Fri Oct 15 01:53:22 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:53:22 -0000 Subject: Truly International Secrets?(was Re: African Prince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115602 Matt wrote: Dharma asked: Is the permanent split between the Wizarding World and Muggle World relevant on an international scale? Matt wrote: Well, the Statute of Secrecy is "International". Dharma replies: Obviously I did not clarify my question significantly. My question goes to how global the "International Statute" really is. An agreement between 10 countries would be international, but not inclusive of all Wizarding communities. There are places in the world where magic is part of the cultural/social/political leadership. Are these cultures/states included? Is there any evidence that all Wizarding communities adhere to the Statute of Secrecy? Is there evidence that there are communities wherein Wizards and Muggles live together? From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 02:33:35 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:33:35 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, macfotuk at y... wrote: > The one who bumps into Vernon is, if I am not mistaken, Professor > Flitwick no less (tiny, squeaky voice) - makes you wonder why a > charms expert would be just there, just then. Annemehr: This has never really been settled. I was always one of those who thought it was Dedalus Diggle. The fact that he was (IMO) bumping into Vernon, in a shop to bow to Harry (though he lives in Kent, one county to the East), and at the Leaky Cauldron the day Harry arrived with Hagrid made me wonder if he wasn't part of Dumbledore's preparations for and watch over Harry during his years in the Muggle world. I have a post to that effect somewhere on this list... Then OoP arrived, Diggle turns out to be in the Order, and I'm even more convinced. Macfotuk: > Indeed, the whole flurry of owls and gathering of witches and > wizards (many of who seem possible DD acquaintances) in the vicinity > of the Dursleys the day after GH is distinctly mysterious. I feel > sure someone must have noticed/commented on this before. Annemehr: The owls, to hear the newscaster tell it that night, seem to have been nationwide. The magic folk out in broad daylight might have been gathering across the country too, there's no way of telling. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Arabella Figg had already been placed in Little Whinging since around the same time the Potters went into hiding, so she would have been the target of some of the owls that flew by Privet Drive. Another possibility is that Arabella was sent there if and when the Death Eaters murdered Harry's grandparents. Macfotuk: > Am still dubious about how McGonagall gets there (Privet drive) > almost first thing in the morning after GH and, considering Hagrid > is supposed to be the instigator of her presence and yet is clearly > in DD's trust and service and gets to GH straight after all hell has > let loose there that McG doesn't know what's happened at GH except > by clearly hazy rumour. Annemehr: Yeah, that's a sticky one. Perhaps Hagrid was only told that he was to get Harry and (eventually, at least) take him to Privet Drive. Afterwards McGonagall, seeing in Hagrid's face that something was up, got this information out of him, after which she was only able to collect the rumors before going to Privet Drive herself. She may have expected a much quicker arrival for the others, being as much in the dark about the "missing 24 hours" as we are. Well, that's my working hypothesis for reading through that part of the book, anyway. ;) Annemehr who dearly wishes the "who hugged Uncle Vernon" question would come up in Jo's FAQs sometime From legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 14 12:17:03 2004 From: legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk (legobaty29) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:17:03 -0000 Subject: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115604 > Lisa Marie: > Hi, vivek. I'm also a new member! I have a possible answer to your > question, however unsatisfactory it may be: there is no real "first > chance," and it's just a figure of speech. I assume that, in the > WW, everyone starts out with the "chance" to be good and only > joining LV would require the giving of a "second chance." I think > that Snape squandered his "first chance" when he joined the DE in > the first place. Hello Vivek and Lisa Marie. I am also a new user and I agree with Lisa Marie that Snape's first chance was used up when he joined the Death Eaters. I know that Dumbledore trusts him, but I wonder whether he will ever be tempted to re-join Voldemort? It has been suggested that he won't (I think he touched on the subject during a conversation with Karkaroff?) but the mark on his arm becomes stronger when Voldemort is around, and I am thinking a) once you've been a Death Eater you can never get rid of the mark or b) Snape has never got rid of the mark because there's a thin chance he still has an allegiance there. What do you think? "legobaty29" From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Thu Oct 14 14:52:14 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:52:14 -0400 Subject: CHAPT DISC: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory (exploding jar) Message-ID: <4698E211.7DA6F127.39E60FE2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115605 Carol wrote: >> Does anyone besides me think that the jar of cockroaches exploded as a result of Snape's fury, not because he threw it? If so, the anger wasn't an act (but did not remain at white heat, either).<< Sigune delurks to agree: > Yes, I sort of instinctively read it that way. Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker of English, but the verb 'explode' does not suggest to me that the jar was thrown; besides there is no other indication that Snape picks something up and launches it across the room. < fuzzlebub85 here, sorry for not snipping anything... I agree with Sigune and with Carol completely (and I, for one, am glad to see that the Queen of Severity has delurked herself. Welcome back, Sigune!) Yes, I believe the jar exploded because of Snape's anger too. Anyone else agree with us three? Kaylee Tonks-Lupin "Enjoying yourself, Potter?"- Professor Severus Snape From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 03:03:35 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:03:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and respect was Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <20041014225833.92706.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: > (massive snippage) > > Snow pondered: > > Why does Dumbledore offer a mere house-elf the privilege of disrespect to his known accomplishments by suggesting that Dobby be allowed to call him anything but professor? > > > > Snow > > > > > bamf attempting to chime in: > > Dumbledore, IMHO, take everything he does with a bit > of salt. He takes his work seriously, but not > himself. (Snip) He's got a sense of humor(Snip) DD is the type of person who does not need the acolades. *HE* knows what he's > done and *HE* knows how powerful he is. DD also knows > that his enemies know this. > bamf Tonks here: Yes, I agree he has a subtle sense of humor and he does not need accolades. He has good self esteem, knows who he is and does not need to prove anything to anyone, including himself. He is a humble man (in the true sense of the word). Not the sort that need to have monogrammed towels, or fly a Rolls, for example. My kind of guy! He is a very wise and holy man. And he does not want followers who do so out of fear, duty or anything except free will. That is what he was trying to tell Dobby. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 03:09:00 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:09:00 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115607 Hannah wrote: > IMO DD knew in advance, or was confident in his guess of, > what was going to happen at GH (disregarding any time travel, which > just makes everything too complicated). There may have been an > eyewitness too, but he had to have some kind of prior knowledge. > Because he dispatched Hagrid to the scene with instructions of where > to take Harry *remarkably* fast. > > Hagrid gets there 'before the muggles start swarming round.' That > has to be fairly soon after an entire house blows up. I don't see > how DD could have found out what had happened, been all shocked > about it, decided what was best to do with Harry, and then sent > Hagrid off, all in such a short time frame. > > He also must have been confident that LV had gone. Because why else > would he send Hagrid, who has only rudimentary magical knowledge, > unless he *knew* that all Hagrid had to do was rescue the baby, not > face the all powerful Dark Lord. > > DD knows much more than he lets on, at least I hope so, 'cos I want > answers at some point, and I don't know who else can provide them. > I definitely don't believe his protestation of innocence to > McGonagall at the start of PS. DD's 'truth is preferable to lies' > comment doesn't mean that he can't or won't lie, or at least bend, > amend, omit or conceal the truth. I don't think he's ESE! but he's > definitely not a bearded personification of all things good either. Carol responds: I agree that DD knows more than he's telling but not because he knew exactly what was going to happen or engineered it. I think he suspected that the Secret Keeper plan would fail (perhaps because he didn't trust Sirius, whom James had told him would be the SK in place of DD himself), and he worked with Lily on a contingency plan--a desperation measure to be used if the Fidelius Charm failed and Voldemort found them at Godric's Hollow. IMO, he told Lily exactly what was involved in the "ancient magic," not only her self-sacrifice but whatever charm and/or incantation would need to be performed on Harry in advance. He would have known, too, that the charm, in combination with the self-sacrifice, would not only save Harry and rebound onto Voldemort but cause some of Voldemort's powers to rebound onto Harry. He would also have planned to extend the blood protection through a second charm of his own to protect Harry while he stayed with Petunia, and he would have written to Petunia *before* Harry appeared on her doorstep to inform her of this possibility and persuade her of its necessity. That kind of planning takes care of most of the problems with the GH scene, except for the pseudo-problem of the "killing curse" somehow not being an AK, which I'm not even going to discuss, and the very real problem of how DD knew what had happened so quickly. IMO, the simplest explanation is that Snape was already teaching at Hogwarts and he reported the fading of his Dark Mark to Dumbledore. (There may have been more to it; some sort of nightmare that woke him or some sort of pain in the Mark that preceded its fading and woke him up.) There's also the possibility that Dumbledore suddenly knew *again* that the Potters were at Godric's Hollow, which would mean that the Fidelius Charm had been broken. Or both of these things happened together, and he immediately dispatched Hagrid to the scene, with explicit instructions not to give baby Harry to Sirius Black or anyone else. How did he know that Harry was alive? Because of the "ancient magic" he had taught Lily to perform. At least that makes sense to me. How Dumbledore persuaded the rest of the WW that that's what happened is a matter for another post. Carol From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 15 03:30:33 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:30:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115608 SSSusan: >> I don't agree with this view myself. I think that McGonagall's comments to Harry were all about TACTICS and SELF-PRESERVATION (for Harry & those loyal to The Order/DD). ---- The comparison to Snape by Frugalarugula is noteworthy. Standing up to Snape in the way Harry stood up to Umbridge likely WOULDN'T have done as much damage, I agree. Snape, for all his nastiness, *is* apparently on the same side as Harry. So while he'd punish Harry, the consequences of that punishment would like impact Harry alone. Whereas standing up to Umbridge could carry consequences much more far-reaching, such as putting DD in the position of having to defend Harry, which could get him sacked. I think MM knows this, and it's exactly why she took 5 points from Harry and warned him to cool it -- she's trying to get his attention!<< Finwitch: > Oh, that way... > > And she only managed with it was to make Harry baffled and lose > some of his trust for her. > > Also, if Harry had not defied Umbridge openly, his magic would have > exploded before the class was over. I wonder what would have > happened after THAT. (Did MM ever hear about the Aunt Marge- > incident?) Which effect MM would prefer? Uncontrolled MAGIC > against Umbridge or Verbal, open Defiance for the truth? Harry had > no other options. SSSusan: With all due respect, did you read the midsection of my post that you snipped out? My point wasn't that Harry wasn't justified in his anger with Umbridge. My point is that I believe MM has in mind what Umbridge & Fudge are potentially on about, in terms of running Hogwarts and putting a clamp on DD. I think she senses the danger of that and wants Harry to, too. When she says "This is not about truth and lies," what makes you so sure that Harry didn't get it? After all, MM went on to ask Harry whether he'd listened to Umbridge's speech at the beginning of the year, and he did respond that "it meant that...that the Ministry of Magic is trying to interfere at Hogwarts." It seems to me that Harry was comprehending her point. I realize you see it differently, but I don't think it's quite fair to say Harry had "no other options." Harry *has* managed to bite his tongue in Snape's class when he's been royally ticked off. I don't see how we can be so sure he would've exploded this time if he never did in Snape's lessons. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 17:55:16 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:55:16 -0000 Subject: Payment of Wormtail's Debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115609 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abadgerfan2" < ABadgerFan2 at m...> wrote: > > > Harry saves Wormtail from death in the Prisoner of Azakaban segment > of this series, earning Dumbledore's comment that it may later prove > useful for Harry to have Wormtail in his debt. Clearly this was the > author's foreshadowing of future events. There has been no evidence > since then of any attempt by Wormtail to repay his debt to Harry, > just hints of his possible inclination to do something, seen by his > clumsy attempt to get Lord Voldemort to use another wizard's blood > in the process of regaining human form at the end of Book 4, Goblet > of Fire. I ask, do any of you have a theory as to when and how this > portion of the plot will play itself out? LisaMarie writes: I always thought that Wormtail's (pathetic) attempt to get LV to use another's blood was due to the fact that it would be so difficult to get to Harry. I don't see Wormtail, while he is doing LV's bidding, trying to discern a way to pay back his debt to Harry. I doubt he even thinks about it. When DD speaks about the bond created when one wizard saves another's life (sorry, no reference; i'm away from my books; it's in the last bit of PoA when Wormtail escapes), it seems more visceral than, "Oh, hey, I owe you one for that!" In my mind, I see Wormtail's debt coming into play when he finds himself in the position to do something truly nasty to someone (not necessarily Harry himself) and is prevented from doing so. Sorry; I know that's a really general setting, but I think the main point is that the "bond" or connection that Harry and Wormtail have is deep, deeper than conscious thought, so it will not come out until the situation is dire. And whether or not Wormtail returns to LV after "repaying his debt" is up for debate. Of course, I suppose it's all up for debate, isn't it? Lisa Marie From karen3k9 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 19:31:02 2004 From: karen3k9 at yahoo.com (karen3k9) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:31:02 -0000 Subject: Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115610 Hello, This is my first time in a group so I hope I am doing this right. I would just like to know if anybody could help me with something. In Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron go down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does Hagrid answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? Thanks, Karen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 15 03:37:12 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:37:12 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115611 (Carol) wrote: > I don't see Snape as at all superfluous or "leftover from > another time." He'll be all of forty when the series is over, hardly a > senior citiaen even by Muggle standards and quite a young man within > the WW. Moreover, he's highly intelligent and gifted. I would love to > see his gifts acknowledged--maybe a position with the WW as a reward > for his services to the Order. He's make a hell of an auror, IMO. > > That should be "hardly a senior citizen," "a position with the MoM," > and "he'd make a hell of an auror." My apologies for the sloppy > proofreading, which I hope didn't interfere with the intelligibility > of my argument. Jen: I meant to respond to this one earlier, and now you've given me a second chance! My thought is, does Snape really want his gifts acknowledged by the WW? The only information we have about this is in POA, when Dumbledore interprets that Snape is reeling from the loss of the Order of Merlin. That seem legitimate, but once again it's Dumbledore's interpretation. Maybe Snape is actually reeling from the fact that Sirius "got away" with something again. Or that three school children made him unconcious in the Shrieking Shack. Snape appears to be a loner with low regard for societal approbation. He doesn't seem the type to need outside monetary reward or intangibles. And there's always that question of whether the WW at large will ever *really* forget he was once a DE. I'm all for him finding another job, though ;). Jen, thinking this is yet another unanswerable Snape question because of all the details held back for plot purposes. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 03:59:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:59:12 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115612 Finwitch wrote: > > Now let's see - yes, Voldy DID lose his powers (most of them anyway) > when the curse backfired. He was left with the power to possess, > however, and I don't know if Harry got that power from Voldy as well > (and is actually doing that when he has those curious dreams!). > > Still, most of Voldemort's powers are gone into Harry. He's somewhere in Albania (for some reason he was thrown there). He lived as a spirit and was less than a ghost... Carol responds: Doesn't he get there by possessing small animals? That's what he does after he leaves Quirrell, at least. Finwitch wrote: > He *can* speak parseltongue. (I'm guessing he *regained* this ability by possessing snakes. Any snake has this ability). > > He has a wand and he *can* use it. (possibly gained by possessing > Quirrell, who was a wizard). > Carol responds: Very good, assuming that Quirrell, who was never A DE, is capable of using all three Unforgiveables (used by LV in GoF). But what about Legilimency, a power that few wizards other than LV and Dumbledore have, and which he apparently regains before he tries to possess Harry? > Finwitch wrote: > Voldemort INSISTS on using Harry's blood. And why? Because Harry has his powers! So, in the ritual, Voldemort regained his powers trough Harry's blood. Carol responds: Compelling as this idea sounds at first, LV even in the form of a monstrous infant can torture, kill, and intimidate. He's regained the ability not only to perform every conceivable spell or curse but to speak Parseltongue and presumably to use Legilimency. What powers does he need to "regain" from Harry that he doesn't have already, even before he regains a body? The spell calls for the "blood of an enemy," and presumably any enemy would have done as well, but he could hardly expect to capture Dumbledore and using Harry gives him great personal satisfaction (it satisfies his thirst for vengeance), and of course he thinks that he will also have the chance to kill Harry when he's through using him. I think, but of course I don't know, that Voldemort's powers are part of his identity, which resides in his spirit, not in his body. When he lost his body, some of those powers were transferred to Harry, but Voldemort retained them in latent form. As a spirit, all he could do was possess animals (and apparently understand their thoughts and therefore communicate with other animals). But he could also use them to kill and eat other animals, which is why he was regarded as a spirit of terror by the rats and other creatures that Wormtail talked to after LV's second vaporization. He was also able, somehow, to communicate with Quirrell and persuade him to carry him, in some form, back to England. (He only possessed him as a punishment, and a means of control, after Quirrell failed to get the stone.) Almost certainly he used Legilimency as part of the intimidation/indoctrination process. I think that Voldemort's powers gradually returned to him as he regained his strength, and he could use them to a limited degree even in animal form, and whatever form he had when he met Quirrell. (Could he have been a monstrous infant then, as he is in GoF, transformed through Nagini's milk and an incantation without the use of a wand? Or could that transformation have taken place only once, with Wormtail using Voldemort's own wand to transform him?) So many holes in the plot, and only Voldemort unreliably narrating his own story to fill them! Carol, hoping that this message doesn't double or triple post after being eaten by Yahoo!mort From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 04:32:43 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:32:43 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen3k9" wrote: > > > Hello, > This is my first time in a group so I hope I am doing this right. I > would just like to know if anybody could help me with something. In > Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron go > down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does Hagrid > answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he > expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? > Thanks, > Karen Wouldn't we love to know! Have you got any theories? Since Hagrid was the one blamed when the Chamber was opened fifty years before, you might think he'd be expecting to be blamed again this time. He might be expecting someone from the Ministry to come knocking. But was that who the crossbow was for? Before OoP came out, I used to think, what good did Hagrid expect a crossbow to be against wizards with wands? But we saw when Umbridge tried to have him arrested that Stunners just bounce off him. So in Hagrid's hands, a crossbow might be an effective weapon against a wizard, as long as he didn't lose it to a disarming spell. In CoS, when Fudge did arrive to take Hagrid to Azkaban, Hagrid went quietly. He didn't even seem to have anicipated being sent to Azkaban. "Take me?" said Hagrid, who was trembling. "Take me where?" I don't think the crossbow was intended for Fudge, then. What I do think, is that Hagrid is one of the few who knows that Voldemort used to be Tom Riddle, the boy who once framed him. Hagrid would know that Voldemort would have to be somehow connected to the Chamber being opened this time, then -- probably through a Death Eater. Perhaps it was against a Death Eater Hagrid felt he needed to arm himself. Welcome to the group, Karen (or happy de-lurk, if such is the case)! Annemehr From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 05:36:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:36:11 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > finwitch wrote: > " Nah, Snape shouldn't be teaching Occlumency to ANYONE." > > Del asks : > Do you think he *wants* to, or ever wanted to ? > > Del Carol responds: Del is right, based on Snape's own remarks. But Occlumency is a rare skill and Snape is not only a "superb Occlumens," he is the only one available. If Lupin or McGonagall could have done it, Dumbledore would have asked them to. (The werewolf business would have made it difficult for Upin to teach Harry, but arrangements could have been made--the Shrieking Shack, for example.) But Snape was the only available candidate. Carol From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 05:43:19 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:43:19 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" > > > Please believe me when I say I mean absolutely no offence by this, > but those arguments apply equally to every other peripheral > character in the books, including the giant squid. Finwitch: LOL- but Giant Squid is was NEVER a member of the Order of Phoenix, whereas Aberforth has been. (Or what was he doing in the picture?) > (And Aberforth wasn't just accused, he was prosecuted too.) Is there a difference? Albus used the word "accused". And while that was in papers (like the article revealing Hagrid's heritage) Aberforth ignored it completely and went about his business as usual. Much like with all those articles about Harry - Harry didn't even *notice* them in the paper, he was just trying to find news about Voldemort. If Aberforth does read, maybe same thing happened to him; maybe he doesn't read Daily Prophet (or whatever published it) because of all that corruption in WW... And just adding something to this illeterate in Hogwarts-thing: How about a spell that makes a text auditive? And a magic quill to write for him? After all, illiteracy was far more common 100 years ago than it is today, and ability to read was certainly not taken for granted and certainly not 1000 years ago when Hogwarts was founded. What did they do with the illiterate magical children then? Also, if Aberforth was Muggleborn (and therefore, his brother Albus is too), and not just Muggle, but also of a social class that was generally illiterate those days. More so, a literate of that class would have been burned at the stake or something due to all those witch-hunts. So even if Aberforth (like Albus?) learned how to read, he certainly would have *pretended* he didn't know how. Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 06:44:59 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:44:59 -0000 Subject: Signing Buckbeak's execution certificate ( was:Dumbledore and respect ) In-Reply-To: <20041014225833.92706.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: > (massive snippage) bamf: > > Dumbledore, IMHO, take everything he does with a bit > of salt. He takes his work seriously, but not > himself. I don't remember anytime he's required or > corrected anyone on his title, except in the case of > OFFICIAL functions - (Cos)signing Buckbeak's execution > notice (I know he insisted upon signing in, but I > don't have my book in front of my to say HOW he signed > it) Geoff: we're not told how he signed it [maybe with a quill :-) ] What does interest me - and let me say first that I avoid time- turning theory threads like the plague - is why he insisted on signing almost as an afterthought. I get the impression from the scene that he seems to know that extra delay is needed in order for the "future Harry and Co". to shift Buckbeak out of sight of Hagrid's hut. Or am I turning into a conspiracy theorist? Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 06:50:59 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:50:59 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: Annemehr: > This has never really been settled. I was always one of those who > thought it was Dedalus Diggle. The fact that he was (IMO) bumping > into Vernon, in a shop to bow to Harry (though he lives in Kent, one > county to the East), and at the Leaky Cauldron the day Harry arrived > with Hagrid made me wonder if he wasn't part of Dumbledore's > preparations for and watch over Harry during his years in the Muggle > world. Geoff: That's not particularly surprising. Parts of Kent are, effectively, suburban London and chunks of Kent were moved into Greater London when that was set up in the mid-1960s. it wuld be quite feasible for a wizard from Kent to just be dropping into the Leaky Cauldron or somewhere else in the centre; it's just as easy for them as for Vernon, whose work whereabouts are not revealed IIRC. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 07:11:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:11:42 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041007042118.01df2120@pop.west.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115618 I (Carol) wrote: [JKR]is human, as she has shown a number of times with inconsistencies like the date of Sir Nick's death or the number of students at Hogwarts. And her statement that Charlie is three years older than Percy may take care of his not being Seeker when Harry entered Hogwarts, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of its being seven years since Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup. Charlie was the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had before Harry, yet Gryffindor never won during the whole seven years he was on the team? Or am I misremembering McGonagall's words and the time frame here? > > Lawless replied: > This has been running through my mind over and over, because I always had Charlie pegged as three to four years older than Percy before she answered this question, but that odd comment from Fred in Chapter 9 of PS/SS made me halt: "We haven't won since Charlie left," > > Now, if Charlie is three years older than Percy, that means that in > 90'-91', he would've been in his seventh year at Hogwarts, which is the year before Harry came. By Fred's comment, Charlie won it in his seventh year of school, but if it was 90-91, that wouldn't make sense, since it would be just last year for them. > > Unless, of course, Charlie left Hogwarts early - which is unlikely, as we would've most likely heard about it. Not completely unheard of, but I don't think Charlie Weasley did leave Hogwarts early. > > But let me go out on a limb here, and say, perhaps Charlie is three years older than Percy - BUT - four school years above him. Their birthdays are as such that Percy is probably a bit old for his year (his attitude in school can attest for that!) and/or Charlie is a bit young for his. And it makes Charlie's last year at Hogwarts as being 89'-90', which is acceptable for Fred's comment. Carol responds: I agree with you up to this last paragraph. It's very unlikely that the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had (before Harry), good enough to play for England, according to McGonagall, would desert his team and leave school early to chase dragons, or that he would be allowed to work with dragons without some NEWTS as well as OWLS to prove his skill. But I don't think Percy is old for his year. In fact, I think he's young for it. Most wizards learn to apparate at seventeen, when they come of age. Percy makes a big deal of his newfound ability to apparate at the beginning of GoF, when he has just left school. This suggests that he has only recently turned seventeen, either at the end of the school year or during the summer. (I'm assuming that students who've turned seventeen are given lessons in the theory of apparation, and though they can't apparate on Hogwarts grounds, are perhaps given lessons off-campus, say in Hogsmeade.) Either that or Percy turned seventeen just after the school year began and had to wait till he was almost eighteen to learn. If that were the case, I don't think he'd be showing off quite so much. (BTW, JKR hasn't mentioned his birthday on her site, so either he hasn't had a birthday between May 15 and October 14, or he's off her list of good guys who merit a happy birthday wish.) Lawless wrote: > Now Nick is the first one to tell us about the Slytherins six-year winning spree in Chapter 7 of PS/SS: > > > Now since Gryffindor first-years aren't on the Quidditch team, and Nick is asking for their help, then the house championship must refer to the House Cup, separate from the Quidditch Cup. > > But it appears otherwise, we run into a problem with Quidditch vs. house championship. > > Apparently, by that, the Quidditch season influences who wins the House Cup. How? It seems that teams get house points for winning matches (and I assume house points for playing spectacularly) as Percy shows us in Chapter 11 of CoS: > > And winning the Quidditch Cup also gives (I assume) house points - or if not, it influences the House Cup, as we see in Chapter 22 of PoA: >> > So Charlie won the Quidditch Cup in his seventh year, but Slytherin still had enough points to win House championship for the last seven years (probably care of Snape ;P). But our problem isn't solved YET. In PoA, we have a very incriminating statement made by Wood in Chapter 15: > > "Gryffindor hasn't won [the Quidditch Cup] for seven years now." > > Rowling just likes the number seven a bit too much, because by that > statement, the last time Gryffindor won the Quiditch Cup was in > 87'-88'! And that completely outright contradicts Fred's statement in PS/SS if Charlie is 3-4 years above Percy. > > Luckily, there's not really any conflicting House Cup/Quidditch Cup themes in GoF/OotP, so we can begin to conclude what we've learned. > > But things don't add up. So here's four possibilities: > > 1) Fred's original statement is wrong - hey, it was the first book, Rowling is allowed to make a mistake or two, right? Fred probably should've said something that agreed to this statement in Chapter 15 of PoA: > > "The whole of Gryffindor House was obsessed with the coming > match. Gryffindor hadn't won the Quidditch Cup since the legendary Charlie Weasley (Ron's second oldest brother) had been seeker." > > It confirms that Charlie Weasley won the Quidditch Cup, but not that he won it in his last year. He would've won it last in 87'-88' to agree with Wood's statement in PoA. That also corrects the "it was just last year" problem with Charlie's age, so we can assume he is only three years above Percy, again, and that he won in his fourth year. A bit young, yes, but not unheard of. Assume that he's four school years above Percy, and it puts him in his fifth year - which considering Wood was captain in his fifth year, again, it isn't completely bogus. > > 2) Wood's statement is wrong, because Rowling is bad at math and has a number seven-orientated mind (and I can see how she'd assume it was seven years, by a trick of the mind when dealing with school years like this). We can assume Fred is true, though we would still have to put Charlie at four school years above Percy at Hogwarts. > > 3) Both Fred AND Wood were wrong, and Charlie is just three years above Percy, and won the Quidditch Cup in his seventh year of Hogwarts, which would also agree with the statement I quoted in option 1. Rowling made some mistakes, oh well, it happens. > > 4) Sometime between PoA and now, Rowling has decided to close the age gap between Percy and Charlie, but that originally Charlie was a bit more than three years older. She changed her mind, and won't own up to it. =P > > While option 1 clears things up a bit more nicely, I'm going to probably assume that option 2 is probably what happened. I would also go for 3, and 4 is a worst-case scenario. > > Whew, that was a bit longer than I thought. Hope this helps, Carol. Carol responds: Thanks for all your trouble, which certainly explains why I've been confused about Charlie's age *and* the House vs. Quidditch Cups despite numerous readings of all the books. I agree that JKR is addicted to the number seven, and it's abundantly clear that she's bad at math. I think, unfortunately, that she doesn't check to make sure that her statements are consistent from book to book. I think you're right the "trick of the mind" in option 2, but I'm going with option 3, chiefly because I can't imagine Gryffindor losing with Charlie on the team, or Charlie not playing every year he could. Carol, with apologies for very inadequate snipping, but you went to a lot of trouble and I liked your post From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 05:20:27 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:20:27 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts job, was, Dumbledore's motive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115619 Ten'ou said: Or - and here's one of Ten'ou's inspirations that is either genius or complete insanity... The position attracts evil. Like when you have a ley line that's turned dark, it attracts dark things to it... (like attracting like) This even explains Lupin, who has the tendency to gnaw on people during a full moon unless he takes his medicine like a good doggie. I for one think that is just a little bit evil. But, as evil has to be vanquished, the DADA professor has to be offed - or in Lupin's case knows he is a danger to those around him and resigns. And that's why a DADA professor doesn't stick around for more than a year. Ok, I think this theory needs a little more... time. Beatnik replies: Ooh, I really like this theory, and think it leans more toward genius than insantiy (of course, that could be because i'm somewhat insane myself:)) It goes along with a pet theory I've had, which relates back to something that a Weasley once said (sorry, can't recall which book), something to the tune of "Some people reckon that the DADA position is cursed." I think that these people might reckon correctly. Is it possible to curse a teaching post? If so, who's doing the cursing? Snape, so that he might get the job someday or working on LV's orders? Some other evil person at Hogwarts, who has not revealed their evilness yet? Or, DD, for various motives that are being discussed in another thread. Anyway, not much canon to support it, except the offhand Weasley comment, but I think it's a possiblity. Beatnik From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 08:09:06 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:09:06 -0000 Subject: Truly International Secrets?(was Re: African Prince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" wrote: > > Matt wrote: > > Dharma asked: > Is the permanent split between the Wizarding World and > Muggle World relevant on an international scale? > > Matt wrote: > > Well, the Statute of Secrecy is "International". > > Dharma replies: > > ... My question goes to how global the "International Statute" > really is. An agreement between 10 countries would be > international, but not inclusive of all Wizarding communities. > bboyminn: I'm sure the Statute originated in Europe, so it probably only covers what we might consider the /Western/ world. This would include all of Europe including Russia. In addition, we can assume, since there are Africans at the World Cup, and an African Minster of Magic has been mentioned, that it is included in either the International Confederation of Wizards or the International Federation of Warlocks. The wizarding world's equivalent to the U.N. Whether the USA and the rest of North America is apart of this or not is unclear but given the negative history of Muggle/Magic relations in the USA, if they are not members, they have equivalent organizations and Statutes of their own. I think we can safely assume that Australia and New Zealand followed the lead of the UK. That leaves South America and Asia. Personally, I suspect the modern areas of South America are governed by a similar statue. However, given that there are vast wild and primitive areas of South America, there are probably indigenous tribes that practice magic openly. I feel the same about Asia, they probably have government and statues in the modern areas that keep the world of magic from muggles, but primitive areas operate outside those rules as long as it doesn't cause problems. > Dharma replies: > > There are places in the world where magic is part of the > cultural/social/political leadership. Are these cultures/states > included? Is there any evidence that all Wizarding communities > adhere to the Statute of Secrecy? Is there evidence that there are > communities wherein Wizards and Muggles live together? bboyminn: When you think about it, the modern muggle world (our everyday world) does know about magic, it's just a question of how serious we take it. In New Orleans you can walk into one of the many Magic shops (not /stage/ magic but VooDoo) and buy potions, talismans, charms, and even unofficially have spells performed. There are places on the internet where you can buy authentic charms and potions to gain favor for yourself or jinx your enemies. Native American perform magic rituals. Caribbean Islanders openly perform magic that most of us would refer to as Voodoo, but in reality is a blend of native island American, French, and African magic. My point is that even in modern areas of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, magic is performed openly, but at the same time is contained to something tame enough that the muggles can pass it off as superstition. To some extent in our modern muggle world there are events that occur that defy logic, miracle cures, strange phenomonon, odd disappearances, crop circles, stang lights in the sky, etc... There are many TV shows based on this unexplained phenomonon, and while most of it is passed off by the general citizenry with a shrug of the shoulders, who's to say it's not magic, and who's to say that shrug of the shoulders isn't a well placed Apathy Charm? Equiring minds want to know. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 09:09:27 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:09:27 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115621 Del, > > I understand everything you're trying to say. But what I'm trying to > explain is that Seamus acted in a perfectly normal way, while Harry > did not ! Now, Harry has all the reasons in the world for reacting > strangely, I totally agree with that, but do you really expect > 15-year-old Seamus to realise that ?? Do you really expect Seamus to > realise that when Harry insults his mother, it's only because he's > identifying his mother to the Dursleys ?? Finwitch: Of course not. Even Harry doesn't realise all that, since all that psychological interpretation is done subconciously. Everyone interprets the world from a subjective view, developed from experiences of the past. All in the dorm are 15-year-old boys with different backgrounds, acting as can be expected. (Although, I still think Neville does better than they do). Still, innocent often don't even know what happened, (Harry&GoF; Harry&MrsNorris), presume that everyone knows how things were (Harry&Justin. Harry was calling the Snake OFF Justin) and even if they witnessed the actual event, whole thing happens so fast they don't realise it until it's over - and there's the shock-effect as well. One can not expect anyone to prove being innocent. BTW, as the simplest explanation for Cedric's death if one doesn't believe Voldemort is that Harry killed Cedric and lied about it (or the Headmaster lies about it for him)... I think while Harry usually finds it unthinkable that anyone could even consider the possibility that he's a murderer (as with Justin and Draco's snake). However, it is obvious to him that if they don't believe that Voldemort's back, they're accusing *him* for killing Cedric. And Harry's deeply offended that his classmate even considers the possibility that he's killed someone. How about all those occasions when Harry was defending/helping Neville, BTW? Like fetching Neville's Remembrall after Malfoy snatched it? Or staying behind in order to help Neville out of the trap-stair? Finwitch From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 15 09:23:10 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:23:10 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115622 Jen wrote: > My thought is, does Snape really want his gifts acknowledged by the > WW? The only information we have about this is in POA, when > Dumbledore interprets that Snape is reeling from the loss of the > Order of Merlin. That seem legitimate, but once again it's > Dumbledore's interpretation. Maybe Snape is actually reeling from > the fact that Sirius "got away" with something again. Or that three > school children made him unconcious in the Shrieking Shack. > > Snape appears to be a loner with low regard for societal > approbation. He doesn't seem the type to need outside monetary > reward or intangibles. And there's always that question of whether > the WW at large will ever *really* forget he was once a DE. I'm all > for him finding another job, though ;). > > Jen, thinking this is yet another unanswerable Snape question > because of all the details held back for plot purposes. Sigune: Yes, I've been wondering about that Order of Merlin too... But I think that when it comes to assessing Snape, Dumbledore might be a tad more reliable than Harry, so I wouldn't dismiss his comment straight away. We don't know for sure what Snape is doing in VW2, but in VW1 he was a spy, and NOT a member of the Order of the Phoenix. So one thing we can be sure about is that whatever he did for the 'good' side, it went largely unacknowledged. He might be after that Merlin thing as a kind of compensation, I suppose; and the fact that he would gain it by handing his old enemy over to the Dementors would be a wonderful extra. (And naturally you are right to see much of his anger has to do with Sirius escaping and himself being defeated by three students.) I agree that Snape appears a loner etc, but I don't think that precludes a certain craving for recognition. It seems that his enmity with James and Sirius is tinged with that kind of feeling, too. I'm not sure about the accuracy of Lupin's explanation of 'Quidditch Envy', but that there was envy of some sort I have no doubt. Snape seems the type of person who tends to be on his own because he might feel that (to quote Wilde's Lord Goring) 'other people are quite dreadful. The only possible society is oneself.' He has a sense of superiority, and he might just want people to acknowledge that superiority. I also have a problem with the assumption that the WW at large knows that Snape was a DE. If that is so, certainly a number of his students would know so, too ("My dad says Snape's a nasty piece of work, he used to be a Death Eater, you know; Papa doesn't want me to take Potions with him, he's sent Dumbledore several owls already"), and it wouldn't have been much of a discovery in GoF. If it were general knowledge, Ron would know, and he doesn't. The hearing, or trial, or whatever occasion it was where Snape was questioned and Dumbledore defended him must have been a rather quiet affair. Yours severely, Sigune From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 09:28:29 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:28:29 -0000 Subject: Signing Buckbeak's execution certificate ( was:Dumbledore and respect ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115623 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > we're not told how he signed it [maybe with a quill :-) ] > > What does interest me - and let me say first that I avoid time- > turning theory threads like the plague - is why he insisted on > signing almost as an afterthought. I get the impression from the > scene that he seems to know that extra delay is needed in order for > the "future Harry and Co". to shift Buckbeak out of sight of Hagrid's > hut. Finwitch: Dumbledore probably knew that Harry, Ron & Hermione were nearby, and wanted to give them time to save Buckbeak. He IS a Legilimens, after all - or at lest that Hagrid had company before they came. (Dishes, I recall, and Hagrid was inside with some people who had just left, presumably Harry. Entirely possible that as Legilimens he can sense Harry's/Hermione's/Ron's mind being present, and TWICE for Harry/Hermione. Snape can sense Harry under Invisibility Cloak, can't he? and it is possible that the map uses the same method.) When he suggests the time-turner: You may save yet another life tonight - he knows Buckbeak has been saved by them. He doesn't, however, know if it was the first or second turn they lived those three hours... He tells them the time he sensed them TWICE, and gives obscure directions as to where. Finwitch From Vekkel at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 06:03:55 2004 From: Vekkel at gmail.com (vekkel1) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:03:55 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115624 Jen: I meant to respond to this one earlier, and now you've given me > a second chance! [snip] > Snape appears to be a loner with low regard for societal > approbation. He doesn't seem the type to need outside monetary > reward or intangibles. And there's always that question of whether > the WW at large will ever *really* forget he was once a DE. I'm all > for him finding another job, though ;). Is it possible to 'forget' that a person use to be a DE? Do any of you think Snape deserves to be rewarded if he is acting as a spy or something similar? Does he deserve praise for his work if he did in fact willingly participate in DE activites the first time around? Vekkel From Vekkel at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 06:44:34 2004 From: Vekkel at gmail.com (vekkel1) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:44:34 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115625 Carol: > Del is right, based on Snape's own remarks. But Occlumency is a rare > skill and Snape is not only a "superb Occlumens," he is the only one > available. If Lupin or McGonagall could have done it, Dumbledore would > have asked them to. (The werewolf business would have made it > difficult for Upin to teach Harry, but arrangements could have been > made--the Shrieking Shack, for example.) But Snape was the only > available candidate. I can think of one person who could have probably done a much better job than Snape. He has a long white beard and was a former teacher, headmaster as well, would even probably work better with Harry than Snape, and I'm sure has much more experience. Vekkel From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 10:00:56 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:00:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's motive?/Dumbridge/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115626 > SSSusan: > With all due respect, did you read the midsection of my post that > you snipped out? My point wasn't that Harry wasn't justified in his > anger with Umbridge. My point is that I believe MM has in mind what > Umbridge & Fudge are potentially on about, in terms of running > Hogwarts and putting a clamp on DD. I think she senses the danger > of that and wants Harry to, too. > > When she says "This is not about truth and lies," what makes you so > sure that Harry didn't get it? After all, MM went on to ask Harry > whether he'd listened to Umbridge's speech at the beginning of the > year, and he did respond that "it meant that...that the Ministry of > Magic is trying to interfere at Hogwarts." It seems to me that > Harry was comprehending her point. Finwitch: About Umbridge/Fudge. Not about what he's supposed to do about it. And Harry's taking her seriously, so he defies her. That's how he managed to defeat previous threats, did he not. Mind you, Harry wasn't loosing his temper, just defying Umbridge with truth. SSSusan: > I realize you see it differently, but I don't think it's quite fair > to say Harry had "no other options." Harry *has* managed to bite > his tongue in Snape's class when he's been royally ticked off. I > don't see how we can be so sure he would've exploded this time if he > never did in Snape's lessons. Finwitch: At Potions, he has something to chop or powder or whatever. During Occlumency, he's using the same tactic in attempt to control his anger as he does with Umbridge. I've always wondered, why hasn't Harry's magic EVER leaked in Hogwarts? I think it's because well, he does let his anger&magic out. Flying certainly helped. It was enough for ONE class. Now he has TWO to worry about... Also, as Harry's constantly losing blood and sleep, making more and more adrenaline run in his veins, McGonagall decides to 'punish him for getting another detention'-- it all adds up, and Harry needs to let it out. His anger runs on higher level in Umbridge's class, as Umbridge is WAY worse than Snape. While I don't approve of what Snape does in class, Umbridge is the one setting my teeth on edge. Expecting 15-year olds to behave like they were a decade younger, constantly accusing Harry of lies when he's telling the truth... If Snape's like Vernon Dursley, Umbridge is like Aunt Marge. You'll recall that Harry hasn't blown Vernon up, but Marge went a long way... Harry recognises this, and takes different approach because he's not about to blow her up. Finwitch From legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 15 10:02:46 2004 From: legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk (legobaty29) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:02:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115627 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen3k9" wrote: > > Hello, > > This is my first time in a group so I hope I am doing this right. I > > would just like to know if anybody could help me with something. In > > Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron go > > down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does Hagrid > > answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he > > expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? Hello I thought Hagrid was armed with the crossbow because all of his roosters kept getting killed, and he was just prepared to catch the culprit. He's not the brightest spark, and answering the door with it just seems a very Hagrid thing to do. Lego From yutu75es at yahoo.es Fri Oct 15 10:41:54 2004 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa hagrid) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:41:54 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid References: Message-ID: <009201c4b2a3$98fc6e30$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 115628 Me: (Fridwulfa) Well, I don't think that's real reason. Hagrid is a brave guy, and he seemed nervous and distraught when he opened the door, as if he was expecting someone or something really dangerous or more powerful than usual. My guess is we'll find out eventually, but whatever his reason was to open the door armed to his teeth, it was a good one. Cheers Fridwulfa > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "karen3k9" > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > This is my first time in a group so I hope I am doing this right. > I > > > would just like to know if anybody could help me with something. > In > > > Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron > go > > > down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does > Hagrid > > > answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he > > > expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? > > > Hello > > I thought Hagrid was armed with the crossbow because all of his > roosters kept getting > killed, and he was just prepared to catch the culprit. He's not the > brightest spark, and > answering the door with it just seems a very Hagrid thing to do. > > Lego > > > > > > > > > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 10:46:25 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:46:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPT DISC: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory (exploding jar) In-Reply-To: <4698E211.7DA6F127.39E60FE2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115629 > > fuzzlebub85 here, sorry for not snipping anything... > > I agree with Sigune and with Carol completely (and I, for one, am glad to see that the Queen of Severity has delurked herself. Welcome back, Sigune!) Yes, I believe the jar exploded because of Snape's anger too. Anyone else agree with us three? > > Kaylee Tonks-Lupin Finwitch: I do. Just like Harry got Marge's glass explode. Also noticeable is that this was *clearly* uncontrolled magic. That this happened, means it CAN happen at Hogwarts. It's possible it happens to Neville in nearly every potions' class. It's never happened to Harry yet at Hogwarts. (There IS enough distraction at potions to keep Harry's magic under control, if only barely). I'll be waiting the day Harry accidentally blows something up while he's at Hogwarts. During Snape's class this time, if Snape makes the mistake of insulting Sirius? IF Harry get's O of his OWLs! Finwitch From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 15 11:02:23 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:02:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPT DISC: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory (exploding jar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115630 Finwitch wrote: Sigune: Yes, and not only to underage wizards. I like that idea, for some reason - magic isn't entirely controllable. That is consistent with to the WW's chaos, and interesting. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 11:13:29 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:13:29 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115631 Finwitch wrote : "I think while Harry usually finds it unthinkable that anyone could even consider the possibility that he's a murderer (as with Justin and Draco's snake). However, it is obvious to him that if they don't believe that Voldemort's back, they're accusing *him* for killing Cedric. And Harry's deeply offended that his classmate even considers the possibility that he's killed someone." Del replies : Killing doesn't necessarily mean murdering. Accidents do happen. Moreover I would rather guess that Seamus and others like him were actually trying to find an explanation of Cedric's death that would include neither LV being reborn (unacceptable), nor Harry killing Cedric (unthinkable). A third solution, one that wouldn't be so uncomfortable. But yes, I do understand that Harry would automatically conclude that whoever doesn't believe his version of events believes that he killed Cedric. But unfortunately, getting mad is the surest way of *reinforcing* people's misconceptions. Finwitch wrote : "How about all those occasions when Harry was defending/helping Neville, BTW? Like fetching Neville's Remembrall after Malfoy snatched it? Or staying behind in order to help Neville out of the trap-stair?" Del replies : The Remembrall episode was more about Harry and Draco than about Neville himself. Harry's acts of kindness towards Neville might not have had any witnesses. Of course, there's also the little matter of the Full Body Bind or whatever it's called that Hermione performed on Neville in PS/SS ;-) But anyway, as we saw in CoS, those little things are unfortunately easily forgotten when more compelling "evidence" is presented. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 15 12:15:53 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:15:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's guilt Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115632 Vekkel: > Is it possible to 'forget' that a person use to be a DE? Do any of you > think Snape deserves to be rewarded if he is acting as a spy or > something similar? Does he deserve praise for his work if he did in > fact willingly participate in DE activites the first time around? > Potioncat: I don't know. But look at this, he turned from LV well before LV's fall, and risked his life to spy for DD. His reasons for turning must be significant enough for DD to believe him. His is DE roles mild enough for DD to be willing to have at Hogwarts for 14 years. From garybec101 at comcast.net Fri Oct 15 12:59:41 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:59:41 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115633 > Hello, This is my first time in a group so I hope I am doing this right. I would just like to know if anybody could help me with something. In Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron go down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does Hagrid answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? Thanks, Karen Becki responds; Welcome Karen! I have always had many questions about our big friend, but I always thought that he was armed because there was the "Monster from the Chamber" loose on the school. Hagrid was there the last time it was let loose on the school so he knows the danger of it all. He know he wasn't the one that opened it and set forth the monster, which he has no idea what it is, except that it is so horrible that his pet Aragog wont even speak it's name. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, (unless someone else comes up with a better story, I am easily persuaded ;D ) Becki From sad1199 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 13:54:15 2004 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:54:15 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > LOL- but Giant Squid is was NEVER a member of the Order of Phoenix, > whereas Aberforth has been. (Or what was he doing in the picture?) >> And just adding something to this illeterate in Hogwarts-thing: > > How about a spell that makes a text auditive? And a magic quill to > write for him? After all, illiteracy was far more common 100 years ago > than it is today, and ability to read was certainly not taken for > granted and certainly not 1000 years ago when Hogwarts was founded. > What did they do with the illiterate magical children then? > > Also, if Aberforth was Muggleborn (and therefore, his brother Albus is > too), and not just Muggle, but also of a social class that was > generally illiterate those days. More so, a literate of that class > would have been burned at the stake or something due to all those > witch-hunts. > > So even if Aberforth (like Albus?) learned how to read, he certainly > would have *pretended* he didn't know how. > > Finwitch sad1199 here: Could somebody please direct me to the text where it states that Dumbledore says that Aberforth can't read? I would like to read it to be able to reply properly to this very interesting post. If I recall correctly, no, I can't recall correctly, that's the problem. Please help. Have a HAPPY, LOVE filled day! sad1199 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 15 15:24:15 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:24:15 -0000 Subject: Signing Buckbeak's execution certificate ( was:Dumbledore and respect ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: > > (massive snippage) > > bamf: > > > > Dumbledore, IMHO, take everything he does with a bit > > of salt. He takes his work seriously, but not > > himself. I don't remember anytime he's required or > > corrected anyone on his title, except in the case of > > OFFICIAL functions - (Cos)signing Buckbeak's execution > > notice (I know he insisted upon signing in, but I > > don't have my book in front of my to say HOW he signed > > it) > > Geoff: > we're not told how he signed it [maybe with a quill :-) ] What does interest me - and let me say first that I avoid time-turning theory threads like the plague - is why he insisted on signing almost as an afterthought. < Movie contamination, I'm afraid. Macnair and Hagrid are the only ones who sign in the book. Dumbledore reminds Macnair to sign the certificate as Harry is trying to get Buckbeak away. The cabin door was open, so very possibly Dumbledore actually saw Harry and Hermione out there, though it was too dark inside the cabin for Harry to see him. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 15 16:18:42 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:18:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's guilt Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115636 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Vekkel: > > Is it possible to 'forget' that a person use to be a DE? Do any of you think Snape deserves to be rewarded if he is acting as a spy or something similar? Does he deserve praise for his work if he did in fact willingly participate in DE activites the first time around? > > > Potioncat: > I don't know. > > But look at this, he turned from LV well before LV's fall, and > risked his life to spy for DD. His reasons for turning must be > significant enough for DD to believe him. His is DE roles mild > enough for DD to be willing to have at Hogwarts for 14 years. Pippin: Ron says that poisonous toadstools don't change their spots, but Dumbledore believes in second chances. Dumbledore approved of showing mercy to Pettigrew, who betrayed the Order, and helped to commit murder, so why not Snape, no matter what he's done? Pippin From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 16:55:26 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:55:26 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" > wrote: > > Annemehr: > > This has never really been settled. I was always one of those who > > thought it was Dedalus Diggle. The fact that he was (IMO) bumping > > into Vernon, in a shop to bow to Harry (though he lives in Kent, one > > county to the East), and at the Leaky Cauldron the day Harry arrived > > with Hagrid made me wonder if he wasn't part of Dumbledore's > > preparations for and watch over Harry during his years in the Muggle > > world. > > Geoff: > That's not particularly surprising. Parts of Kent are, effectively, > suburban London and chunks of Kent were moved into Greater London > when that was set up in the mid-1960s. > > it wuld be quite feasible for a wizard from Kent to just be dropping > into the Leaky Cauldron or somewhere else in the centre; it's just as > easy for them as for Vernon, whose work whereabouts are not revealed > IIRC. > Annemehr again: Hi Geoff! I'm going for the "too many little coincidences" here. I don't think Vernon works in London, just because "going up to London" (when they got Dudley's tail removed) seemed to be an unusual trip for him. And would he drive to a job in London every day, or would he probably take a train? So Diggle (or Flitwick) being in the street just outside Grunnings would be quite a coincidence. Heck, London's huge; even if Grunnings were there, it's not likely to be anywhere near the Leaky at all. The Dursleys seem to have only one car; I bet Petunia normally shops locally. When Harry saw Diggle in a shop one day, I picture a shop in Little Whinging. Definitely not one in a big mall (or whatever you might have in Surrey) which might draw shoppers from the surrounding counties, either. No reason for a wizard from Kent to be in a little Muggle shop in Surrey. Of course you're right about Diggle being in the Leaky Cauldron. For all we know, he stops in every day, so that seeing Harry there was no coincidence at all. What gets me going, though, is that Jo takes care to write him in and have Harry notice him -- she points him out to us. The only reason I think about this so much is that I think it's part of the way Dumbledore watched Harry more closely than he ever knew. I'm not sure exactly *how* this might become even more important, but I'm keeping an eye out! Annemehr From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 17:22:14 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:22:14 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115638 > sad1199 here: > > Could somebody please direct me to the text where it states that > Dumbledore says that Aberforth can't read? I would like to read it > to be able to reply properly to this very interesting post. If I > recall correctly, no, I can't recall correctly, that's the problem. > Please help. Ginger quotes Prof. Dumbledore: "My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for performing inappropriate charms on a goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not! He held his head high and went about his business as usual! Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that might not have been bravery..." US paperback edition, p. 454. Dumbledore expresses doubt about Abie's literacy. He doesn't really say one way or the other. Ginger, who thinks that Krum as the next DADA teacher would be interesting. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 15 18:11:16 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:11:16 -0000 Subject: RADIO TBAY The Rolling Cannon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115639 Walter Flykite: Welcome to another episode of Mysterious Mysteries and Where They May be Found. This afternoon we are at Hogwarts to learn all about cannon thumping. Legend tells us that only the Rolling Canon can predict true love, reveal secrets, and foreshadow erm foretell events. Professor Dumbledore has offered the services of two Gryffindor prefects to demonstrate the famous Rolling Cannon to us. Here we are, high above the castle in the tallest of the towers. I must say, Fans, it is beautiful up here! In the middle of the tower is a statue of a Hogwarts student. Can't tell if it's a boy or girl but it's wearing Hogwarts robes and holding a set of books and a wand. The face is sort of blurry. Can't tell who it supposed to be. The base says, "The Good Slytherin." Hermione Granger: This statue is particularly interesting! No one knows who it is and sometimes it's not even here. Walter Flykite: Let's get started. I see three cannons, which one is it? Hermione Granger: The cannons move around. Each time you come with a question, you have to make certain you're asking the Rolling Cannon. The other cannons can be very misleading. Ron Weasley: Here's the Initial Cannon. Walter Flykite: [chuckling] But if they move around, this one wouldn't always be the first cannon would it? Ron Weasley: Maybe not, but it would still be the Initial Cannon. See right here are the initials IIRC. Walter Flykite: IIRC? What does that mean? Hermione Granger: If I recall correctly, it's the initials of the person who cast the cannon. Walter Flykite: Don't be ridiculous. You can cast a spell but you can't cast a cannon. How does this cannon work? Ron Weasley: It's hard to say, mostly people who come here sit around wondering about new questions without really deciding anything and it seems to depend upon how good a person's memory is. It's never really worked out until someone goes over and thumps the Rolling Cannon. Walter Flykite: Look at this cannon it has pictures on it. [Sound of something heavy moving, a thud and a gasp by interviewer] Oops! This is a loose canon. Hermione Granger: Yes that's the Moving Picture Cannon. Walter Flykite: All pictures move, silly girl. What are these? Ron Weasley: These pictures show three years at Hogwarts. At least we think they do. It was just this summer that the third year appeared. Walter Flykite: Who is this? Hermione Granger: Professor Snape. And that's Professor McGonagall. Walter Flykite: Not quite what I expected them to look like. Hermione Granger: Well, that's the thing this cannon doesn't give you quite what you expect. It's all right to a point, and very entertaining, but not completely accurate. Walter Flykite: Who are these students holding toads? Ron Weasley: I've no idea! Nothing like that ever happened here but I bet Neville would be interested. Walter Flykite: Oh, look at this it's an empty base for a cannon with a large crest on each side. That's the Hufflepuff crest,isn't it? Ron Wesley: Hufflepuff, yes. This is a carriage, just like under the other cannons. It's the only one with the crest. Walter Flykite: Look, it changed from Hufflepuff House to Slytherin House! Now it's turning again to Gryffindor House! Hermione Granger: We call this the Changing House. But there's no cannon for it. Walter Flykite: Then this must be the Rolling Cannon! Oh look, here's a big web. Ron Weasley: Stop! Don't bother that. It's an important part of the Rolling Cannon! Walter Flykite: A web and a cannon? How does this work? Hermione Granger: You think of a question, then you thump the cannon. If you're correct it rolls forward, and if not, it rolls backward and if your question is too uncertain, it just sits there. Or sometimes, instead of the cannon moving, a butterfly will come out if you're on the right track. Ron Weasley: Or a spider if you're wrong. Walter Flykite: OK, let's ask it a question. Erm, I know! Will Hermione Granger marry Ron Weasley? Now, now girl don't blush. It's just a question. Lets see, I'll give it a good thump right here. Oh my, it moved! Was that forward or backward? Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley: It didn't move at all! Walter Flykite: What's going on here? Hermione Granger: That's the cannon's one weakness. Everyone sees it differently. Walter Flykite: Hmm, well. I see. Well that's all the time we have today, Fans. Join us next week for a tour of Droobles Best Blowing Gum factory. Lots of mysteries floating around that place! From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 15 18:26:56 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:26:56 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Doris Crockford References: <1097827118.6592.40207.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001c01c4b2e4$8e0b2840$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 115640 Macfotuk wrote: > Indeed, the whole flurry of owls and gathering of witches and > wizards (many of who seem possible DD acquaintances) in the vicinity > of the Dursleys the day after GH is distinctly mysterious. I feel > sure someone must have noticed/commented on this before. Depends what you mean by "vicinity". The descriptions we have of wizard houses suggest that they are lived in over a long period, so if there aren't any wizarding folk living near the Dursleys at the time of OoP, then there won't have been many a decade or so previously. But we aren't told exactly how long Vernon's daily journey to work actually is (I remember a discussion on that subject a while ago which suggested various locations in Surrey where he might work, all of them within a reasonable drive of Little Whinging). I read the gathering of wizards as a picture of just how many wizarding folk there actually are: they are suddenly visible to Muggledom, something that they usually aren't, and there's more of them than you might think. > Am still dubious about how McGonagall gets there (Privet drive) > almost first thing in the morning after GH and, considering Hagrid > is supposed to be the instigator of her presence and yet is clearly > in DD's trust and service and gets to GH straight after all hell has > let loose there that McG doesn't know what's happened at GH except > by clearly hazy rumour. Or by the early edition of the Daily Prophet. Or by the morning news on the Wireless. Same way that everyone else hears about it, really. But only what's in the papers - it's not until Dumbledore turns up and gives her the full story that she knows everything. But it's a good job she's there - who knows what would have happened if Harry _hadn't_ had anyone of his blood to protect him. A few stray DEs could have done a lot of damage. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Oct 15 18:41:33 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:41:33 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Carolyn: > > What canon says is, in the words of Fudge: 'DD..had a number > of useful spies..One of them tipped him off, and he alerted > James & Lily at once...told them that their best chance was the > Fidelius Charm'. > > What Sirius says is: 'I persuaded Lily & James to change to > Peter at the last moment'.. > > > Pippin: > But when Lupin and Sirius forced Peter out of hiding, he had no > choice but to turn to the Dark Lord for protection from his old > friends. This answers another question; why, now that Peter has > lent Voldemort a hand, is the Dark Lord still keeping him > around? Surely he's more liability than asset...unless the Dark > Lord needs Peter as blackmail material to keep Lupin in line. > > I don't think there was any way Dumbledore knew about the rat. > Even if Dumbledore went to Azkaban and interviewed Sirius, > would Sirius have revealed that he, James and Peter were > animagi if he thought it would get Lupin in trouble? You won't be surprised that I'm getting more and more unhappy about this Fedelius fiasco. OK; what do we know? We know it is an immensely difficult charm. We know that DD was worried and offered to be the SK himself. We know everyone assumed Sirius was the SK. That's it. Everything else is up for grabs so far as I'm concerned. Sirius thought Lupin was the traitor, Lupin and the rest of the WW thought Sirius was the traitor, A small group now think that Peter done the dirty instead and Peter's demeanor suggests they may be right. But it might not be that simple. Why was Peter, a wimp and wet of the first order, chosen as SK? Sure, we've heard Sirius expounding his misdirection theory, and a fine load of old claptrap it is. Why Peter when DD himself has volunteered? Only one reason I can think of - Peter's weak, he'll break easily. Because it did cross my mind that to send the Potters to their doom you don't need to tell Voldy their address, you only need to tell him Peter's address. Peter breaks and gets the blame - but he doesn't, because he did something totally unexpected - he survived. Voldy didn't kill him once he'd been drained dry. There should have been another body at GH - the SK who gave them away. But he lived and the true author of the disaster must wipe him out as soon as possible, he probably knows more than is healthy for the well-being of the hidden double-dealer. As Sirius says, "You should have died!" Kneasy From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 19:01:08 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Because it did cross my mind that to send the Potters to their doom > you don't need to tell Voldy their address, you only need to tell > him Peter's address. Except that why WOULD anyone go for Peter. Most people don't immediately say "Hey, I'm going to go check out and destroy the weakest link of the chain first"... Well, maybe YOU do, Kneasy... But you're not playing with Evil Overlord Logic, as Voldemort pretty much is. (Going for the child he 'identifies' with first? What number is that, but I'm sure it's on the list... www.eviloverlord.com). There's no good reason to go chasing after Peter when you have the known quantity (best friends with James, cocky, brash) Sirius Black to chase after. The wrench in the works is that Peter is also a known quantity to Voldemort--he's a traitor to the Order. Sirius/James/Lily don't know that Voldemort has inside information on Peter, but that hidden link is what spells doom. > Peter breaks and gets the blame - but he doesn't, because he did > something totally unexpected - he survived. Voldy didn't kill him > once he'd been drained dry. There should have been another > body at GH - the SK who gave them away. But he lived and the true > author of the disaster must wipe him out as soon as possible, he > probably knows more than is healthy for the well-being of the > hidden double-dealer. Why would Voldie kill someone who was already (so far as we can read canon, and it hasn't been contradicted) his spy? That part of your argument just doesn't make sense. IF the SK had been loyal, then Voldie would have had to torture him to get the secret out--and there probably would have been a body elsewhere, *then* two bodies at GH. I think you're arguing with the assumption that Peter wasn't actually Voldie's spy already, but things work out so much more smoothly if you take that canon as given and then work out why things happened as they did. > As Sirius says, "You should have died!" Death to traitors, and all of that good stuff, ya know... :) -Nora now *wishes* that JKR had answered the Wormtail question From sophierom at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 19:15:17 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:15:17 -0000 Subject: RADIO TBAY The Rolling Cannon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115643 Potioncat: Walter Flykite: OK, let's ask it a question. Erm, I know! Will Hermione Granger marry Ron Weasley? Now, now girl don't blush. It's just a question. Lets see, I'll give it a good thump right here. Oh my, it moved! Was that forward or backward? Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley: It didn't move at all! Walter Flykite: What's going on here? Hermione Granger: That's the cannon's one weakness. Everyone sees it differently. Sophierom: What a fantastic post! But, I do disagree with Hermione: the fact that "everyone sees it differently" isn't the "rolling cannon's" weakness. Or, if it is a weakness, then it's a weakness I love. Otherwise, what else would we have to discuss? :-) Again, great post and really important point. Canon is so often open to interpretation, and there are many valid views out there. That's where the fun of it is! From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 15 19:47:23 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:47:23 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115644 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" > wrote: > > Peter breaks and gets the blame - but he doesn't, because he did something totally unexpected - he survived. Voldy didn't kill him once he'd been drained dry. There should have been another body at GH - the SK who gave them away. But he lived and the true author of the disaster must wipe him out as soon as possible, he probably knows more than is healthy for the well-being of the hidden double-dealer.<< Nora: > Why would Voldie kill someone who was already (so far as we can read canon, and it hasn't been contradicted) his spy? That part of your argument just doesn't make sense. IF the SK had been loyal, then Voldie would have had to torture him to get the secret out--and there probably would have been a body elsewhere, *then* two bodies at GH. > > I think you're arguing with the assumption that Peter wasn't actually Voldie's spy already, but things work out so much more smoothly if you take that canon as given and then work out why things happened as they did.< > Pippin: More smoothly? Could you elaborate? If Peter spied successfully for more than a year, why break down so quickly when Lupin and Sirius questioned him in the Shrieking Shack? They hadn't a shred of proof--all Peter had to do was tell his story with a little more conviction and Harry would have believed him. 'Sirius betrayed the Potters, and I went into hiding because the Death Eaters who were Sirius's new friends would want revenge.' If Peter was liar enough to bamboozle Dumbledore and the rest of the Order for a whole year in the old days, surely he wouldn't fear questioning now? It wasn't logic that convinced Harry, it was Sirius's sincerity. But if Peter were the real spy, surely the appearance of sincerity would be second nature to him? He'd have to be as cool and convincing as Barty Jr to have pulled it off in the first place. Consider Riddle's words as he brags about framing Hagrid, "I admit, even *I* was surprised how well the plan worked. I thought *someone* must realize that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the Heir of Slytherin. [...]as though Hagrid had the brains, or the power!" [emphasis JKR's] Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been Voldemort's spy for a whole year? Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 20:14:41 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:14:41 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Nora: > > Why would Voldie kill someone who was already (so far as we > can read canon, and it hasn't been contradicted) his spy? That > part of your argument just doesn't make sense. IF the SK had > been loyal, then Voldie would have had to torture him to get the > secret out--and there probably would have been a body > elsewhere, *then* two bodies at GH. > > > > I think you're arguing with the assumption that Peter wasn't > actually Voldie's spy already, but things work out so much more > smoothly if you take that canon as given and then work out why > things happened as they did.< > > > > Pippin: > More smoothly? Could you elaborate? If Peter spied successfully > for more than a year, why break down so quickly when Lupin > and Sirius questioned him in the Shrieking Shack? First on the more smoothly, which was in answer to Kneasy's last contention; it explains why Voldie didn't *kill* Peter, in the first place. With one notable exception (and some Evil Overlord shenanigans), Voldie is good at killing people--this is canon, right? But Voldie is not the type to kill his own without some real provocation, it seems. Nope, he's content because Peter gives him the info that he wants; it's just that no one predicted the disaster that ensued. One starts to wonder about Sirius' account of the DEs screaming at Peter in prison; unless you want to do the 'Oh, Sirius is lying out of his ass' (which is always a dangerous move to make because it can then be done to ANYTHING), that's an interesting statement. Two, Peter really is under a lot of stress. I suspect that his functions as spy did not involve things like direct confrontation, but rather the passing of information here, there--and he's the type of person who people don't *notice*, so that's a good role for him. Now, put him in a situation where he's 1) trapped 2) confronted by some very, very angry people 3) *outnumbered*, and you have a very different reaction. Following off of that, Peter's reactions look to me like: attempt to weasel out of the accusations, non-denial when confronted, attempted shift in tactics (from 'I didn't do it' to 'Well, what the hell did you expect me to do?'), shift into plea for mercy. He's behaving like a trapped creature, which is what he is. "Because you never did anything for anyone unless you could see what was in it for you." ... "Wh--what was there to be gained by refusing him?" Also, we get into the complications of your invoked ESE!Lupin theory, and I'm sure you don't need a reiteration of why the theory is ingenious yet problematic, right? :) In fact, I'm getting rather confused about how it all fits into this. Are you postulating a series of events in which Peter *was* the SK (this is not absolutely proven, but close), but not the spy beforehand--a situation where Voldie went and got to him when he became SK/because he was SK, tipped off by ESE!Lupin? In that case, no, I don't know why Voldie wouldn't kill Peter and get rid of one more (if this is true, loyal) Order member. But it doesn't make a particular amount of sense, while the more straightforward reading answers more of my questions... ...provisionally, natch. > They hadn't a shred of proof--all Peter had to do was tell his > story with a little more conviction and Harry would have believed > him. 'Sirius betrayed the Potters, and I went into hiding because > the Death Eaters who were Sirius's new friends would want > revenge.' I think Harry is confused and annoyed enough that he'd have some more questions; why not talk to DD if you're innocent, why have you been a rat for x number of years, why fake your death...there's a little more to it than the 'sincerity' issue, below. > If Peter was liar enough to bamboozle Dumbledore and the rest > of the Order for a whole year in the old days, surely he wouldn't > fear questioning now? This is a big question, I agree...but I think it's in part because of the situation that he's in. > It wasn't logic that convinced Harry, it was Sirius's sincerity. But > if Peter were the real spy, surely the appearance of sincerity > would be second nature to him? He'd have to be as cool and > convincing as Barty Jr to have pulled it off in the first place. > > Consider Riddle's words as he brags about framing Hagrid, "I > admit, even *I* was surprised how well the plan worked. I > thought *someone* must realize that Hagrid couldn't possibly be > the Heir of Slytherin. [...]as though Hagrid had the brains, or the > power!" [emphasis JKR's] Well, it's canon that Dumbledore had his strong suspicions about Tom, and never suspected Hagrid, right? So far as I can tell, though, things point to DD not being the senior man in control, and at times (and this is a general point) having rather limited power to cut through the complacent bureaucracy of the WW. > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been > Voldemort's spy for a whole year? There is only incidental support for this, but I'll keep it as a possibility until it gets sporked: everyone underestimates/ed Peter, in skill and in other areas. He did pull a fast one on Black at their confrontation, it seems--likely because he was prepared for it, and in contrast to above with the SS scene, it's a one-on-one confrontation, not something where he's full-out trapped. He's skillful enough to deal with Bertha Jorkins well-enough, dismissive though Voldie may be of him. Dramatic irony would request that Voldie's underestimation/dismissal of Peter play some role in the denoument. One more issue, perhaps, to think of: we can surmise, I think, that DD gave Black a good one-over when he had him alone in the office. Ergo, DD, when he exerts the effort, knows when he is being lied to. Now, you could postulate Black as ESE!Lupin's patsy in this regard, but maybe, just maybe, DD actually got to see some of Black's memories about the way this all got carried out--things like talking with Lily and James and Peter, a first-person view of some other things, etc. An interesting possibility. -Nora really hopes JKR will throw us a Wormtail tidbit soon From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 15 20:19:01 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:19:01 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > But I don't think Percy is old for his year. In fact, I think he's > young for it. Most wizards learn to apparate at seventeen, when they > come of age. Percy makes a big deal of his newfound ability to > apparate at the beginning of GoF, when he has just left school. This > suggests that he has only recently turned seventeen, either at the end > of the school year or during the summer. Hickengruendler: We already know Percy's birthday. It's August 22nd, JKR wished him a Happy Birthday on her website. Therefore you are right that his birthday is during the summer. However, since he's four years older than Harry, and Harry was fourteen at this time, Percy was already eighteen. Therefore he really waited around a year to make his apparating-license. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 20:53:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:53:25 -0000 Subject: Signing Buckbeak's execution certificate ( was:Dumbledore and respect ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Geoff: > > we're not told how he signed it [maybe with a quill :-) ] What > does interest me - and let me say first that I avoid time-turning > theory threads like the plague - is why he insisted on signing > almost as an afterthought. < Pippin: > Movie contamination, I'm afraid. Macnair and Hagrid are the only > ones who sign in the book. Dumbledore reminds Macnair to > sign the certificate as Harry is trying to get Buckbeak away. Geoff: No, it's not contamination by the media that dare not speak its name - it's faulty reading by a member of HPFGU who went cross-eyed at the wrong moment! Pippin: > The cabin door was open, so very possibly Dumbledore actually saw > Harry and Hermione out there, though it was too dark inside the > cabin for Harry to see him. Geoff: 'Hagrid turned and headed back into his cabon, leaving the door ajar." (POA "Hermione's Secret" p.292 UK edition) That implies to me not quite shut; I would not assume that anyone could see out of it. I still harbour suspicions about how much Dumbledore knew or guessed at that point. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 15 21:11:28 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:11:28 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115648 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > Annemehr: > Hi Geoff! I'm going for the "too many little coincidences" here. > > I don't think Vernon works in London, just because "going up to > London" (when they got Dudley's tail removed) seemed to be an unusual > trip for him. And would he drive to a job in London every day, or > would he probably take a train? So Diggle (or Flitwick) being in the > street just outside Grunnings would be quite a coincidence. Heck, > London's huge; even if Grunnings were there, it's not likely to be > anywhere near the Leaky at all. Geoff: I wasn't implying that Vernon met Dedalus (or whoever) near the Leaky Cauldron; My meaning was that it isn't far from the London end of Kent to get into the centre or beyond. There is an implication that Vernon's works is not far from Little Whinging.. 'He got into his car and backed out of number four's drive....... But on the edge of town, drills were driven out of his mind by something else. As he sat in his usual morning traffic jam, he couldn't help noticing that there seemed to be a lot of strangely dressed people about..... The traffic moved on and a few minutes later, Mr.Dursley arrived in the Grunnings car park, his mind back on drills.' (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.8 UK edition) But remember that it has been suggested that Little Whinging is north of the river not far perhaps from Heathrow in Surrey-that-was- Middlesex-until-1965 and therefore virtually in Greater London (possibly even within the boundaries). London, as another poster has remarked is very big; 25-20 across, so you don;t have to go into central London to "work in London". I taught for 30 years in Greater London, 12 miles out from the centre..... Since there were obviously wizard folk celebrating near Little Whinging, Dedalus (if it 'twere he) might have come over to turn a few cartwheels and knock back a few pumpkin juices with friends.... Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From mysticowl at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 21:25:08 2004 From: mysticowl at gmail.com (Alina Chimanovitch) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:25:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's motive? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115649 > (I say this because Quirrell!Mort probably did teach the students at > least a few basic things; Lockhart is ridiculous, true, but at least > he starts the duelling club wherein students can see Snape practice > defense at work (Harry learns the "expelliarmus" spell from Snape's > duel with Lockhart); Lupin is of course a wonderful teacher (well, > that's mine and Harry's opinion); and Crouch!Moody, evil as he was, > did actually allow the students to learn some important DADA lessons. > Umbridge's only contribution: she forces the creation of the DA > because she refuses to teach (having them read from textbooks is not > teaching!). Okay, I also say that Umbridge is the worst because I > simply cannot stand the woman!) > > Sophierom Hmm, see you say that Lockhart was slightly beneficial due to the duelling club, where kids learned something from Snape. I think by that logic, we can say that Umbridge was useful because if not for her, then there wouldn't have been a DA. And the DA was far more beneficial to the students than the duelling club, I'd say probably even better than Quirrel's lessons, on par with Lupin and Crouch!Moody. So while the woman herself is vile, the students ended up having as good a teacher as any they've before. Alina. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 15 22:17:27 2004 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:17:27 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115650 Pippin: > If Peter was liar enough to bamboozle Dumbledore and the rest > of the Order for a whole year in the old days, surely he wouldn't > fear questioning now? > > It wasn't logic that convinced Harry, it was Sirius's sincerity. But > if Peter were the real spy, surely the appearance of sincerity > would be second nature to him? He'd have to be as cool and > convincing as Barty Jr to have pulled it off in the first place. > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been > Voldemort's spy for a whole year? Jen: That's really the central question here: Is it believable that Peter was able to spy against the Order for a year, without breaking down in front of his old friends? Peter's characterization is ambiguous at best. He's a cringing, obsequious, "weak little thing" in the Shrieking Shack and a coldly competent hit-man in the graveyard. He makes a half-hearted, timid plea to Voldemort for Harry's life at the beginning of GOF, then calmly ties Harry to a gravestone in preparation for his torture and death. So which is it? Will the real Peter please stand up? Sirius tells us he's weak, and the Peter we saw in the Pensieve certainly acted like a little toady. Yet he was able to become an animagus, even if he required (pretended to require?) help, and he reportedly blew up a street full of Muggles before performing the perfect disappearing act. So, is he a smooth operator with moments of real (or pretend) panic, or a timid wannabe with moments of cold calculation? Because it really matters which one is his 'true self' to believe he could spy for a year without breaking, only to become cringing and helpless when facing his old friends. Personally, I think the Shrieking Shack scene was Peter up to his old tricks. He hopes to appeal to his friends (especially Lupin, since Sirius appears beyond convincing) and make himself appear as non-threatening as possible in hopes of swaying the situation to his advantage. It worked in the past at Hogwarts no doubt, to whine, cringe and feign helplessness, persuading his friends to save the day once again. But you cry wolf one too many times.... Jen Reese From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 22:57:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:57:52 -0000 Subject: The Weasleys (update on JKR's page) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115651 Finwitch wrote: > Allright, what I'm up to, is a bit of Weasley-sibling-dynamics. > Firstly, siblings compete for their parents' attention... > Next year. Bill's 16 (and got a good number of OWLs I suppose), > Charlie may have made it to Quidditch Captain already, at 14. > Percy goes to Hogwarts for first time. His both elder brothers are > there, Bill as a *prefect*, Charlie as Quidditch Captain (I think). > They continue the old elder-brother authority over Percy, only this > time it's also due to having special titles... titles their Mother > appreciates. (Did Percy get his rat at age 5 or now, as beginning the school gift?) Carol responds to the parenthetical remark: I don't think a street rat like Scabbers would be given to Percy as a gift. The rats sold in Diagon Alley are the magical, long-lived type. Also, surely Wormtail would immediately have searched for a home with a wizarding family (a poor one where the children would be glad to have a rat as a pet and where he could overhear gossip about the DEs and so forth; the Weasleys are perfect on both counts). So Percy probably had him as a pet from the time he was five or six. Finwitch wrote: > Next year, Bill makes it to Head Boy. (It is possible that Charlie > makes it to Prefect, but it was never mentioned). Carol responds: What about Molly's infamous "That's everyone in the family" remark, meaning that all the kids so far (except the twins) have been prefects? That would include Charlie as well as Bill and Percy. Carol, with apologies for the huge snips From n.crins at planet.nl Fri Oct 15 11:42:28 2004 From: n.crins at planet.nl (niekycrins) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:42:28 -0000 Subject: triwizard tournament Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115652 hi, I think DD was mainly responsible for organizing the Triwizard Tournament after so many years, because he knew that LV would rise again (more terrible etc.). Because of the Triwizard tournament the students of Durmstrang, Beauxbatons and HW would get to know each other and (hopefully) unite against LV. So I definitely think we will see more of Victor Krum and Fleur Delacour in the next books... Of course others will have thought of this too, but I really like the idea. What a strange coincidence that LV was able to rise because of the TT Nieky From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 12:13:56 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:13:56 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115653 vekkel1 wrote: > Is it possible to 'forget' that a person use to be a DE? Do any of you > think Snape deserves to be rewarded if he is acting as a spy or > something similar? Does he deserve praise for his work if he did in > fact willingly participate in DE activites the first time around? > I don't think that anyone will be forgetting it anytime soon, particularly since some DEs will make it through the war and get off scot-free (why shouldn't it happen again, it did the first time. I can imagine Lucius getting away with it again). His being a spy would probably remain secret again after the second war (to keep the former DEs from killing him), thus he wouldn't get any public praise. As to whether or not he deserves the praise after his DE activities... well, after seeing what the DEs were capable of, knowing what Voldemort was capable of, knowing that he would be marked for death if it was ever revealed that he changed sides... yes, he deserves praise for that. He knew what the dark side was capable of, and still changed over, that's either very brave or very stupid, take your pick. -Tammy, a newbie posting for the first time and hoping she managed to nicely follow the rules :D From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 14:17:36 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:17:36 -0000 Subject: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115654 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "legobaty29" wrote: > I agree with > Lisa Marie that Snape's first chance was used up when he joined the > Death Eaters. I know that Dumbledore trusts him, but I wonder whether > he will ever be tempted to re-join Voldemort? It has been suggested > that he won't (I think he touched on the subject during a conversation > with Karkaroff?) but the mark on his arm becomes stronger when Voldemort > is around, and I am thinking a) once you've been a Death Eater you can > never get rid of the mark or b) Snape has never got rid of the mark > because there's a thin chance he still has an allegiance there. LisaMarie answers: Good suggestions! I, however, am holding out for c) Snape *is* stuck with the Mark, but he wouldn't want to remove it if he could, as that would seriously hinder his double-agent role when LV found that the Mark was missing!! As wholly nasty as he is to everyone but his "chosen few," I can't help but love Snape. I think that he is definitely emotionally damaged (horrible childhood), and that the nastiness started there, helped along by 1) being in Slytherin, where everyone is SUCH a ray of sunshine, and 2) being tormented by James and Sirius (and others?) for his interest in the Dark Arts. But I also think that he is wholly loyal to DD and vital to the Order, and that someday (probably not until late in book 6 or in book 7) Dear Severus will finally be revealed as TrueMoralConversion!Snape at last. As I have stated in another post, I really think that both he and Harry will have to eventually let go of their prejudices and learn to respect one another, in order to accomplish the goal: vanquishing LV and the DE. (I also think the unadulterated hatred he displays toward Harry & co. is helpful to his "undercover" status; he *is* good friends with Lucius Malfoy, let us not forget!) LisaMarie From barbfulton at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 21:31:10 2004 From: barbfulton at yahoo.com (Barb Fulton) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:31:10 -0000 Subject: Krum as DADA (was Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115655 (snip whole post, sorry) > Ginger, who thinks that Krum as the next DADA teacher would be > interesting. Barb: This is my first post, so be gentle! I think Krum as DADA has potential for comedy between Ron and Hermione, (I am a R/H shipper), but I don't think he's qualified. In OotP (page 331)..."Yeah? What did Vicky say?" "Ho, Ho," said Hermione in a bored voice, "He said Harry knew how to do stuff even he didn't, and he was in the final year at Durmstrang." Now granted, Harry is exceptional, but still, it sounds like Durmstrang put more of an emphasis on learning the Dark Arts themselves, not Defense against them. Personally, my current theory is to have Snape go to DADA, since that is the only way I can see Harry continue in Potions (and it would give Snape a chance to see Harry and Neville excel in something!) Wow, that was a long sentence! -Barb From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 00:22:05 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:22:05 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115656 > bboyminn wrote: > > Never said Harry was the only choice. I'm sure all the students were > considered including Neville who on the surface seems the least likely candidate. None the less, I'm sure Neville was given a fair > evaluation. In fact, a very good case could be made for Neville, but > in the end, I'm sure we all agree that this was not Neville's time to shine. > > As far as Dean and Seamus, I'm sorry but I have to say that if they > were outstanding in any way, they would have ...well, you know... > stood out. If Seamus or Dean were academically excellent that > outstanding quality would have rated at least a small casual mention; Harry would have noticed. If Harry noticed then we would notice. If they were outstanding in their participation in any extracurricular activities, then again, they would have stood out and been worthy of at least a minor casual mention. > Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish Dean and Seamus, but > leaders are not those who are good and capable. They are those who > take initiative and are decisive. In a tough situation, the majority > of people sit and wait to be told what to do. Good leaders are the > ones who step up and create a decisive course of action. Harry, more > so, but Ron too, has demonstrated this. > > Give all we DO know, once every candidate had been evaluated, and a > fair case made for each of them, the only remaining likely candidates were Harry and Ron. They have proven themselves repeatedly, and that ability to act while others wait is what narrowed the field. Finally, down to those two, we know that Dumbledore decided that Harry was already carrying too much weight to have one more thing added. That leaves Ron. > > Once again, no one has said anything that even remotely convinces me > that Ron was anything less than a typical normal Prefect. We can't > judge him by either an idealized Prefect, or Hermione or Percy because those are unrealistic standards. Judged against a typcial Prefect, Ron was just as good as any. When trouble comes, who do you want standing > between you and trouble; Dean and Seamus, or Harry and Ron? Me, > clearly, I prefer to put my faith in the proven skills of Harry and > Ron. And, personally, I think Dumbledore agrees with me, which is why the only two realistic candidates were Harry and Ron. Then given that Dumbledore had his reasons for eliminating Harry, who is probably > everyone's first choice, that left Ron as Prefect. Carol responds: Sorry to jump into the debate in midstream, but I think your point about Harry having (in DD's view and JKR's) too many other things on his plate is indeed the true reason why he wasn't chosen. (I don't think he'll be Quidditch captain or Head Boy, either, even if he qualifies, which is a bit doubtful, because the fight against Voldemort is much, much more important.) As for why DD chose Ron rather than Seamus, Neville, or Dean, I think it was important for DD (and McGonagall, who surely had some say in appointing the prefects for her house) that the prefect be unquestionably loyal to Harry. (No doubt they both knew about the breach between Harry and Ron early in their fourth year and knew it had healed--otherwise, why choose *Ron* as the person for Harry to save in the second task?) And Ron *has* shown remarkable resourcefulness and courage (the chess game in SS/PS, confronting spiders despite being terrified of them, entering the Chamber of Secrets with Harry with the intention of saving his sister, etc.), so surely he deserved some reward other than house points. And Harry himself says that Ron must have some quality that he, Harry, doesn't have or DD would not have chosen him. That quality, IMO, is loyalty. Maybe DD was operating to some degree on intuition here, but he was proven correct in not giving the prefect position to Seamus when Seamus believed the Daily Prophet articles about Harry. (Nor to attack Seamus--the person who defended him by saying that Harry's response was unreasonable and reinforced Seamus's suspicions is correct, but my point is that DD wanted someone who would believe that Harry had truly confronted Voldemort--someone who had very nearly confronted Voldemort with him on more than one occasion, and would have done so if circumstances had not prevented him. It's also possible that DD wants to prepare Ron for a future leadership role, one that he was not really ready for in OoP but may do a better job of filling with the twins gone from Hogwarts. I think we'll see Ron come into his own in H-BP. (And Neville will, as well, but without the burden of being a prefect. He needs to deal with his fears and self-confidence without worrying about whether others obey him.) Someone has said recently that Draco is more Ron's nemesis than Harry's, and being a prefect puts Ron on equal footing with Draco. To get back briefly to Dean and Seamus, I'm not sure that we've seen Seamus display any particular talents, but Dean's skill at drawing/calligraphy/forging has been mentioned several times, maybe not in every book but in most of them. I have a feeling that particular talent will come in handy at some point. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 00:47:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:47:44 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: <20041007203243.64060.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115657 Alla wrote: > > > As I said prior I share the speculation that Snape participated in > > the torture of Neville's parents and I hope that Neville will > > remember it one day and will tell Snape everything he thinks about > > him. :o) > > > > I do think that Snape has an enormous guilt because of that, but > > hey, I can be wrong, of course. > > Magda responded: > Neville's parents were tortured after Voldemort fell, when people > were starting to feel safer. The DE's ostensibly tortured them to > find out where Voldemort was although I personally lean towards Red > Hen's theory that it was a kamikaze attack designed to make Crouch > Sr. look bad and thus make sure he wouldn't become Minister. Crouch > Sr. would have hunted down any and all DE's without mercy. > > Why would Snape have participated in the Longbottoms' torture after > Voldemort fell? > > Magda Carol adds: We saw in the Pensieve the four people who were responsible for torturing the Longbottoms: the three Lestranges and Barty Jr. There's no indication anywhere that anyone else was involved. Snape's trial was separate from theirs and seems to have no relation to it. Also Barty Jr.'s grudge against Snape would surely have been more personal if he escaped imprisonment for the same crime he went to Azkaban for. More important, Snape had *already* been spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow, which occurred some time before the Longbottom incident (people in the WW had sufficient time between the two incidents to feel safe again). Whether Snape was hired as a teacher at the beginning of term or immediately after Godric's Hollow, he was almost certainly at Hogwarts when the Longbottoms were tortured. In Dumbledore's words, he was at that time "no more a Death Eater than I am." Whatever sins Snape is guilty of as a Death Eater, I very much doubt that the torture of the Longbottoms is one of them. Carol From syroun at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 21:47:04 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:47:04 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115658 >snip> > Jen wrote: > > My thought is, does Snape really want his gifts acknowledged by > > the WW? The only information we have about this is in POA, when > > Dumbledore interprets that Snape is reeling from the loss of the > > Order of Merlin...Snape appears to be a loner with low regard > > for societal approbation. He doesn't seem the type to need > > outside monetary reward or intangibles... Syroun adds: If anything, Snape is a consumate professional. Potions are his forte and his teaching, whether kind or not, proves that his skills in this regard, are formidable. >snip> > Sigune: > Yes, I've been wondering about that Order of Merlin too... But I > think that when it comes to assessing Snape, Dumbledore might be a > tad more reliable than Harry, so I wouldn't dismiss his comment > straight away. We don't know for sure what Snape is doing in VW2, > but in VW1 he was a spy, and NOT a member of the Order of the > Phoenix. Syroun adds again: Do we really know that? > Sigune continues: > I agree that Snape appears a loner etc, but I don't think that > precludes a certain craving for recognition. I also have a problem > with the assumption that the WW at large knows that Snape was a > DE. If that is so, certainly a number of his students would know > so, too ("My dad says Snape's a nasty piece of work, he used to be > a Death Eater, you know; Papa doesn't want me > to take Potions > with him, he's sent Dumbledore several owls > already"), and it wouldn't have been much of a discovery in GoF. Finally, Syroun writes: Does canon actually provide any proof that it was common knowledge that Snape was a DE? In fact, canon shows that Snape himself has to physically prove to Crouch Sr. that he was a DE by showing Crouch his dark mark to convince him, albeit unsuccessfuly of LV's return. It seemed to be quite a shock to Crouch. So, how could we conclude that a person like Crouch who travels in many circles, would not know about Snape's DE past, if it really had been common knowledge? My thesis on this matter may have been discussed earlier on this site; if so, I apologize, but...I belive that Snape used his prowess in potion-making to provide LV with a potion he originally needed to become immortal or to remain so and in turn, served the dark lord in a way no one else ever had. Through that act, Snape sought, once and for all, to prove to the WW how superior his own skills were but also, erect a permanent place in society for Slytherinology and in doing so, spread their ideology to an adoring WW public. After the fact, Snape realized that his actions had enabled LV to carry out terrible acts and instigate a horrible war that even Snape may not have envisioned...a war that was waged against purebloods that stood in the way of LV's plans. That may have been Snape's breaking point. Within our view into Harry's world, we find Snape in the difficult position of siding with DD and even working for him, yet not in the teaching position that he is most skilled for. His current spying for the OOTP and his present siding with DD likely originated in his regrets about his DE past actions. Our view depicts him after that point that he chose to make such a fundamental change - he now seeks both atonement and retribution for his past mistakes, with the qualified trust of DD but less so from JKR. Snape would have expected to earn voluminous accolades for his potion work as a DE, whether they enabled LV to be immortal, or performed other studendous works and perhaps thought, within his own Slytherinistic views, that he was making historic improvements to the WW. When he realized that the awful results of his acts would mask his "means" of actual accomplishment in having made it all possible, he knew that he could not divulged the fact that he was responsible for them in public while the reality, as an "end" could, perhaps never be reversed. It was too late. Although he is cooperating with the OOTP now, it is likely that his thirst for power will rear it's ugly head again and perhaps, be his final undoing. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 00:48:16 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041016004817.64351.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115659 Legobaty wrote: >I also like the idea that Dumbledore is a "natural" animagus. But invisibility skills aside, wouldn't his animagus be a phoenix? Given that he has a strong affiliation with the bird. >I thought I saw a reference to Dumbledore's patronus as being a phoenix and I don't know whether one would have both the patronus and animagus in the same form. >Perhaps the patronus is always the protector/father figure - hence Harry's being the Stag his father turned into, and the animagus is more an animal representation of oneself.<< Hi! Kim here. I've been away from HP4GU for a few days. Wow, there sure is a lot to catch up on, but I think I'm at the most recent post on this particular thread. Your idea about the patronus being the animal form of the protector/father figure makes sense to me, though there's a slight problem because I don't think all wizards/witches neccessarily have animagus abilities (someone please correct me if they know otherwise), and so their children's patronuses(?) would have to be some other animal. Or, for example, in muggle-born Hermione's case, her otter patronus definitely can't be based on her parent's animagus. I'm not sure Dumbledore's animagus would necessarily be the same animal as his patronus (phoenix), though it is possible, I suppose. But being a transfiguration teacher, one would naturally assume he does have an animagus even though one has never been mentioned in canon. Some posts back on this thread, a couple of folks (sorry, I don't have their names handy) suggested that DD's animagus is a bumblebee since that's the meaning of the name Dumbledore. Similarly, Rita Skeeter's animagus was a beetle; a beetle's not the same as a mosquito (skeeter), of course, but the suggestion of an insect is still there in her name (and having an animagus as small as an insect is almost as good as being invisible -- you know the expression "like being a fly on the wall," where you're so small you can observe goings-on virtually unnoticed, and you're safe as long as no one sees you and swats at you!). Just as Sirius Black means black dog, and Remus Lupin suggests a wolf (though in his case turning into a werewolf isn't quite the same as having animagus abilities). Nevertheless, your idea that DD's animagus is a phoenix is still very interesting, considering that he might be able to come back to life if he died when in the form of a phoenix...! Cheers, Kim --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sat Oct 16 01:16:43 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:16:43 -0400 Subject: A Point to Ponder References: Message-ID: <005701c4b31d$cf6458a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115660 Hey, all, it's me again. While driving home from dinner (and thinking about the fanfic I'm writing), I had a thought. Well, a couple of them actually... This is a thought born straight out of my fanfic since I'm writing my own backstory for Lily and the Mauraders. Lucius goes to Hogwarts in 1965/66 (he was 41 in the fall of 1995 which puts his birthyear at 1954) so he was there when the Mauraders and Snape started. Bellatrix as well as the Lestrange brothers might have been there as well, that's a lot more hazy to prove, however. Could Lucius, along with Bellatrix and company have been the instigators between Snape and Sirius? Especially since Narcissa would have been at Hogwarts at about the same time* so Lucius and her would probably have been seeing each other and Sirius would have despised the very thought of his cousin dating a snake like Lucius. Also, too, the very thought of Sirius being in Gryffindor must have burned the Black Slytherins all to pieces. Betcha his mom sent a Howler about it to Dumbledore... Anyway, back to the point. Picture this - Snape tells Lucius/Bellatrix/Lestranges something, probably in response to a direct question. Lucius then goes to Sirius and James and tells them off, completely blowing what Snape said totally out of proportion, knowing it will get under their skin. Then he goes back to Snape and tells him what James and Sirius said without mentioning that he edited the story in the first place. Soon, things have reached a boiling point and Snape, James, and Sirius are deadly enemies while the instigator gets away scott free. That would explain the oh so attractive nickname they have for Snape as well as the somewhat irrational anger on both sides of the Pensive scene. Oh, and if this is the case, how much would that have pissed Snape off to learn how easily they had all been manipulated into hating one another's guts? That would be an awfully large and bitter pill to swallow. So, how about that for a conspiracy theory??? Nice and neat, all in checkable/deducable statements. Kethryn who is pretty proud of this conspiracy theory since she happens to suck at math. *Narcissa's justification for being at Hogwarts at the same time as Lucius - HP Lexicon has Bellatrix listed as a Slytherin in the early 70's Narcissa is younger than Bellatrix - on the Black family tree in OotP page 113-4 ""No, Andromeda's not on here either, look -" He pointed to another small round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa. But Harry was now looking at the name to the left of Andromeda's burn, Bellatrix Black." Ergo, if the WW does family trees like they have been done since forever, Bellatrix is the eldest sister since she is off to the left and Narcissa is the baby since she is off to the right. And, if Bellatrix was at Hogwarts, say, in 64, she graduated in 71. And since there were 3 sisters, presumbly Narcissa would be 3 or 4 years younger than Bellatrix which would put her at Hogwarts sometime around 68 which gave her 4 (I think) years to hook up with Lucius... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sat Oct 16 01:17:16 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:17:16 -0400 Subject: Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <005f01c4b31d$e2a4ef60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115661 Me again - If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in Slytherin? One would think that, since ancestry is what caused Salazar to split from Hogwarts, the Hat would know better (or be bewitched) than to put people into Slytherin that aren't pureblood. Of course, the Hat does take it upon itself to occasionally teach object lessons... Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From red_rider4 at lycos.com Fri Oct 15 16:45:01 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (Hester Griffith) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:45:01 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115662 Karen: > In Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron go down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does Hagrid answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? Thanks, Karen Becki responds; > I always thought that he was armed because there was the "Monster from the Chamber" loose on the school. Hagrid was there the last time it was let loose on the school so he knows the danger of it all. He know he wasn't the one that opened it and set forth the monster, which he has no idea what it is, except that it is so horrible that his pet Aragog wont even speak it's name. > > That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, (unless someone else comes > up with a better story, I am easily persuaded ;D ) Hester now: Welcome, Karen. Well, I never really thought about it before, but I agree with Becki. Aragog tells Harry and Ron that he begged Hagrid to set him loose from the school because he was afraid of the chamber monster. I also think Hagrid would be in regular contact with Aragog, especially since the chamber has been opened again. If a monster like that is afraid, I think it would be reasonable for Hagrid to be fearful as well. Also, he doesn't know what has been killing the roosters. /Someone/ is lurking at the school/on the grounds and he is on his own for protection. Hester From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 17:50:24 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:50:24 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <20041006002657.88396.qmail@web51903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115663 Alla: snip > > CHAPTER SUMMARY. snip Harry is at the > office door, when he sees a patch of shivering light > dancing on the door frame. Harry realizes that this > light reminds him of the lights in the room from his > dream. I had forgotten this "reminds him of the dream" thing. What do you think that is about?? Is this a clue to something? > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. > > > 1. So, what is the reason for the title of this > chapter? It had been discussed many times, but why not > give it another try? > > 7. "Students all around had turned to watch. Some of > them had gotten to their feet and were edging nearer > to watch. Some looked apprehensive, others > entertained." > "Several people watching laughed. Snape was clearly > unpopular" Why are there indications that the other > kids watching the scenery are not upset, but even > *enjoying* what Potter and Black are doing to Snape? > > 8. James responds to Lily's question "What did he ever > done to you? " with "it's more the fact that he > exists, if you know what I mean".(emphasis mine) , So > what does James mean and what is Lily supposed to > know?. > > 9. Why did Snape call Lily "mudblood"? Do you see any > indications in this chapter that he could have > feelings for her? barmaid's comments: This is *one* of the ways I imagine this scene: While we are told of Snape having a "gang" of Slytherin buddies I do believe that canon shows us Snape's character as really more that of a loner. Snape has just finished a hard test that he feels he has done well on. For one brief moment he feels that he has more in common with the smart, popular Marauders than the Crabe and Goyle like dopes he usually sits on the sidelines with. So he lurks on the edge of their turf ? maybe imagining that he could join in on the conversation about the signs of a werewolf or ask what they wrote for number 12. He knows he won't really join in. But he is close enough to pretend a little. Maybe for once he won't get picked on. But all too soon the popular powerful ones get board with talking about the test and find they need some entertainment. Snape knows from experience that he has to get out of there. He is not popular. He is not athletic or attractive. The gray underwear indicates either poverty or poor hygiene habits, both of which are fodder for taunting. He turns to leave, reaching for his wand. From his experience he knows that he'll need it. We know that the Marauders change a lot over the years after this event. We are told this anyway. However, there seems to be a general idea that young Snape is just a young version of the adult he has become. I do not think this one incident turned Snape from a good kid into a DE. But I also think that you can not discount the impact that bullying can have on a teen. I know I would count teenage humiliations as among my worst memories. I know those humiliations have impacted who I am today. Actually I can put myself in every role in this scene ? it all rings very true to teenage group dynamics. The crowd gains something from seeing the loser humiliated ? it lets them know that they are not the losers. It puts them on the side of the popular, smart and beautiful ones. The one being humiliated lashes out at the defender because they think that gives them some power in the situation. The one "goody good" speaks up for the "loser". It all seems very familiar to me. And deadly serious ? not just some "prank" but parts of the puzzle that make up the Snape we know today. Side thought: It is sort of interesting that while these are Snape's memories we do not know Snape's thoughts -- which may be the most important part of the story. From saraqael2000 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 18:46:40 2004 From: saraqael2000 at yahoo.com (Saraqael) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:46:40 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115664 --- > ...Either that or Percy turned > seventeen just after the school year began and had to wait till he was > almost eighteen to learn. If that were the case, I don't think he'd be > showing off quite so much. (BTW, JKR hasn't mentioned his birthday on > her site, so either he hasn't had a birthday between May 15 and > October 14, or he's off her list of good guys who merit a happy > birthday wish.) JKR did post Percy's birthday. It's August 22. From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 19:05:08 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:05:08 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Sirius thought Lupin was the traitor, > Lupin and the rest of the WW thought Sirius was the traitor, > A small group now think that Peter done the dirty instead and > Peter's demeanor suggests they may be right. > > But it might not be that simple. > Why was Peter, a wimp and wet of the first order, chosen as SK? > Sure, we've heard Sirius expounding his misdirection theory, and > a fine load of old claptrap it is. Why Peter when DD himself has > volunteered? Only one reason I can think of - Peter's weak, he'll > break easily. > Because it did cross my mind that to send the Potters to their doom > you don't need to tell Voldy their address, you only need to tell him > Peter's address. > > Peter breaks and gets the blame - but he doesn't, because he did > something totally unexpected - he survived. Voldy didn't kill him > once he'd been drained dry. There should have been another > body at GH - the SK who gave them away. But he lived and the true > author of the disaster must wipe him out as soon as possible, he > probably knows more than is healthy for the well-being of the > hidden double-dealer. > > As Sirius says, "You should have died!" While I find the idea of Sirius as the one who *really* betrayed James and Lilly interesting as a complex plot turn I do not think canon, in the form of JKR's website, holds it up. From the FAQ: Q: Do you like Sirius Black A: (sniped much) "Sirius is brave, loyal, reckless, embittered and slightly unbalanced by his long stay in Azkaban." (snip) "Sirius's great redeeming quality is how much affection he is capable of feeling. He loved James like a brother and he went on to transfer that attachment to Harry." Seems like some good fanfic fodder in the idea though! --barmaid From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 01:32:29 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:32:29 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <005f01c4b31d$e2a4ef60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115666 Kethryn wrote: > If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in Slytherin? One would think that, since ancestry is what caused Salazar to split from Hogwarts, the Hat would know better (or be bewitched) than to put people into Slytherin that aren't pureblood. Of course, the Hat does take it upon itself to occasionally teach object lessons... Well, the supply of purebloods is probably getting a little thin, there's a reference to that in SS/PS. But more importantly perhaps the Hat has taken it upon itself to look more at attitude than actual blood. For example Millicent Bullstrode is a halfblood (at least according to that book that JKR showed on TV), but if Millicent doesn't know it, and the family doesn't acknowledge it, then perhaps it doesn't matter much to the hat. Tom Riddle was a halfblood and was a Slytherin. Not just because he was the heir, but he had the attitude of a Slytherin, that wizards are better than muggles. He hated muggles, and perhaps that's more important to the hat? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 02:03:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:03:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: <00e601c4adb0$4a990c50$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115667 Feklar wrote: > > Yes, not just you, but many writers and posters seem to take it as a given they were friends (or had a relationship of some sort) in school, while it seems to me a bit more likely that it would have started after Lucius graduated. I also think it's possible they knew each other though family or social gatherings, but that doesn't mean they have much interest in talking to each other. Carol responds: The problem with this view is that Sirius never saw Severus after they left school. He didn't know that the young Snape had become a Death Eater at about the same time that he (Black) joined the Order, or that Snape turned against Voldemort and was spying for Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow, or that he had been teaching at Hogwarts since about the time of the Potters' deaths. He may have known that Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater, but certainly did not know that he had any contact with Snape. In other words, Sirius Black's view of Severus Snape as Lucius Malfoy's "lapdog" must have been formed in the only time when he saw the two of them together--when he and Severus were in their first and second years at Hogwarts and Lucius was in his sixth and seventh. It was, certainly, a very unequal relationship, but, based on Snape's reaction to Malfoy's presence at the graveyard in GoF, there was clearly some sort of bond between them--based, probably, on Lucius's notion that a child who knew that many hexes would no doubt prove a useful tool or ally at some point. I am *not* suggesting that Lucius was a junior recruiter of Death Eaters at sixteen (he may well have recruited the seventeen- or eighteen-year-old Severus when he himself was a veteran DE in his early twenties, but that's a different matter). We also know that Severus was "part of a gang of Slytherins, almost all of whom became Death Eaters," and the natural leader of that gang, while he was still at Hogwarts, would have been Lucius Malfoy. Snape may well look back on the Lucius of those days as his mentor, though I see no reason to think that he taught Severus the spells that Snape's enemy, Sirius Black, credits him with knowing. Whatever the relationship that Black has chosen to see as Snape's "lapdog" servility to Malfoy, it could only have occurred at that early point in all their lives. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 02:21:38 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:21:38 -0000 Subject: Sirius' death (was: Dept of Mysteries Veil Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115668 Debbie wrote: > Admittedly, I've never been a Sirius fan, and I've always thought he > was a dangerous influence on Harry because he *seemed* rational but > in fact his opinions were heavily coloured by his past experience. > Sirius represented to Harry not just someone who cared deeply about > him (in fact and not just in Harry's perception), but also a > connection to his family. He was a great comfort to Harry and I > will not denigrate that. > > Thematically, however, Sirius represents a POV that I think Harry > will move beyond, and therefore he needed to be removed as an > influence. The Sorting Hat exhorts the students from different > houses to unite or else "crumble from within." Sirius represents > an "us vs. them" mentality, in which those who are labelled as > enemies are not allowed to have shades of grey. The Sorting Hat's > philosophy would be anathem to Sirius, who labelled those he > associated with his family and the Dark Arts -- Kreacher, Snape, and > undoubtedly more than I am missing -- as enemies, and justified the > abuse and bullying on that basis. Despite the handshake Dumbledore > wangles out of them at the end of GoF, I cannot envision any true > alliance between Snape and Dumbledore; Carol responds: Do you mean between Snape and Sirius, I hope? I agree with you, and Sirius certainly didn't help matters by implying that Snape might try to harm Harry during the Occlumency lessons. And I agree that he was a bad influence with his black-and-white views, his stubbornness, and his recklessness. Admittedly, his upbringing is not his fault, nor is the betrayal by Peter, but he could have stayed out of Azkaban by going to Dumbledore for help instead of going after Peter himself. In essence, he taught Harry what *not* to do (going after Peter for revenge) and recklessly risking (and losing) his own life. And without denigrating the affection they felt for each other, based on a mutual need, I still think that Sirius's death is his most valuable contribution to Harry's development. He needs to feel and understand real grief, to mourn the loss of a loved one, to develop compassion and empathy for others. He never felt the loss of his parents because he never knew them, and Cedric's death, though terrible to witness (especially as he felt guilty, as well, for Cedric's being there), was the death of an acquaintance, not a close friend. To truly understand what Voldemort and the DEs have done to the WW, to understand what he is fighting against, Harry must have a loss of his own that he feels deeply. He must know what it means to mourn. And he, and the readers, must be prepared to mourn again because more deaths are coming. Carol, who knows what mourning is From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 02:25:51 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:25:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115669 > Karen: > > In Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry > and Ron go down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why > does Hagrid answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was > he expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? > Thanks, Karen > > Becki responds; > > I always thought that he was armed because there was the > "Monster from the Chamber" loose on the school. Annemehr: But would a monster knock on Hagrid's door? I still think he knew there had to be somebody connected to the Heir of Slytherin around, and as the Heir was Voldemort, Hagrid was afraid of Death Eaters knocking. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 16 03:09:40 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:09:40 -0000 Subject: Lack of sorting hat scenes in CoS & PoA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115670 Is there a reason (something plot-related? something sinister?) why there are no Sorting Hat scenes in books 2 & 3? Is there something about the Sorting those years that Harry [and/or we] aren't supposed to see or hear? The CoS one is fairly understandable, given the brouhaha over the Ford Anglia in the Whomping Willow which needed to be dealt with, and which took some time to sort out [pardon the pun], but the "excuse" for missing it in PoA -- McG talking to Harry to make sure he's OK after the Dementor-induced faint and chatting briefly w/ Hermione about her "course schedule" -- feels a little contrived *and* would have taken a much shorter time. Would it really have equated to the entire Sorting? Does anybody think there could be something to this? Or was JKR just having trouble coming up with a new Sorting Hat song for every single year? Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 03:50:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:50:04 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115671 Neri wrote: > > Why does Snape prefer the cold dungeon so much that he made it his office? It might be due to a mechanistic reason (like "Snape is a vampire") but I tend to think it is a metaphor. IMHO JKR tells us that Snape is a cold person. Unnaturally cold, actually, so much so that there is something suspicious about his humanity. > > > Sandy here: > I've always wondered if Snape didn't end up with the dungeon office as a form of self-inflicted punishment for whatever deeds he might have done as a DE. (nothing I can prove, just an occasional thought, since he seems the kind of brooding personality that might do that). Another possibility would be that DD assigned him the dungeon digs as a gentle reminder that he *could* be in Azkaban, instead, but that is out of character for DD. Carol notes: The Slytherin common room is in the dungeon, and perhaps the dormitory is as well. So is the Potions lab. It only makes sense to have Snape's office adjacent to the lab (as we know it is, because Hermione steals potion ingredients from his office during class in CoS). It's probably where he feels most at home--and even, metaphorically connected with the Dark Arts he probably is still fascinated by. As for the absent fire in the fireplace in CoS, he isn't in his office when Ron and Harry arrived by flying car. Instead, he's waiting for them, apparently just inside the main entrance. (He discovers them still outside, looking through a window at the banquet and they follow him "down a narrow stone staircase that led to the dungeons" and halfway down [a] cold passageway" to his office, Am. ed. 78). In PoA, by contrast, the fire in Snape's office is lit when he finds Harry with the Marauder's Map and he throws something like Floo powder into it to summon Lupin (Am. ed. 287). So he's not entirely immune to cold, though he may be more used to it than Harry is. BTW, we don't know exactly where his sleeping quarters are, but evidently they're not attached to his office. In GoF, he speaks of passing his office on his way to investigate the "banging and wailing" on the stairs coming down from the fifth floor (where Harry is hiding under his invisibility cloak with his foot stuck in a trick step) and finding that someone has broken in (Am. ed. 469). Yet his office is in the lower lefthand corner of the map (466)--very odd that he would pass it going anywhere. At any rate, he later sweeps downstairs and along the fourth(?)-floor corridor and slams a door (474). There's no indication where he goes after that, but I'm guessing it's down to another part of the dungeon, maybe along the west wall if his office is in the southwest corner and he passes it going to and coming from the staircase where Harry is trapped. So he sleeps in the dungeon, too, in his long grey nightshirt. . . . Carol, wondering why she went to so much trouble to verify the locations for the "BTW" part of her post! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 04:09:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:09:12 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115672 Sue wrote: > > Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike!* Both are canon, then. Now,you could suggest that he got back, thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ... did whatever he did with the bike. But my bet is that the original was simply a mistake on the author's and editor's part, too late to change. :-) > > But yes, it quite probably IS somewhere in the Forbidden Forest if we ignore the glitch. Carol responds: We had a thread about this discrepancy awhile back. It turns out that the American edition of SS has Hagrid saying, "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" (16) but the British edition has a different reading. Can anyone provide that other reading and might it be a correction made to later printings while JKR was writing PoA? But then he also says, "Young Sirius Black lent it me" (14), which I think is the same in both editions. Carol, who notes that we can't blame the editor for not knowing the plot of future books From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 04:24:09 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:24:09 -0000 Subject: The Dursleys and Harry: Neglect or abuse? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" Alex wrote: > Just a quick note here: while lots of abused children do not have > normal psychological development, the range of responses is quite > varied. As far as I know, no one is really sure why one person coming from an abusive background turns out to be, as you say, a sociopath and another with a similar background turns out more-or-less OK. There are lots of theories, but mainly it seems to be a matter of individual psychological resilience. Harry's fairly-normal emotional development is *unusual*--one would probably expect him to have more problems than he does--but not *completely* unrealistic. If you took a hundred RW kids with backgrounds like Harry's (which wouldn't be tough, provided you left out the almost-killed-by-evil-wizard bit), you'd expect most of them to show some psychological problems, a few to be total sociopaths, and a few more to be basically OK despite it all. Carol adds: Not to mention that late-twentieth-century homes with electricity, running water, TVs, modern appliances, etc. are not the environment in which the majority of the human race grew up and developed. Living conditions in, say, a medieval castle, would be unendurable for most modern Europeans or Americans--no central heating or air conditioning; no running water or plumbing. Children can grow up to be productive citizens under conditions we would consider unliveable, including disciplinary practices ("spare the rod; spoil the child") that we now view as abusive. I am not defending the Dursleys. I'm only saying that for millennia RW children have endured far worse conditions than Harry does without becoming sociopaths. (Exposure to the mindless violence of many TV programs and video games is another matter, and Dudley could be in greater danger than Harry of ending up in prison or an institution for the criminally insane.) Just my opinion. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 04:42:45 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:42:45 -0000 Subject: A thought about PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115674 kmc wrote: > > He [Dumbledore] may have been expecting Sirius to be at GH. It may be the reason he sent Hagrid and not someone else. I have read these books numerous times and it is just now that I associated the "No problems, were there?" with the fact that Sirius was there. > > > > Which leads to another question? If the Potters were being > protected by the Fidelus charm, how did Hagrid know where Harry > was? You would think that the charm was still in effect and Hargid > could put his nose right against the rubble and not see Harry. > Hannah responded: > Hagrid was a friend of the Potters, so he may have known the > location. He could have been shown a piece of paper where Peter had > written the location (so needn't have known of the switch). I think > that the charm was broken when the house blew up. After all, > muggles were alerted and 'started swarming round.' So Hagrid > needn't even have known. As for DD's lack of reaction to Sirius > being there, it's just another suspicious thing about the whole set > up. Carol adds: I'm not so sure about the piece of paper (where would it have come from?), but I agree that the spell ending when Voldemort killed the Potters is at least a plausible explanation for DD's being able to tell Hagrid where to find them. I think he also told Hagrid that Sirius might use his claim as Harry's godfather to try to take the child and Hagrid was to refuse him at all costs. "No trouble, was there?" is DD's way of asking whether Sirius caused any trouble without revealing to either Hagrid or McGonagall that DD thinks Sirius betrayed the Potters. After all, he doesn't *know* anything except that James *planned* to make Sirius the Secret Keeper. The incident in which Sirius goes after Peter and ostensibly murders thirteen people hasn't happened yet, or if it has, DD soen't yet know about it. There's a difference, after all, between betraying someone and trying to kidnap a child and actually committing cold-blooded murder. And DD appears satisfied that Sirius didn't try to prevent Hagrid from taking Harry to Dumbledore. What else he thought we don't know. Possibly "innocent until proven guilty"? The Pettigrew incident, unfortunately, seems to have provided that "proof." I've argued elsewhere that Dumbledore expected to find Harry alive because he had helped Lily to protect Harry using "ancient magic." Note that *Dumbledore* never denies that Voldemort tried to kill Harry. Maybe he knows ways to protect against Avada Kedavra that no one else, including Crouch!Moody and Voldemort, knows. Carol, noting that The Boy Who Lived loses its significance if we think that Voldemort used anything other than the Killing Curse on Harry and wondering whether anyone has actually checked the relevant passages to see whether the green light precedes or follows the high, cold laugh From madettebeau at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 04:44:27 2004 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:44:27 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115675 Sue wrote: > > Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid > says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this > strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD > and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike!* > Both are canon, then. Carol wrote: > We had a thread about this discrepancy awhile back. It turns out that > the American edition of SS has Hagrid saying, "I'll be takin' Sirius > his bike back" (16) but the British edition has a different reading. > Can anyone provide that other reading and might it be a correction > made to later printings while JKR was writing PoA? But then he also > says, "Young Sirius Black lent it me" (14), which I think is the same > in both editions. Maddy writes: Well, in my Bloomsbury/Raincoast edition of PS it says: (on page 16) 'Hagrid,' said Dumbledore, sounding relieved.'At last. And where did you get that motorbike?' 'Borrowed it, Professor Dumbledore, sir,' said the giant, climbing carefully off the motorbike as he spoke. 'Young Sirius Black lent it me. I've got him, sir." ... (and on page 17) 'Yeah,' said Hagrid in a very muffled voice. 'I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back. G'night, Professor McGonagall - Professor Dumbledore, sir.' ... (and in my Bloomsbury/Raincoast edition of PoA it says, on page 153) '...an' Sirius Black turns up, on that flyin' motorbike he used ter ride. Never occurred ter me what he was doin' there...' ... (and on page 154) 'Black argued, but in the end he gave in. Told me ter take his motorbike to get Harry there. "I won' need it any more," he says.' So, in PS, it says Sirius *lent* it to Hagrid, and Hagrid was under the impression he had to return it. But in PoA, Hagrid says Sirius didn't want it anymore. I could be that Hagrid is inconsistant with his story-telling. At that point in PS, he didn't know that Sirius had been the Potter's Secret-Keeper, or anything about Sirius that would have made Hagrid suspicious of him. Where as in PoA, Hagrid had long since been of the opinion that Sirius was a traitor, and perhaps either remember or invented the detail of Sirius saying he didn't need the bike anymore, because it makes Sirius somehow seem more suspicious. The more and more a person tells a story, little, minor, somewhat insignificant details are changed from the original; people don't always remember correctly, so they fill in the blanks, exaggerate, and eventually come to some sort of settled decision on what happened, even if they're not remembering the truth. Or, as Carol says, it could be an editing and writing error. =) Maddy (who also, still has no clue where Sirius's bike is...but hopes this helps somewhat) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 04:47:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:47:11 -0000 Subject: Marauders Map In-Reply-To: <003101c4ade1$d57a5eb0$b6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115676 DuffyPoo wrote: > > Actually, the Shrieking Shack should have been on the map as MWPP were there once a month, at least. It may have been on, but as F&G told HP that the tunnel was not accessible from the Hogwarts end, he never bothered to look to see where in Hogsmeade the tunnel came out. I'm quite certain, knowing F&G, that once the message appeared on the wall at Hallowe'en, they searched the map for the Chamber, as well. Since MWPP didn't know where it was, even if they did know of its existence -- it seems most people have heard the story of the first opening -- they could not put it on the map. Must've ticked them off royally...what fun they *think* they could have had down there! > Carol notes: But the Marauder's Map covers only Hogwarts and its grounds (apparently not including Hagrid's Hut, as discussed in other posts). The Shrieking Shack is in Hogsmeade and consequently would not be on the map regardless of how often MWPP went there. Carol From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 04:47:51 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:47:51 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115677 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy" wrote: > > Kethryn wrote: > > > If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide > anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in > Slytherin? One would think that, since ancestry is what caused > Salazar to split from Hogwarts, the Hat would know better (or be > bewitched) than to put people into Slytherin that aren't pureblood. > Of course, the Hat does take it upon itself to occasionally teach > object lessons... > > Angie here: Perhaps the Sorting Hat is attempting to keep those with the wrong attitude out of the other three houses; therefore, they all wind up in Slytherin? But then again, the Hat has a history of preaching unity, in spite of its seemingly divisive function, so perhaps that supports your idea about object lessons. Personally, I think the Sorting Hat knowns there's really no such thing as purebloods anymore -- maybe there weren't really any purebloods as early as when the Fab Four broke up -- maybe that was part of Salazar and Godric's disagreement? After all, the Sorting Hat did belong to Godric. I hope JKR clarifies the whole pureblood concept -- maybe that will come up in HBP? :) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 05:02:03 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:02:03 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115678 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Sue wrote: > > > > Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid > says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this > strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD > and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike!* > Angie here: Funny, but I didn't see that as an inconsistency. In SS, when Hagrid said he had to return the bike, I just thought that maybe Sirius hadn't yet gone to find Wormtail, that Hagrid saw him before he left to find Wormtail (for some reason I want to say it was daylight when Sirius found him?), and then Sirius told Hagrid to keep the bike. I'm sure those who have diligently dissected the timeline can set me straight on this. I was actually thinking of this the other day -- in SS, could Hagrid have flown the motorcycle to the island to get Harry? They took the boat back, but Hagrid told Harry he flew there. I read the scene where Harry heard the crunching of the rocks; it was so noisy, Harry wondered if the rocks were crumbling into the sea. I'd always assumed that was Hagrid walking up to the door. But then I thought, it could have been the motorcycle crunching on the rocks and Hagrid could have charmed it to fly back to Hogwarts. After all, it was dark when he arrived. I believe the bike is at Hogwarts somewhere -- if Sirius had it, surely he would have used it for transportation in GOF and to escape being cooped up in OOP? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 05:15:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:15:58 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115679 HunterGreen wrote: > It is rather hard to defend him [Snape] when he's being cold to Lupin at every opportunity, but then again, Lupin doesn't seem bothered by it (and he is dutifully making that potion for Lupin, although I'm sure he *detests* having to do it). Carol notes: I agree that Snape should be given credit for dutifully making that potion for a man he detests, but we need to understand that 1) he thinks that Lupin was in on what he sees as Sirius's plot to kill him (the reckless and very dangerous Prank). 2) He does not share the view of many readers that werewolves are innocent victims of prejudice. He holds the view of most people in the WW that werewolves are highly dangerous (and not fully human) and he is (rightly) concerned for the safety of the students. And 3) he thinks that Lupin is helping Sirius Black, an apparent homicidal maniac, to get into the castle. Lupin is presented from the beginning as a sympahtetic character (although there are hints of something mysterious and ominous about him) and Black is shown, after some very scary and unstable behavior, to be innocent of the crimes Snape understandably believes him to be guilty of. But surely Snape's coldness to Lupin, and even his rage in the Shrieking Shack, are understandable given the "facts" as he sees them. I think a catalogue of Snape's behavior in PoA need not be incriminating as long as we realize that he is not privy to our after-the-fact knowledge and that he has reasons for being unable to view either Lupin or Black objectively. Snape is Snape, and of course he's very far from perfect, but mistaken assumptions and prejudice against werewolves (viewed by the writers of Harry's textbooks and the entire WW as Dark Creatures) don't make him evil. Carol Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 16 05:27:56 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:27:56 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115680 Nora: > One starts to wonder about Sirius' account of the DEs screaming at Peter in prison; unless you want to do the 'Oh, Sirius is lying out of his ass' (which is always a dangerous move to make because it can then be done to ANYTHING), that's an interesting statement.< Pippin: Oh, Sirius is nothing if not sincere. We have to account for the DE's thinking that Wormtail set Master up. I'll get to that below. But as it bears on Jen's post also, I ask your patience. Nora: > Two, Peter really is under a lot of stress. I suspect that his functions as spy did not involve things like direct confrontation, but rather the passing of information here, there--and he's the type of person who people don't *notice*, so that's a good role for him. Now, put him in a situation where he's 1) trapped 2) confronted by some very, very angry people 3) *outnumbered*, and you have a very different reaction. < Pippin: If the Sirius/Harry version of events is the true one, Peter *volunteered* that he was the Secret Keeper. "It has happened, My Lord...the Potters have made me their Secret-Keeper" and "It must have been the finest moment of your miserable life, telling Voldemort you could hand him the Potters." But Peter the bush league spy, throwing a useful bit of info Voldie's way now and then, doesn't mesh with Peter who suddenly decides to smack one out of the park and betray the biggest secret the Order has, one that would identify him as the betrayer. Peter's got to have known how dangerous that would be. "You should have realized...if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would." Why should Peter take such a risk? Sirius would do something for a fine moment, but Peter? Nora: > Also, we get into the complications of your invoked ESE!Lupin theory, and I'm sure you don't need a reiteration of why the theory is ingenious yet problematic, right? :) In fact, I'm getting rather confused about how it all fits into this. Are you postulating a series of events in which Peter *was* the SK (this is not absolutely proven, but close), but not the spy beforehand--a situation where Voldie went and got to him when he became SK/because he was SK, tipped off by ESE!Lupin? In that case, no, I don't know why Voldie wouldn't kill Peter and get rid of one more (if this is true, loyal) Order member. But it doesn't make a particular amount of sense, while the more straightforward reading answers more of my questions...< Pippin: ESE!Lupin *is* complicated. Harry has often had to abandon his simple theories for more complicated ones. At least it doesn't involve time travel ...knock wood... , and it doesn't require characters to do things they haven't been shown to be capable of in canon. And yes, I contend Peter was the SK but not the spy beforehand. I maintain he was betrayed, found, broken down within a short time (just as he was in the Shrieking Shack), branded with the Dark Mark, and forced to lead Voldemort to the Potters. I speculate: After the disaster at GH, Peter tipped off Fudge that Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ran for it, knowing that the betrayer would have to come after him and silence him. He faked his death in front of all those Muggle witnesses, expecting that the DMLE would find Sirius guilty of his death. But the real spy was hunting too, and he's the one who killed the Muggles, though whether he was aiming at Peter or Sirius I can't say. Maybe, like Wormtongue in LOTR, his aim was poor because he couldn't decide which he hated more. I think Peter was innocent of killing the Muggles, and I don't think he wanted to betray his friends. But he was still an illegal animagus and, however reluctantly, a servant of Voldemort and the betrayer of James and Lily. He had no reason to think he would receive mercy from the likes of Crouch, and as he says himself, he doesn't think he deserves it. > Pippin: > > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been > > Voldemort's spy for a whole year? > > Jen: That's really the central question here: Is it believable that Peter was able to spy against the Order for a year, without breaking down in front of his old friends?< > > Peter's characterization is ambiguous at best. He's a cringing, obsequious, "weak little thing" in the Shrieking Shack and a coldly competent hit-man in the graveyard. He makes a half-hearted, timid plea to Voldemort for Harry's life at the beginning of GOF, then calmly ties Harry to a gravestone in preparation for his torture and death. So which is it? Will the real Peter please stand up?< Pippin: Wormtail didn't "calmly" tie Harry to the gravestone. --Harry could hear shallow, fast breathing from under the hood [...]his fingers trembling uncontrollably, fumbling over the knots. -- A few minutes before that, somebody whom Harry did *not* see, but whom JKR has identified as "Wormtail", killed Cedric coldly and competently. So Wormtail is either the most dissociated personality since Dr. J and Mr. H, or, just possibly, there are two people called Wormtail in the story. We know there are two Tom Riddles and two Barty Crouches, and we have evidence of two Professor R.J. Lupins. Since Lupin never worked as a professor, the briefcase with that name and title in peeling letters can't orginally have been his. Then there's the Mark Evans kerfuffle--a character of *no* importance, but one who had to have a common name. Common, as in shared with other people? We can't say this is a plot device JKR doesn't use. And while there really isn't a whole lot of point to Peter using the Wormtail alias among the Death Eaters, there is a great deal of point to another spy using it. So, even if Peter Pettigrew wasn't spying for a year, it is very possible that "Wormtail" was. It would be this "Wormtail" who is indeed a coldly competent spy and murderer, whom the DE's in Azkaban blamed for their troubles. I think it's Lupin, because we know he's cool, competent, and willing to kill in front of three witnesses. Even a lawful execution is not a fit sight for the Trio's eyes according to Hagrid, but Lupin seems to have no qualms about it at all. Very curious, that. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 06:20:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:20:24 -0000 Subject: OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115681 Andrea asked: > " So I repeat, other than Theodore Nott's conversation with Malfoy, > C&G, have we seen him before in cannon? Is there any evidence that he is, in fact, in their year and in their potions class?" > > Del replied: > Ooooh yes :-) I'm smiling because I'd been waiting for Theo Nott ever since I'd read the Graveyard scene in GoF. When Nott Sr was mentioned. my mind clicked. I went back to PS/SS (that I had read way too many times :-) and there it was : a Nott being Sorted into Slytherin. > > So yes we do know that there's a Nott in Slytherin in Harry's year. It would be very surprising if it weren't Theo. Carol adds: Also it seems probable that the "stringy-looking" Theo is the same person as the "weedy-looking" Slytherin boy in Harry's Care of Magical Creatures class who can see Thestrals. We know from the website that Theo has lost his mother, and if he saw her die, then he would be able to see Thestrals. Carol, who may have "stringy" and "weedy" reversed and apologizes for not looking it up From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 06:26:37 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:26:37 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115682 Nora snipped: One more issue, perhaps, to think of: we can surmise, I think, that DD gave Black a good one-over when he had him alone in the office. Ergo, DD, when he exerts the effort, knows when he is being lied to. Snow: I have to agree that Dumbledore saw guilt in Sirius when he interviewed him, in POA, and was left with little alternative but to except to save Sirius's life while saving the most important life of all, Harry. Dumbledore is one quick thinker. He needed to save Harry's life from the dementors so Harry would have to go back in time. Giving explanations was not an alternative given the time frame involved. What else to do but use the source that was given to him which, unfortunately, was the guilty party; Sirius. If Harry had not saved his previous self then Voldemort would have won. Dumbledore's rhetorical request for Harry and Hermione to go back in time to save more than one innocent life was the life of Harry and Buckbeak not Sirius and Buckbeak. Dumbledore gave Harry bait; an initiative to go back in time, to help someone Harry cared about because Harry believed what Sirius said yet Dumbledore was really concerned over losing Harry. When Harry went back in time he saved three lives: Sirius, Buckbeak and more importantly himself. It is Harry that Dumbledore was referring to when he said that they would save more than one innocent life. Buckbeak was innocent of the crime he had been accused of; Buckbeak was provoked even though Draco was warned that to insult a hippogriff could be deadly. We know that Harry and Buckbeak were both innocent so where does that leave Sirius but bait for Harry's commitment to get the job done. The actual drawback to the whole plan was that Harry saw Sirius as being innocent and rescued him. This plan was the only way Dumbledore could assure that Harry would succeed. Sirius was nothing more than a tool that in the future could be extinguished when its necessity was no longer required, and it was. There are several hints that I had spotted (recently) in JKR's referencing of Sirius that make me feel totally uneasy about the character we thought we knew: (1) She has an entire past history on this specific character (2) She had stated that one of her earlier drafts of GH was where Sirius was meeting with a known death-eater outside GH (3) She said that the two-way mirror wouldn't have helped as much as we think If Sirius were guilty would the two-way mirror really help? Sirius is accusatory to most everyone but especially to Snape. If you are a person that believes in Sirius (especially given the x-con status of Snape) the majority of people will believe what Sirius accuses Snape of being with denial for Snape's rebuttal. But if you allow for a guilty Sirius, not knowing the total background of this character that has a whole lot of back history (undisclosed by the author) to be the guilty party, then Snape's accusations become phenomenal. When Snape turned over a new leaf he did it with the utmost sincerity but there still remains to be only one person who has true belief; Dumbledore. Why, because we (the readers) have not been told the circumstances in which Dumbledore accepts Snape to the degree of offering him a position as professor at the school almost immediately after Snape's confession to Dumbledore and defiantly before GH. James even knew about the accusations of Sirius by Snape: Snape saying to Harry in the Shrieking Shack that he was as arrogant as his father to believe in Sirius. Sirius must have been pretty good to pull the wool over so many eyes (US, the readers) along with not only James but also Lily. Why would Sirius have done this to his best friend, his brother? We (readers) haven't been privy to that information yet many, many theories could be introduced as to the why could or would Sirius have ever have done such a thing when we know via JKR that his redemption quality was his love for James and Harry? Well the word redemption is a big clue. Redemption is to change your ways to understand and attempt to fix the error of your ways. Sirius had twelve years to sit on ice and think of what he had done. Redemption at the hand of freedom was to seek out Pettigrew, who he faulted for his imprisonment, but what he found was his best friend in his best friend's son, staring him in the face. Innocent and alive was his best friend again. How scary is that or how redemptive? These are a few questions that Sirius supporters, myself included, may ask: (1) How could Sirius have been the bad guy when he didn't know about the dark mark on the arm in the cave in GOF? (2) How could Sirius have done something like this to his best friend? (3) How could Sirius have held such contempt for his younger brother if he were on the dark side? (4) Why would Sirius have left his home if his priorities differed from his parents? (5) Why was Sirius a Gryffindor when his family portrayed Slytherin? My rebuttal for these questions would be: (1) Not knowing about the dark mark on the arm was sheer brilliance. (2) How could you do this to your best friend is totally up for theorizing but there could be many. (3) How could little brother be viewed so badly when he was apparently attempting escape from what he knew was wrong, simple; Sirius viewed him as a coward. (4) The last question is very plain; Sirius thought his parents were full of hot air along with his brother and left to observe the opposition, inside info that could be used against them. (5) This one is questionable but I have a few idea's like why was Tom Riddle in Slytherin In closing I would like to admit that I am devastated by my own post because Sirius is the one character, even though I try to stay detached so I can see more clearly, whom I totally fell for. I can, however, put aside Harry's and my desire to fall for the parent he never had and admit that Sirius may not be what he/we thought. The flip/flop from the devious minded Sirius to the have to make things up redemptive Sirius could allow for anyone to make an indecisive decision. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 06:59:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:59:24 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115683 I (Carol) wrote : > But assuming that Neville were to talk back to Snape or refuse to > follow directions or some other uncharacteristic behavior that could > serve no purpose except to annoy Snape and confirm his bad opinion > of Neville, I can easily picture Snape's reaction. No tears, no wry > grin, no confusion--just a cold, blank stare and a silky "Ten points > from Gryffindor, Longbottom. And if you speak again, it will be > detention." > > > > Valky: > Ahh but, Carol, you tar Neville with the wrong brush. > Neville cannot confirm Snapes bad opinion of him for it is simply > not in him to do so. Originally I posted that Nevilles defiance of > Snape will constitute a defiance of Snapes preconceptions of > weakness in Neville. Longbottom is stubbornly virtuous, his defiance > won't be "uncharacteristic". And *that* will be its effectiveness. Carol again: I certainly didn't intend to "tar" Neville with any brush. I was only trying to imagine quiet, timid Neville defying Snape in the way dzeytoun seems to want him to do and Snape's reaction if he did so. "Defiance" to me suggests rudeness and disrespect (justified in cases where the person being defied is Voldemort but out of place in a school and out of character for Neville). I don't consider "stubborn virtue" to be "defiance." I think we both want Neville to politely and "virtuously" demonstrate to Professor Snape that he's mistaken about Neville's abilities. And maybe, now that he has a new wand and can perform Charms and Transfiguration spells correctly, he'll be able to succeed in making potions correctly as well. Only I doubt that he'll have the opportunity, as I doubt that he earned the "O" needed to take NEWT potions. Can a person "defy" a preconception? If so, it's a different thing from defying the person's authority, or defying the person himself, which I for one *would* not find amusing or appropriate from Neville (and *do* not find amusing or appropriate from Harry). Carol, who wants Neville to get over his fear of Snape and get on with more important things From erinellii at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 07:04:58 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:04:58 -0000 Subject: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115684 ... one version of it, anyways. Something posted on another list I'm a member of made me think that not enough fans remembered (or knew of in the first place) the Minerva McGonagall/Tom Riddle SHIP. As it's one of my favorite HP theories, I'd like to capitalize on all the recent McGonagall discussion and repost here what I posted there to explain the SHIP, just so you all aren't so surprised when it comes true in HBP, lol. So far as I can tell, the theory stems from three answers Rowling gives in interviews, and from information about Riddle/Voldemort's age in CoS. Questions number one and two, from the Comic Relief chat in 2001, are: ********************* Q: Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? A: Good question - yes, a few of them but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why. Q:What is your favourite book ever (not including Harry Potter)? A: Let's see...there are loads probably 'Emma' by Jane Austen ********************* Okay, so the questions now become -- *which* teachers are secretly married, and *why* is that information restricted? Why would JKR restrict the information about married teachers? Well, probably because something about them will surprise the reader, and also reveal important clues to the plot. In other words, because the information Bangs. This is where Jane Austen's Emma as a favorite book comes in. For those of you who haven't read Emma, the surprise ending of the novel hinges on the discovery of a marriage previously unsuspected by the heroine. But what exactly could be so bangy about teachers being married? Why should we care? Let's start with the teachers fans care about. It's a fairly short list, I suspect. A Married!Professor Sprout or Flitwick is not going to make us sit up and go "Aha!". So I think we can narrow it down to Snape, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hagrid, and possibly Trelawny. Of these, the most suitable is clearly McGonagall. Trelawney rarely leaves her tower room, and when Umbridge fires her she says Hogwarts is her home and she has nowhere else to go. Hagrid felt free to court Madame Maxime in GoF, something I don't think his straightforward character would permit were he already attached to a spouse. If Dumbledore had a living wife she would have been mentioned on his Chocolate Frog Wizard Card, or in one of the newspaper articles about him. Snape... well, he has enough mystery without a wife, and, sadly, I don't think JKR sees him as very lovable :-( So McGonagall it is. There are a myriad of possible hookups for her (some including Dumbledore, Snape, and Hagrid, and my new favorite, the Half-Blood prince himself!) but the one we're focusing on is Tom Riddle. It has to be Riddle back when he was still Riddle, because no one thinks scaly Voldemort capable of attracting women other than Bellatrix, unless you go for Evil!McGonagall, and that's a whole different kettle of fish than a simple McGonagall/Riddle Ship. So, when was Riddle still Riddle? According to both the CoS "fifty years ago" statement and the supposedly JKR-approved time line on the CoS DVD, Voldemort is between 65 and 67 in CoS. Which brings us to the third interview question, asked in 2000, the year of GoF's release. ******************************** 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.) ********************************* Aha! So if McGonagall is 70 at the time of GoF, and Voldemort is, say, 69... then they were in school together! At most, Riddle was three years younger, but they could be construed as in the same grade, depending on when their birthdays are. So... this is how my favorite Riddle/McGonagall scenario goes. Tom Riddle is in his sixth year at Hogwarts. He's evil, and last year he opened the Chamber of Secrets, commanded the basilisk, and got a poor, nerdy little girl named Myrtle killed, but no one even suspects this save a handful of Tom's "most intimate friends" and transfiguration teacher Albus Dumbledore. Dumbledore is watching Tom more closely these days. Tom needs something to make himself seem more like a normal, happy teenager and less like a budding Evil Overlord. And besides, people are beginning to talk: "What's up with that Tom Riddle? He's handsome, brilliant, a prefect, makes good grades, a brave chap... how come he's never dated anyone?" Tom needs a girlfriend to make his twisted life seem normal. A Slytherin girl would hardly put Dumbledore off the scent, so he decides on Minerva McGonagall, a Gryffindor prefect nearly as brilliant as himself, and one of Dumbledore's star transfiguration pupils. An alternate scenario is that Tom needed something from Minerva, something only she could provide. Perhaps something to do with skill in transfiguration, or the fact that she is a Gryffindor, or (if she is a year or two older) access to somewhere that an older prefect could provide. In any case, Tom needs to get close to Minerva. "If I say it myself, Harry, I've always been able to charm the people I needed."-- Tom Riddle, CoS Ch. 17. Minerva is completely taken in by Tom's good looks and charm. And for his part, Tom discovers that it's easy to say and do all the right things when there are no messy feelings involved. He can be smooth and secure in his role of the perfect boyfriend. And for whatever reason, things go too far. Perhaps Tom continues to make use of Minerva's skills at transformation and is loathe to give them up. Perhaps he is unable to think up a reason to dump her that will allow him to keep his "good guy" image. Or maybe he thinks she'll continue to make a good cover for his evil activities even after Hogwarts. Soon after they finish school, the two are married. And then it happens. Tom is careless and Minerva gets an inkling of the sort of man she is really married to. She is horrified, there is a huge fight, and she tells him to "Get out!!". And he does. In fact, he leaves that very night to go on his long journey around the world, the one where he "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...". Minerva 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. When Riddle does surface again, he is calling himself Lord Voldemort and is unrecognizably altered in appearence. He doesn't contact Minerva, 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 from the angry friends and relatives of the dead by keeping silent. So... that's one version of McGonagall/Riddle. At all plausible, do you think? --Erin From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Oct 16 09:19:08 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:19:08 -0000 Subject: Lack of sorting hat scenes in CoS & PoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Is there a reason (something plot-related? something sinister?) why > there are no Sorting Hat scenes in books 2 & 3? Is there something > about the Sorting those years that Harry [and/or we] aren't supposed > to see or hear? > > The CoS one is fairly understandable, given the brouhaha over the > Ford Anglia in the Whomping Willow which needed to be dealt with, > and which took some time to sort out [pardon the pun], but > the "excuse" for missing it in PoA -- McG talking to Harry to make > sure he's OK after the Dementor-induced faint and chatting briefly > w/ Hermione about her "course schedule" -- feels a little contrived > *and* would have taken a much shorter time. Would it really have > equated to the entire Sorting? > > Does anybody think there could be something to this? Or was JKR > just having trouble coming up with a new Sorting Hat song for every > single year? Sue: Or it might just have been that there was no special reason to put in a Sorting Hat scene? For purposes of tight writing, perhaps? There was certainly a reason to have the scene in OOTP, because the Hat was warning of the problems of disunity. But why have it in POA when there were more important issues? And variety, too - it can start to be monotonous if every novel starts with the Dursleys being idiots, a train-ride to Hogwarts and the Sorting Hat scene, etc. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Oct 16 09:28:30 2004 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:28:30 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115686 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > We had a thread about this discrepancy awhile back. It turns out that > the American edition of SS has Hagrid saying, "I'll be takin' Sirius > his bike back" (16) but the British edition has a different reading. > Can anyone provide that other reading and might it be a correction > made to later printings while JKR was writing PoA? But then he also > says, "Young Sirius Black lent it me" (14), which I think is the same > in both editions. > > Carol, who notes that we can't blame the editor for not knowing the > plot of future books Sue here: Actually, I do have the British edition (I live in Australia). I agree we can't blame the editor for everything - glitches happen. I think the author would have put in a basic proposal for the entire series before signing the contract, but the basic proposal wouldn't include such details as Hagrid mentioning the motorbike. :-) I don't blame the author either - it's easy to forget details a long time after. From revealme4u at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 13:12:12 2004 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:12:12 -0000 Subject: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115687 > Lisa Marie: > > I have a possible answer to your question, however unsatisfactory > > it may be: there is no real "first chance," and it's just a figure > > of speech. I assume that, in the WW, everyone starts out with the > > "chance" to be good and only joining LV would require the giving of > > a "second chance." I think that Snape squandered his "first chance" > > when he joined the DE in the first place. "legobaty29": > I agree with Lisa Marie that Snape's first chance was used up when > he joined the Death Eaters. I know that Dumbledore trusts him, but I > wonder whether he will ever be tempted to re-join Voldemort? It has > been suggested that he won't (I think he touched on the subject during > a conversation with Karkaroff?) but the mark on his arm becomes stronger > when Voldemort is around, and I am thinking a) once you've been a Death > Eater you can never get rid of the mark or b) Snape has never got rid of > the mark because there's a thin chance he still has an allegiance there. > > What do you think? vivek writes: Thanks both of you for clearing that bit of English for me. As I think about legobaty's question, I think the answer could possibly be both of the points. I doubt that LV ever took anyone in service, except for a life time, as has been mentioned in Ootp. So the dark mark must have been put there for life time, and Snape's new secret mission with the order could also require him to keep contact with the DE's, so he still has the mark, as sign of loyalty or something....Till Snape's mission is cleared, I doubt whether we will ever find out the right answer. (Though I hate Snape, I still think he isn't that bad to have *really* crossed over to the dark side. But I also wonder what must have made Snape come over to DD's side in the first case?) From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sat Oct 16 09:52:06 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:52:06 -0400 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? Message-ID: <001201c4b365$ccaa2cf0$a7c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 115688 > But yes, it quite probably IS somewhere in the Forbidden Forest if we ignore the glitch. Carol responds: "We had a thread about this discrepancy awhile back. It turns out that the American edition of SS has Hagrid saying, "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" (16) but the British edition has a different reading. Can anyone provide that other reading and might it be a correction made to later printings while JKR was writing PoA? But then he also says, "Young Sirius Black lent it me" (14), which I think is the same in both editions." DuffyPoo: In my Canadian paperback edition (same as British) published in 2000, Hagrid says: "I'd best get this bike away." instead of "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back." in the Canadian Hardback edition published in also in 2000 (part of a box set, probably a new printing from the original in 1997). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 16 10:13:26 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:13:26 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > Kneasy: > > Because it did cross my mind that to send the Potters to their doom > > you don't need to tell Voldy their address, you only need to tell > > him Peter's address. > > Nora: > Except that why WOULD anyone go for Peter. Most people don't > immediately say "Hey, I'm going to go check out and destroy the > weakest link of the chain first"... > Kneasy: Nora, Nora, Nora. So young, so naive, so trusting. He went for Peter because Peter was set up. A carefully chosen weak SK who would fold like an origami master-piece when pressure was applied. Voldy was *told* that Peter was the SK. If you're a spy, or a half-way competent one, you don't blaze a trail to your own door. Somebody has to be set up as fall guy to protect your own position. And if that someone can be inveigled into becoming SK, the only person to know where the Potters are, then you're farting through silk. You're fire-proofed. "Me? How could it be me? I wasn't their SK!" Riiiiight. But if you betray a weak SK to the enemy, what does that make you? > Nora: > Why would Voldie kill someone who was already (so far as we can read > canon, and it hasn't been contradicted) his spy? That part of your > argument just doesn't make sense. IF the SK had been loyal, then > Voldie would have had to torture him to get the secret out--and there > probably would have been a body elsewhere, *then* two bodies at GH. > Kneasy: Canon? What canon? You don't mean what Sirius says, do you? Dear, oh dear. You won't get far in life listening to people like Sirius. Is there any corroboration/confirmation of what Sirius has to say? I don't see any. Peter survived because Voldy got creamed. If Voldy had succeeded Peter would have been dog-meat. Voldy would have had no more use for him. But Peter lives. Where can he turn now? He *has* betrayed the Potters (though under pressure). He'd be as popular as a regurgitating toilet. What can he say? Nothing. Has he figured out what happened? Probably - hence the "James and Lily - Sirius, how could you?" Meanwhile Sirius is after him, determined to tidy up all the loose ends. So, one chance. Hide. And he does. Quite successfully for 12 years. Then - the Shrieking Shack. And the arch-traitor is believed and it looks like he'll be rehabilitated too. Time to run - and there's only one possible hiding place left - with Voldy. Ask yourself - why is Sirius so intent on killing Peter when Peter is the *only* person who can prove that Sirius wasn't the SK? Because Sirius's betrayal is more than just the Potters - he's the spy that informed on the Order for over a year. But kill Peter and there's only Sirius to testify as to what happened. He'll look good while he does it too. "Revenge for James and Lily!" - nobody need know that the key betrayal was that of Peter, the poor bloody SK who was set-up to fail. Sirius claimed that Peter'd being passing information to for Voldy for a year; that the DEs are screaming for Peter's blood because he betrayed the Boss - any proof? No. Though the latter is quite possible - once Sirius was in the slammer and telling them that it was Peter, after all nobody could guarantee that Voldy, the one person who could put the lie to Sirius's words, would return. I can believe that they knew there was a spy passing information, though as DD had his own sources of information inside the DE camp and never had a whisper of who it was, I find it doubtful that the DEs knew who the source was either. They just knew that there was somebody. Of course, Sirius as betrayer of Voldy (from Voldy's rather limited and biased viewpoint) puts a different complexion on things - like why Sirius died at the Ministry, the only one to do so. It would also explain a little niggle I've had for some time. In the Shrieking Shack, when Harry has his wand on Sirius, he hears a voice in his head - "Kill him." That wouldn't be Voldy exacting revenge for Sirius forgetting to mention DD's ancient magic protection, would it? From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sat Oct 16 02:07:13 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:07:13 -0400 Subject: Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <007301c4b324$dc9ba940$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115690 > > Kethryn: If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in Slytherin? One would think that, since ancestry is what caused Salazar to split from Hogwarts, the Hat would know better (or be bewitched) than to put people into Slytherin that aren't pureblood. Of course, the Hat does take it upon itself to occasionally teach object lessons... < < >>Tammy said - Well, the supply of purebloods is probably getting a little thin, there's a reference to that in SS/PS. But more importantly perhaps the Hat has taken it upon itself to look more at attitude than actual blood. For example Millicent Bullstrode is a halfblood (at least according to that book that JKR showed on TV), but if Millicent doesn't know it, and the family doesn't acknowledge it, then perhaps it doesn't matter much to the hat. Tom Riddle was a halfblood and was a Slytherin. Not just because he was the heir, but he had the attitude of a Slytherin, that wizards are better than muggles. He hated muggles, and perhaps that's more >>important to the hat? But that raises the question of why should the Hat perpetuate the cycle? If the Hat looks at the person's characteristics and not their blood, why on earth would the Hat set up the Houses for the maximum amount of enmity? Or maybe that is to keep the peace within the Houses themselves and to heck with the rest of the school? The Sorting Hat mentions his own doubts about the sorting in OotP so, obviously, he is not sure that he is doing the right thing. I can accept that the Hat chooses on attitude, I am really just wondering why Salazar did not bewitch the Hat to force it to only take purebloods into Slytherin. Maybe he couldn't or maybe he tried and failed. It's just a little odd to me that he would do nothing about it since he raised such a stench about it in the first place. Kethryn who is thankful her job in life is not the Sorting Hat. Can you imagine sorting someone and having them burst into tears because they don't think they will fit in? From Vekkel at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 05:15:28 2004 From: Vekkel at gmail.com (vekkel1) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:15:28 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115691 > Angie: > In SS, when Hagrid said he had to return the bike, I just thought > that maybe Sirius hadn't yet gone to find Wormtail, that Hagrid saw > him before he left to find Wormtail (for some reason I want to say > it was daylight when Sirius found him?), and then Sirius told Hagrid > to keep the bike. Vekkel: I've always wondered why the Old Man never said anything when Hagrid told him he was going to return the bike to Sirius Black. This is the next day and as far as everyone else knows Sirius betrayed the Potters so why would he not say anything. Vekkel From sophierom at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 10:55:25 2004 From: sophierom at yahoo.com (sophierom) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:55:25 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115693 Carol wrote: I think a catalogue of Snape's behavior in PoA need not be incriminating as long as we realize that he is not privy to our after-the-fact knowledge and that he has reasons for being unable to view either Lupin or Black objectively. Snape is Snape, and of course he's very far from perfect, but mistaken assumptions and prejudice against werewolves (viewed by the writers of Harry's textbooks and the entire WW as Dark Creatures) don't make him evil. Sophierom: When I get to cataloguing Snape's behavior in PoA (which will be soon, I hope), I think, like Carol, that canon won't show Snape to be evil ... but, I do think we'll see Snape in a much less complimentary light than we saw at the end of PS/SS and CoS (and that's saying a lot as he's certainly not looking very nice - from Harry's pov - in either of those books.) In the first book, he's the villain who turns out to be on the good side. In the second book, he's mean, yes, but in comparison to Lockhart, he looks like a pretty decent teacher (aside from his cruelty to Neville) and an important member of the staff. In contrast, PoA puts him against Lupin, a very sympathetic character. And even if we take those things into consideration that Carol mentions (Sirius's practical joke, very real fear of Werewolves, and - the one I think most important - Snape's belief that Lupin is helping a murderous Sirius Black) - even if we consider these things, Snape comes out looking foolish (at least from my earlier readings of the book). Not evil, but foolish for holding onto prejudices and assumptions that don't fit reality by the end of the book. This is purely an impression I've gotten from reading PoA in the past, which is why I want to go back through and look specifically at all the Snape scenes/references in the book again and try to investigate whether this impression is really as valid as I think it is. But hey, as potioncat's recent TBAY "Rolling Cannon" post points out, we can often use canon to back up our interpretations, rather than use canon to create out interpretations. We'll see. Sophierom From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 16 12:07:03 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:07:03 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115694 > > Sigune: > > Yes, I've been wondering about that Order of Merlin too... But I > > think that when it comes to assessing Snape, Dumbledore might be a > > tad more reliable than Harry, so I wouldn't dismiss his comment > > straight away. We don't know for sure what Snape is doing in VW2, > > but in VW1 he was a spy, and NOT a member of the Order of the > > Phoenix. Syroun asks: < Do we really know that?> Sigune: Well, 1) we know from OotP that he's not in the group photo of the Order Moody shows Harry; 2) Black is surprised to hear Snape is at Hogwarts in PoA, which suggests he didn't know what Snape was up to around the time of GH; 3) in GoF he is surprised to hear Snape was a DE, and he never mentions anything like, 'Goody, and there was me thinking he was one of us - he was in the Order, for Christ's sake!'; 4) if Snape knew Moody as a fellow Order member, he would have no reason to be so nervous around Fake!Moody in GoF, and he might have suspected he was facing an impostor when Moody kept lashing out at him. > > Sigune continues: > > I agree that Snape appears a loner etc, but I don't think that > > precludes a certain craving for recognition. I also have a problem > > with the assumption that the WW at large knows that Snape was a > > DE. If that is so, certainly a number of his students would know > > so, too ("My dad says Snape's a nasty piece of work, he used to be > > a Death Eater, you know; Papa doesn't want me > to take Potions > > with him, he's sent Dumbledore several owls > > already"), and it wouldn't have been much of a discovery in GoF. Finally, Syroun writes: < Does canon actually provide any proof that it was common knowledge that Snape was a DE? In fact, canon shows that Snape himself has to physically prove to Crouch Sr. that he was a DE by showing Crouch his dark mark to convince him, albeit unsuccessfuly of LV's return. It seemed to be quite a shock to Crouch.> Sigune begs to differ: He shows the Mark to *Fudge*. By that time, Crouch Sr is dead. Crouch Sr, by the way, KNEW about Snape's former DE allegiances: he had been the prosecutor in the DE trials, and though we aren't shown Snapes, we are shown Karkaroff's 'information session' in which Crouch hears DD mention, yet again, that Snape has switched sides. In fact, the point I was arguing in the paragraph you quote was that NO, the public did not know about Snape's DE activities. Seyroun: > So, how could we conclude that a person like Crouch who travels in many circles, would not know about Snape's DE past, if it really had been common knowledge?> Sigune: As I said, Crouch Sr DOES know. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 12:34:12 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:34:12 -0000 Subject: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: snip > Tom needs a girlfriend to make his twisted life seem normal. A > Slytherin girl would hardly put Dumbledore off the scent, so he > decides on Minerva McGonagall, a Gryffindor prefect nearly as > brilliant as himself, and one of Dumbledore's star transfiguration > pupils. > > An alternate scenario is that Tom needed something from Minerva, > something only she could provide. Perhaps something to do with skill > in transfiguration, or the fact that she is a Gryffindor, or (if she > is a year or two older) access to somewhere that an older prefect > could provide. > > In any case, Tom needs to get close to Minerva. > Meri now: Interesting theory. And also interesting how you seem to think that there was no legitimate attraction involved. I am not much of a shipper myself (except for a serious desire to see Hermione and Ron married with ten red haired kids) but this one I could actually see happening. The bad boy and the good girl. But IMHO there could be an actual thing between them. Nothing so shallow as "he just needed a girlfriend"; I think there may have at least been attraction, if not real love. No canon to back this up, mind, but speculation is just as good, right!) > "If I say it myself, Harry, I've always been able to charm the people > I needed."-- Tom Riddle, CoS Ch. 17. > > Minerva is completely taken in by Tom's good looks and charm. Meri: I don't really see McGonagal as someone who would be taken in on something as superficial as good looks and charm. (Like Hermione after her, it would probably have taken her less than a year to see right through them to who a person really is!) This, to me, is an arguement that the relationship began before Tom's killing spree with the basilisk. I can just picture them meeting as eleven year olds on the train, becoming friends and then, eventually, boyfriend and girlfriend. As the relationship goes on McGonagal gets more and more suspiscious of what Tom's doing, and where he's going at nights when there are basilisk attacks. But perhaps she trusts him enough to take his word, and feels sorry for his plight, having to live at the Muggle orphanage at the end of term. Come to that, do we have any canon about McGonagal's family situation? Could she be a muggle born? Who was also raised in an orphanage? Wild speculation, I know, but this perhaps could account for her and Tom having something in common, and for her not wanting DD to leave Harry on the steps of the Dursleys - why abandon this boy to the Muggle world when so many in the WW would want to raise him as their own? And > for his part, Tom discovers that it's easy to say and do all the > right things when there are no messy feelings involved. He can be > smooth and secure in his role of the perfect boyfriend. > Meri: I do see one problem with all this speculation. IIRC, JKR said in an interview that LV was never loved by anyone. But then again it is possible that she makes a distinction between Tom Riddle and LV. > And for whatever reason, things go too far. Perhaps Tom continues to > make use of Minerva's skills at transformation and is loathe to give > them up. Perhaps he is unable to think up a reason to dump her that > will allow him to keep his "good guy" image. Or maybe he thinks > she'll continue to make a good cover for his evil activities even > after Hogwarts. Soon after they finish school, the two are married. > > And then it happens. Tom is careless and Minerva gets an inkling of > the sort of man she is really married to. She is horrified, there is > a huge fight, and she tells him to "Get out!!". > And he does. In fact, he leaves that very night to go on his long > journey around the world, the one where he "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...". > > Minerva 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. > > When Riddle does surface again, he is calling himself Lord Voldemort > and is unrecognizably altered in appearence. He doesn't contact > Minerva, 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 from the > angry friends and relatives of the dead by keeping silent. > > So... that's one version of McGonagall/Riddle. At all plausible, do > you think? Meri: Very plausible, though I hope we are not crossing into Star Wars territory here! That Tom Riddle might have once been a good boyfriend is clearly mitigated by the fact that he turned into the world's worst excuse for a once was a human being. That being said, I can still see MM and TR falling for each other. It is, as I said above, the classic good girl-bad boy syndrome. Meri - who would also probably have been guilty of a massive crush on Tom Riddle had she known him in high shcool. From BrwNeil at aol.com Sat Oct 16 13:17:32 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:17:32 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lack of sorting hat scenes in CoS & PoA Message-ID: <2b.63d0ba96.2ea2796c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115696 In a message dated 10/15/2004 11:12:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: Does anybody think there could be something to this? Or was JKR just having trouble coming up with a new Sorting Hat song for every single year? Siriusly Snapey Susan I would think it is more a matter of not boring the reader. We all know what the sorting is all about. Why go through a bunch of names if they add nothing to the story? Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 16 14:13:01 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:13:01 -0600 Subject: animagus Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003501c4b38a$3fab0d90$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 115697 Snow: I have to agree that Dumbledore saw guilt in Sirius when he interviewed him, in POA, and was left with little alternative but to except to save Sirius's life while saving the most important life of all, Harry. Dumbledore is one quick thinker. He needed to save Harry's life from the dementors so Harry would have to go back in time. Giving explanations was not an alternative given the time frame involved. What else to do but use the source that was given to him which, unfortunately, was the guilty party; Sirius. Sherry now Didn't JKR say that a person doesn't choose their animagus form, but that it comes from inside them? If I'm right in this, then I can't buy Sirius as the guilty party. I think one of the reasons I fell for Sirius is because of his animagus form, the big black dog. Dogs are pack animals and are fiercely loyal to the pack, and especially the pack leader. They will die to protect the pack leader. Every single day of my life, I trust myself to the loyalty of my dog. Every time I walk outside, pick up her harness handle and say, forward, I am trusting her to guide me safely and not to let me run into people or obstacles, fall down stairs or get hit by cars. The getting hit by cars is where she risks her life to keep me safe. Some guide dogs have been hit by cars, when they were trying to pull their human pack leader out of the way. I am her pack leader. I earned that place by giving her shelter, love, food, grooming, play, fun, comfort. I supply every need she has, and she gives me absolute loyalty. She would die to protect me, I have no doubt, and I hope, as i've hoped with all my dogs, that she never needs to make that sacrifice. So, if the animagus form is a representative of who the person is, was James the pack leader for Sirius? Well, James and his family gave Sirius a home, a new family, shelter, acceptance, friendship and loyalty. I can't believe that Sirius, the dog, would ever have betrayed James and Lily. He might betray people outside his pack, but not his pack leader. He showed his loyalty again by rushing off to save Harry, reckless of his own or anyone else's safety. That's exactly what I would expect from someone whose animagus form is a dog, the symbol of faithfulness and loyalty. I don't want there to be an ESE Lupin, because I think his condition is a commentary on the prejudices of the WW, but I could accept that easier than ESE Sirius. just my own two cents. Sherry G Whose much smaller version of a black dog is lying contentedly sleeping on my bed! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 16 14:25:56 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:25:56 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > Sigune begs to differ: > He shows the Mark to *Fudge*. By that time, Crouch Sr is dead. Crouch Sr, by the way, KNEW about Snape's former DE allegiances: he had been the prosecutor in the DE trials, and though we aren't shown Snapes, we are shown Karkaroff's 'information session' in which Crouch hears DD mention, yet again, that Snape has switched sides.< Yet again? There's something curious about that. Crouch tells Karkaroff that Dumbledore vouched for Snape and that Snape has been cleared. But when Karkaroff insists, Dumbledore has to rise to report that Snape was indeed a former Death Eater, but that he turned spy and is now a Death Eater no more. Wouldn't Crouch be the logical person to tell the tribunal this? Wouldn't the permanent members of the tribunal already know? Unless, perchance, they'd been memory charmed. Is Dumbledore's function at the trials to recall information which the tribunal needs to know to decide a particular case, but which would be dangerous for them to retain afterwards? Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 16 14:39:15 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:39:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lucius ages Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Lapdog" and "snivel" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115699 > Carol responds: > The problem with this view is that Sirius never saw Severus after they left school. He didn't know that the young Snape had become a Death Eater at about the same time that he (Black) joined the Order, or that Snape turned against Voldemort and was spying for Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow, or that he had been teaching at Hogwarts since about the time of the Potters' deaths. He may have known that Lucius Malfoy was a Death Eater, but certainly did not know that he had any contact with Snape. > > In other words, Sirius Black's view of Severus Snape as Lucius > Malfoy's "lapdog" must have been formed in the only time when he saw the two of them together--when he and Severus were in their first and second years at Hogwarts and Lucius was in his sixth and seventh. snip Potioncat: I think it is very likely that Severus and Lucius knew each other at school and may have had a big kid--little kid connection.And we know from canon that Serius Black had no contact with Severus Snape after they left school as you state above. But, by December of OoP, Black had been at Grimmauld place for 6 or more months and Snape had been making regular reports there. So Black knows what Snape is doing. It seems Snape is getting his information from Malfoy. Either he has found some way to perform service to Malfoy in order to get closer. Or perhaps, LV accepted him back into the DE ranks but put him under Malfoy's charge. So that as a DE he is working for Malfoy. I think the lapdog dig refers to whatever Snape is currently doing for the Order with Malfoy. It reads to me as if Black is insulting Snape for his role--set by DD. And Snape is insulting Black for his role--set by DD. And both insults may reflect earlier situations as well. Potioncat From editor at texas.net Sat Oct 16 15:04:01 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:04:01 -0500 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? References: Message-ID: <00c401c4b391$5f8e2f00$9259aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "legobaty29" > wrote: I agree with Lisa Marie that Snape's first chance was used up when he joined the Death Eaters. I know that Dumbledore trusts him, but I wonder whether he will ever be tempted to re-join Voldemort? It has been suggested that he won't (I think he touched on the subject during a conversation with Karkaroff?) but the mark on his arm becomes stronger when Voldemort is around, and I am thinking a) once you've been a Death Eater you can never get rid of the mark or b) Snape has never got rid of the mark because there's a thin chance he still has an allegiance there. Amanda, now: I have always believed that there is more to the mark than visible allegiance. I think there is a deep and unbreakable bond; that the term "Death Eater" is not merely figurative. My husband has mentioned an old Welsh practice of "Sin Eater" who took on the sins of a dying person. I think the Death Eaters were an integral part of the reason Voldemort could survive all that he has. In joining him, I theorize that they "took on" his death somehow, so that it would fall on them and not him. This seems terribly in character for Voldemort. I also think that if Voldemort ever truly dies, they will, too; which is one reason Voldemort was so angry in the graveyard in GoF--he *knew* they knew he wasn't dead, so why had nobody been looking for him? No wonder he was pissed. If it is true, and their lives are totally, completely, unbreakably, and terminally connnected with Voldemort's--I give Snape full marks for pursuing the course of the good. I think his life is on the line in more ways than one--if the Mark is the tie that I think it is, by seeking Voldemort's defeat, he will bring about his own death. I also think that is in keeping with Snape's own character. Nasty, mean, cruel, yes--but he has an internal sense of honor and propriety. Clearly, something about what the Death Eaters were about, possibly even what *he* had to do as a Death Eater, forced him to take a good look at his life and change his path. Snape is *not* the type to publicly flagellate himself. Jeez, he's not even the type to *explain* himself. But he has always reminded me of a character from a Christopher Stasheff book, who "must atone with her whole life." I think his position at Hogwarts, his task, what he's doing now--all of it have only one focus and one purpose: the final overthrow of Voldemort. He doesn't trouble himself with anything that doesn't feed into that purpose; so he does not do anything but *instruct* his students, in the way he possibly sees most effective. He probably feels he is attempting to equip Harry with skills he'll need, and Harry is disregarding him, which is likely frustrating. He probably gets little personal satisfaction from the "holding pattern" of these post-Voldemort Hogwarts years, which is likely frustrating. And now that things are in motion, he's moving towards a goal which is dangerous to him and will likely result in his destruction. He has no reason or motive to get over the past; for he has no future to look forward to. He may well have, effectively, "died" to the world when he changed paths--you can't just stop being a Death Eater. Maybe that's just a pure statement of fact, not an opinion of character. Snape has spent the last fourteen years waiting for the opportunity to, according to his internal code, discharge whatever penance he has assigned himself. I think the overthrow of Voldemort will have intimate personal ramifications for Snape, likely cause his death, and that he knows it and works for the goal anyway. This doesn't mean I excuse some of his remarks and behavior. It simply means I think he has other priorities and another focus, which relegate hurt feelings and verbal cruelty to the level of trivia. ~Amanda From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 15:28:46 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:28:46 -0000 Subject: Krum as DADA (was Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115701 > Barb: > > This is my first post, so be gentle! > > I think Krum as DADA has potential for comedy between Ron and > Hermione, (I am a R/H shipper), but I don't think he's qualified. In > OotP (page 331)..."Yeah? What did Vicky say?" "Ho, Ho," said > Hermione in a bored voice, "He said Harry knew how to do stuff even > he didn't, and he was in the final year at Durmstrang." > > Now granted, Harry is exceptional, but still, it sounds like > Durmstrang put more of an emphasis on learning the Dark Arts > themselves, not Defense against them. Personally, my current theory > is to have Snape go to DADA, since that is the only way I can see > Harry continue in Potions (and it would give Snape a chance to see > Harry and Neville excel in something!) Wow, that was a long sentence! > > -Barb Ginger: Welcome to the list, Barb. I was just musing about Krum, actually. I thought as you did that the R/H factor would be interesting and comic. I'm a R/H shipper too. The other part that I thought would be interesting was the Durmstrang/Slytherin connection. Draco and Co. would be familiar with him as the Durmstrang crew took their meals at the Slytherin table for almost a year during the tournament. I can just see them: "Come on, Prof. Krum, show us some REAL Dark stuff, like you learned at your school!" Unfortunately, we wouldn't get to see it, since Gryffindor and Slytherin don't have DADA together. Hmm...unless...with smaller post-OWL classes, maybe they combine the two. Worth a thought. You are right that he doesn't have the experience, but DD is getting desperate to fill the position. It was more of an off-hand thought than a full theory. But it could be fun. Too bad it makes Krum potential coffin-filler. Ginger, needing to get to her housework. From n.crins at planet.nl Sat Oct 16 12:21:13 2004 From: n.crins at planet.nl (niekycrins) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:21:13 -0000 Subject: triwizard tournament Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115702 hi, I think Dumbledore pulled some strings to get the TT organized after such a long time. He knew from Trelawney's last prophecy that LV would rise again (more terrible etc.). The TT was a perfect opportunity to let the students of the different schools get to know each other, and (hopefully) unite against LV in the future. So I guess we will be seeing a lot more of Krum and Delacour... What a coincidence (?) that LV used the TT to get to HP and to rise again.. Greetings, Nieky From sbyl at webtv.net Sat Oct 16 12:28:00 2004 From: sbyl at webtv.net (songwriter42) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:28:00 -0000 Subject: Olivander--Good or Bad? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115703 On my drive home I started thinking about some of the people who have not openly aligned themselves with one side or the other. We know that a lot of followers came clean and apologized--whether truthfuly or not, or claimed they were tricked/forced into following Voldemort--and many went into hiding or denied ties altogether. Olivander. Part of the Order of the Phoenix? Didn't say so in the book---told Harry Voldemort did terrible but GREAT things and that "we do not speak his name" but which name--Voldemort or Dark Lord? Also told Harry that the wand chooses the wizard--but as we have seen time and again--one wizard can use the wand of another and still perform effective magic--- Gilderoy used Ron's (although broken) Barty junior used Harry's to conjur the Dark Mark, and Tom Riddle also used Harry's to write his name---and might have done worse--Neville used his father's wand.... But Olivander put the twin phoenix feather wand into Harry's hand---he didn't have to--knowing full well that there might be something very powerful about the relationship. Was it intentional or the wild guess he makes it look like in the story? Dumbledore maintains varying degrees of relationship and communication even with those that are probably friendly to the dark side--(keep your friends close and your enemies closer?) and has called on Olivander for such things as weighing the wands before the tournament--but the character--at least as portrayed in the movie seems a little dark--- Olivander's has been around for a very long time and I think it is possible that he is still in business due to quid pro quo with the Death Eaters and darker wizards during the terrible time. All those magic wands in one place would have a lot of dormant magic energy which could be used as a powerful weapon. Kind of a magical nuclear storage facility. Deb From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 12:44:52 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:44:52 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. MWPP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115704 > Carol notes: > I agree that Snape should be given credit for dutifully making that > potion for a man he detests, but we need to understand that 1) he > thinks that Lupin was in on what he sees as Sirius's plot to kill him > (the reckless and very dangerous Prank). 2) He does not share the view > of many readers that werewolves are innocent victims of prejudice. He > holds the view of most people in the WW that werewolves are highly > dangerous (and not fully human) and he is (rightly) concerned for the > safety of the students. And 3) he thinks that Lupin is helping Sirius > Black, an apparent homicidal maniac, to get into the castle. > Another thing to remember when looking at the relationship between Snape and MWPP is that we've only seen/heard of two incidents between them (the worst memory scene and the prank). They went to school together for 7 years, so there is loads and loads of bad blood between the five, on all sides. I think we've yet to hear the full reasons that Lupin, Black, and Potter hated Snape so fully in school. And there are probably a few more brief tidbits about MWPP's treatment of Snape as well. You can't judge Snape's behaviour in POA yet, as we still don't fully know the full details of their past relationship, or all the bad blood between them. -Tammy From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 12:55:39 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:55:39 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115705 Pippin: > We can't say this is a plot device JKR doesn't use. And while > there really isn't a whole lot of point to Peter using the Wormtail > alias among the Death Eaters, there is a great deal of point to > another spy using it. > > So, even if Peter Pettigrew wasn't spying for a year, it is very > possible that "Wormtail" was. It would be this "Wormtail" who is > indeed a coldly competent spy and murderer, whom the DE's in > Azkaban blamed for their troubles. I think it's Lupin, because we > know he's cool, competent, and willing to kill in front of three > witnesses. Even a lawful execution is not a fit sight for the Trio's > eyes according to Hagrid, but Lupin seems to have no qualms > about it at all. Very curious, that. > It's an ingenious theory, absolutely beautifully thought out. I only have one problem that I'd like you to explain to me, and you'll have me fully convinced. I got the impression from what Prof. Flitwick says in Chapter 10 of PoA that the SK had to willingly tell Voldemort the secret. To me, that means it can't be tortured out of someone, as that's not really willingly. Also, if you could torture a secret out of someone then it really would have been more logical that they would go with Black or Dumbledore, who would be more able to withstand the torture. It would make the whole charm pointless if the secret can be tortured out of someone. -Tammy (who is sorry if someone else already made this point, I did look through the old topics but didn't see it) From erinellii at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 16:54:54 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:54:54 -0000 Subject: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115706 > Meri wrote: > And also interesting how you seem to > think that there was no legitimate attraction involved. > IMHO there could be an actual thing between them. Nothing so shallow > as "he just needed a girlfriend"; I think there may have at least > been attraction, if not real love. Erin: In my favored version, there is real love-- on Minerva's part. The problem with Tom feeling real love is the one you pointed out yourself: > I do see one problem with all this speculation. IIRC, JKR said > in an interview that LV was never loved by anyone. > Meri wrote: >I don't really see McGonagal as someone who would be taken in > on something as superficial as good looks and charm. (Like Hermione > after her, it would probably have taken her less than a year to see > right through them to who a person really is!) Erin: I see student!McGonagall as sort of like what Hermione would have been without Ron and Harry as friends. *That* Hermione was, IMO, very vulnerable to the first people who would befriend her-- lucky it was Ron and Harry! But I don't see McGonagall's not understanding what Tom was really like as a failure on her part, but rather as an indication of how very good at deception Tom really was. It wasn't that McGonagall was overlooking clues, it was that Tom made absolutely sure there were no clues at all. --Erin From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Oct 16 17:49:39 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:49:39 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115707 In a message dated 10/15/2004 9:10:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: Sue wrote: > > Ah, but there's an inconsistency within the text. In POA, Hagrid says that Sirius told him he could keep it and that he thought this strange, etc., but if you go back to Chapter 1 of PS, Hagrid tells DD and MM that he'd better get going *because he has to return the bike!* Both are canon, then. Now, you could suggest that he got back, thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ... did whatever he did with the bike. But my bet is that the original was simply a mistake on the author's and editor's part, too late to change. :-) > Chancie Perhaps it's not a mistake. Maybe Hagrid did go to return the bike, and Sirius then told him to keep it. There is a lot that we still don't know about GH and the events shortly there after. I do have a sneaking suspicion that all that will begin to come out in H-BP, however. JKR said that some of the info that had originally been in the first chapter of PS/SS was cut because it was much too long, but that it had finally had it's home in book 6. And since the first chapter of SS/PS was about taking harry to the Dusley's it makes since to me that that could be the omitted info. I also have thought the bike was in the forbidden forest, but also, I wonder why Sirius never found it while there in PoA. We know he was staying there for a while, since Harry sees Crookshanks and him walk into the forest together. Sirius knows that Hagrid was the last one to have it, and I would assume he would have looked for it in case he needed it. But then again, he may not have been looking for a possible escape route since he had such an obsession with killing Peter. Also, I have wondered if maybe after Hagrid "discovered" that Sirius betrayed the Potter's if he would have maybe thrown the bike in the lake not wanting to have anything that belonged to that "trader." We all know how sensitive Hagrid is, and it is highly possible that he would have such an out look on things. Its not really as though he needed something that flies to get him from point A to B. He has Hippogrifs and Thressels to do that, and doesn't have to worry about the MoM catching him with an illegal bike. Chancie~~~~Sorry so long, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 18:02:30 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:02:30 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: <00c401c4b391$5f8e2f00$9259aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > I also think that if Voldemort ever truly dies, they will, too; which is one > reason Voldemort was so angry in the graveyard in GoF--he *knew* they knew > he wasn't dead, so why had nobody been looking for him? No wonder he was > pissed. Annemehr: I like this theory; it does sound very Voldemorty, doesn't it? The weak point, though, is that if true, I think the Death Eaters would have acted very differently when Voldemort was vaporised. Wouldn't they *all* have been looking for him, then, to treat him with the utmost TLC just to make sure they themselves survived? After all, if LV would just have slowly faded away, then so would they. Or am I missing something? Annemehr who certainly agrees there's more to the Mark, one way or another, than we've seen so far... From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 18:08:42 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:08:42 -0000 Subject: triwizard tournament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "niekycrins" wrote: > > > hi, > > I think Dumbledore pulled some strings to get the TT organized after > such a long time. He knew from Trelawney's last prophecy that LV > would rise again (more terrible etc.). The TT was a perfect > opportunity to let the students of the different schools get to know > each other, and (hopefully) unite against LV in the future. So I > guess we will be seeing a lot more of Krum and Delacour... > What a coincidence (?) that LV used the TT to get to HP and to rise > again.. > > Greetings, > Nieky Annemehr: Yes, I liked Viktor and Fleur (I'm one of the few who likes her, I think!), and I'll be glad to see them again. It's true, Dumbeldore and the Sorting Hat are emphasising the need for unity -- while at the same time Harry is finding out just how *singled out* he is. I wonder how the two ideas will be combined. Nice point about the Tournament. It certainly is ironic that the event DD meant for good, LV co-opted for his comeback. Still, I think irony is all it is -- even without the Tournament, LV would certainly have found *some* way of taking Harry's blood, now that he had Wormtail back. Annemehr From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 19:50:49 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:50:49 -0000 Subject: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: > Erin: > I see student!McGonagall as sort of like what Hermione would have > been without Ron and Harry as friends. *That* Hermione was, IMO, > very vulnerable to the first people who would befriend her-- lucky it > was Ron and Harry! But I don't see McGonagall's not understanding > what Tom was really like as a failure on her part, but rather as an > indication of how very good at deception Tom really was. It wasn't > that McGonagall was overlooking clues, it was that Tom made > absolutely sure there were no clues at all. Meri again: A good point, and entirley possible, but I would bring up one point. Even at Hogwarts Tom Riddle was already slipping down the slippery slope. He tells us in CoS that there were allready people calling him "Lord Voldemort" - though what a fifteen or sixteen year old boy was doing to be called "Lord" is best left to the imagination, I think. Anyway, Hogwarts is a fairly contained school; rumors could fly. I'd like to think that maybe Student! McGonagal heard the rumors and stayed with him anyway...Maybe she thought she could redeem him. Meri From susanadacunha at gmx.net Sat Oct 16 19:57:05 2004 From: susanadacunha at gmx.net (Susana da Cunha) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:57:05 +0100 Subject: Why didn't Malfoy forbid Dobby to pursuit his freedom? Message-ID: <002701c4b3bb$be7b89c0$6b2f0dd4@taxi> No: HPFGUIDX 115711 This question came to me in a very nice off list discussion about ways to change society where Dungrollin, very cleverly, pointed out that a wizard might be allowed to forbid his elf to ask for freedom. I guess I always assumed elves *can* disobey a direct order. I know there's almost irrefutable canon against it - DD says to Harry Kretcher couldn't disobey a direct order because of the magical bindings of his kind. But, in a way, he did (I'm sure he had direct orders not to leave the house, and I'm sure he knew Sirius wasn't ordering him out of the house). It's like... like Peeves said to Flitch: "I will tell you nothing unless you say please" (PS/SS). If they had made a magical contract on it, Peeves would get away with saying "nothing" after Flitch said "please". Kretcher 'worked against his master', as Dobby did. I don't think their magical binding stops them from 'working against their master'; it stops them from disobeying direct orders. But like the "nothing if you say please" thing, the only way to assure an elf's dedication and obedience is to make sure the elf is *willing* to obey. As I argued in my first post on this subject, Winky would not speak ill of her family even after she was freed because she was still *willing* to serve them. Dobby, on the other hand, was willing to speak ill of his family even when he was in their service (he almost spoke ill of his family in Privet Drive). In the Hogwarts kitchen, he says he *can* speak ill of the Malfoys and he does. I read the punishment as he thinking that he *shouldn't* - it's not morally correct / makes him a 'bad elf' / not socially accepted - a cultural thing. Taking this a step further, Kretcher spoke ill of his master right in front of him several times. I don't think the magic stops them from having a will of their own. I assume (hope to be proven right or wrong in the next books) most of the self punishment we see is cultural; not magical. A bit like Christian self flagellation: the individual believes doing it turns him into a better person/elf. And we know elves take their conduct very seriously - Dobby ironed his hands as punishment for closing the barrier at Kings Cross. That couldn't be a magically inflicted punishment because Harry is not his master (someone argued that he was doing it because he was acting against Malfoys interests, but I think that doesn't fit his words). So what about disobeying a 'don't ask for freedom' order? Well, I was always curious about something Dobby said: the Malfoys were very careful not to give Dobby even a sock (CoS). Since a sock or hat fallen on the ground counts, I suppose they didn't let Dobby near a wardrobe. If they let him clean the rooms, the wardrobes had to be locked with keys and not even a sock lying around. Can you imagine what would be like to be *that careful* in your daily routine? But what was Dobby doing with an iron if he's not aloud to attend to the clothes? I suppose your own clothes don't count. To *give* clothes to an elf you have to *dispose* of them. So the Malfoys just had to be careful disposing of old clothes. But instead of being careful, wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to say: "I forbid you to pursuit freedom"? Yet, Dobby picked up the sock that freed him from the ground... Hypothesis 1: slippery Lucius never thought of that. Hypothesis 2: you can't forbid an elf to pursuit freedom. Hypothesis 3: an elf can disobey a direct order. I always go for Hyp 3 though Hyp 2 makes a lot of sense to me too. The master can't order thoughts or feelings into an elf. The elf has to complete its chores and obey *direct* orders, but nothing else. And you'd have to be a contract expert to give orders so *direct* that the elf couldn't twist them (*careful* slippery Lucius?). To the common mortal, if the elf wants to be free, it'll trick you into it. Any thoughts? Susana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 20:46:57 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:46:57 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford/Diggle/Flitwick/Wizards at Large. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" > wrote: > > > Annemehr: > > Hi Geoff! I'm going for the "too many little coincidences" here. > > > > I don't think Vernon works in London, ... So Diggle (or Flitwick) > > being in the> street just outside Grunnings would be quite a > > coincidence. > Geoff: > I wasn't implying that Vernon met Dedalus (or whoever) near the > Leaky Cauldron; My meaning was that it isn't far from the London > end of Kent to get into the centre or beyond. > > There is an implication that Vernon's works is not far from Little > Whinging.. > > ...edited... > > Since there were obviously wizard folk celebrating near Little > Whinging, Dedalus (if it 'twere he) might have come over to turn a > few cartwheels and knock back a few pumpkin juices with friends.... > > Geoff bboyminn: I've been watching bits and pieces of this thread for a few days and finally feel a need to respond. First, it is /extremely/ unlikely that the wizard Vernon bumped into outside Grunnings was Prof. Flitwick. Prof. Flitwick has to stand or sit on a stack of books when he is behind his desk in order for the students to be able to see him. The average desk is 30 inches high; that make Flitwick 30" to 36" inches tall (best guess). True the narration which reflects Vernon's perspective describes the wizard as 'tiny', but again, that's from the perspective of a large portly rotund man. Also, the tiny wizard hugs Vernon around the middle. Flitwick would have hugged him around the thighs. Given all this, Vernon reaction would logically have been much more extreme if he had bumped into an extremely odd looking man who was only 3 feet tall. Four to five feet tall in a full grown man would be /tiny/ relative to Vernon's perspective. If it had been Flitwick, the narration would have been more likely to say 'child-size' or 'child-like' than 'tiny'. In addition, Dedalus Diggle is probably not the only short wizard who dresses in purple and wears a top hat. However, I will admit, he is the only one that has been specifically mentioned. I did find a place where Dedalus Diggle is referred to as 'tiny'. -- PS/ss Chapt 2 - Vanishing Glass, pg 30 -- A TINY man in a voilet top hat had bowed to him (Harry) once while out shopping with Aunt Petunia and Dudley. . . . later in Chapter 5 - Diagon Alley, pg 68-69 . . . [Pg 68] A little man in a top hat was talking to the old bartender... [Pg 69] "Delighted, Mr. Potter, just can't tell you, Diggle's the name. Dedalus Diggle." "I've seen you before!" said Harry, as Dedalus Diggle's top hat fell off in his excitement. "You bowed to me once in a shop." - - end quote - - Since Dedalus is described as tiny and short and he is prone to wearing violet, then he could have been the 'tiny old man ... that ...was wearing a voilet cloak'. A few sentences later the wizard in the 'bumping' incident is described as speaking 'in a squeaky voice that made passersby stare'. So, what is missing to confirm that this is Mr. Diggle, is some reference to Diggle as being OLD and speaking in a SQUEAKY voice. Barring these confirmation, we can't conclude that the wizard in question was Diggle. We can suspect it, but we can't conclude it. I do however think that we can conclude that Prof. Flitwick's appearance is so extreme that it would not have escaped Uncle Vernon's notice or comment. Additional Notes- It seems that wizards and witches live among the muggles. Malfoys for example live in Wiltshire, Diggle lives in Kent, and while not specifically stated, it is suspected that the Diggorys, Fawcetts, and the Weasleys live within a few miles of the village of Ottery St. Catchpole, assumed to be in Devon. In addition, Mrs. Figg lives just a couple streets over from Harry. I have often used the example of Chinatown to illustrate how one culture can live inside another without one culture influencing or dominating the other. Many older people move from China to London and spend their entire lives in Chinatown speaking their own language and immersed in their own familiar and safe culture. They may live for decades in London and never learn the language and never integrate into the local culture. This paralles wizards and muggles. Moody has a house in London that the local London police are able to find, but Moddy is able to move from location to location, to meet with other wizard, to travel to Hogwarts or Diagon Alley (the equivalent to Chinatown), and to do so without ever interacting with the local muggle culture. A resident of London's Chinatown might on occassion venture out into greater London, but it is a scary and culturally unfamilar and uncomfortable experience. It is functionally possible; the Chinese may manage to make a trip to the shopping mall for a present for a young neice or nephew, and do so successfully, but I suspect it is a heart pounding experience. So to, while magic folks are able to venture into the muggle world and function adequately, it is still an unfamilar and uncomfortable experience. Please consider, given a common language and a common, yet separate, history, and some degree of similar culture, a wizards in the muggle world would be a lot easier than a Chinese in greater London. Wizards might live among muggles, but that doesn't mean they live with them; among them but not a part of them. Just as some Chinese are IN London, but not PART of it. So, seeing wizards out and about in Surrey and nearby, while not common, is still reasonable and possible. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 21:30:59 2004 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:30:59 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vekkel1" wrote: > > > Angie: > > In SS, when Hagrid said he had to return the bike, I just thought > > that maybe Sirius hadn't yet gone to find Wormtail, that Hagrid saw > > him before he left to find Wormtail (for some reason I want to say > > it was daylight when Sirius found him?), and then Sirius told Hagrid > > to keep the bike. > > > Vekkel: > > I've always wondered why the Old Man never said anything when Hagrid > told him he was going to return the bike to Sirius Black. This is the > next day and as far as everyone else knows Sirius betrayed the Potters > so why would he not say anything. > Angie: So, at the time the Potter's deaths were discovered, all anyone (DD) knew was that Sirius had been the Potter's secret-keeper -- they didn't know yet about Wormtail? If that's so, then you have an excellent point. There is SOOOO much I don't understand! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 21:41:02 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:41:02 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth In-Reply-To: <005f01c4b31d$e2a4ef60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > > Me again - > > If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in Slytherin? ... since ancestry is what caused Salazar to split from Hogwarts, ...edited... > > Kethryn bboyminn: First, there is no direct account of Salazar Slytherin /hating/ unpureblood. What we have stated as fact from reliable sources is that S.Slytherin didn't /trust/ muggles, and given the intense level of persecution of magical folk at that point in history, his feelings were completely justified. Others apparently felt that once muggle-borns and mixed-bloods were integrated into the magical world, they would become one of /us/ and not betray the magic world. So, Slytherin's view of /distrust/ was justified, but it wasn't share by the other founders. Being out voted and unable to sway the others to his point of view, he left rather than take the risk of muggle/muggle-born/mixed-blood betrayal. Again, he held a reasonable and justifiable position, but that position was far too conservative for the other progressive and liberal founders. I think this created a seed of disent that other later wizards grabbed onto and twisted to their own selfish selfserving ends. Just as Islamic doctrine has been twisted to support positions that are completely counter to true Islam, and just as corrupt Christians have twisted Christian doctrine to meet their own greedy selfish corrupt ends. Really, this selfserving corruption of doctrine and beliefs is a very common tool of evil people in our world today and throughout history, and exists in virtually all cultures. So, given that it was more the /risk/ of making the wizard world known to muggles that worried Slytherin than an actual hatred of muggle/muggle-born/mixed-bloods, I don't see any reason why the modern Sorting Hat would exclude less than purebloods from Slytherin. The true prerequisites are cunning and ambition. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 16 21:49:12 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:49:12 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy" wrote: > > I got the impression from what Prof. Flitwick says in Chapter 10 of PoA that the SK had to willingly tell Voldemort the secret. To me, that means it can't be tortured out of someone, as that's not really willingly. Also, if you could torture a secret out of someone then it really would have been more logical that they would go with Black or Dumbledore, who would be more able to withstand the torture. It would make the whole charm pointless if the secret can be tortured out of someone. > Hmmm. We don't really know, do we? If the charm protected against torture and threats, I would have expected Sirius to say that, instead of saying that Peter must be lying because he'd already been spying for Voldemort for a year. However, Peter doesn't say he was tortured, he only says that he was scared that Voldemort would kill him. I don't think the charm protects one from having to make that choice. Apparently Peter chose to live. If the charm only protected against magic, it would still be useful. The SK couldn't be forced to talk under Imperius or truth potions, nor the secret read through legilimency or extracted by whatever means Dumbledore uses to pull thoughts from his head for the Pensieve. Pippin From coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com Sat Oct 16 22:41:05 2004 From: coriolan_cmc at hotmail.com (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:41:05 -0000 Subject: Olivander--Good or Bad? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "songwriter42" wrote: > > > On my drive home I started thinking about some of the people who have not openly aligned themselves with one side or the other. > > We know that a lot of followers came clean and apologized--whether truthfuly or not, or claimed they were tricked/forced into following Voldemort--and many went into hiding or denied ties altogether. > > Olivander. Part of the Order of the Phoenix? Didn't say so in the book---told Harry Voldemort did terrible but GREAT things and that "we do not speak his name" but which name--Voldemort or Dark Lord? I think of Ollivander as like an arms merchant, maintaining friendly relations with both sides, but favoring neither, willing to do business with anyone who comes by his shop. He has an awe of Voldemort based on the sheer power the Dark Lord was able to effect, irregardless of the moral issues. >but the character--at least as portrayed in the movie seems a little >dark--- Avoided the movie - but yes, the Canonic Olllivander is definitely dark... > > Also told Harry that the wand chooses the wizard--but as we have seen time and again--one wizard can use the wand of another and still perform effective magic--- Gilderoy used Ron's (although broken) Barty junior used Harry's to conjur the Dark Mark, and Tom Riddle also used Harry's to write his name---and might have done worse-- Neville used his father's wand.... > Something I just thought of - the other examples you give are of wizards using other wands briefly, but the case of Neville is different - he's been using another person's wand for five years. Could this be one of things that's been holding him back? Using the wand of another person, even if a blood relative, may inhibit one's full magical development. Now that Frank's wand has been broken, will Neville return to Ollivander's and find the wand that is truly meant for him? And will his powers thereby be more greatly augmented? - CMC (who fervently believes that the Prophecy is about Neville) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 22:46:25 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:46:25 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Malfoy forbid Dobby to pursuit his freedom? In-Reply-To: <002701c4b3bb$be7b89c0$6b2f0dd4@taxi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" wrote: > ...edited.. > > So what about disobeying a 'don't ask for freedom' order? Well, I was always curious about something Dobby said: the Malfoys were very careful not to give Dobby even a sock (CoS). Since a sock or hat fallen on the ground counts, I suppose they didn't let Dobby near a wardrobe. If they let him clean the rooms, the wardrobes had to be locked with keys and not even a sock lying around. Can you imagine what would be like to be *that careful* in your daily routine? > > But what was Dobby doing with an iron if he's not aloud to attend to the clothes? I suppose your own clothes don't count. To *give* clothes to an elf you have to *dispose* of them. So the Malfoys just had to be careful disposing of old clothes. But instead of being careful, wouldn't it be a lot simpler just to say: "I forbid you to pursuit freedom"? Yet, Dobby picked up the sock that freed him from the ground... > ...edited.. > > Any thoughts? > > Susana bboyminn: Excellent thoughts, I love Elf discussions, BUT you are opperating under a couple of misconceptions. First, you have fallen into the same trap that Hermione has, in believing that if an elf touches clothes it is instantly free; not so. An Elf is freed when it's Master or someone WITH THE AUTHORITY to free the elf presents it with clothes. That mean the clothes are transferred directly to the possession of the elf by someone of authority. Illustrations- 1.) "Take this sock and clean it." Draco throws a sock, and the elf catches it. Conclusion: If the elf has a desire to be freed, it can take this as a Direct Transfer of Possession of an article of clothing, and therefore be freed. He is ordered to 'take' and the sock transfer directly from Master to servant. 2.) "Clean this sock." Draco throws the sock on the floor, and the elf picks it up. Conclusion: The elf is not freed. There is no clear or ambiguous intent to transfer possession. The sock does not pass from Master to servant; it passes from master to /Floor/ to servant. Therefore, it would be an extreme and unlikely circumstance in which the elf might consider itself freed. 3.) An old Friend, who has no blood or marriage relationship to the Master, visits the Master's house. The visitor hands his cloak to the elf as he passes by. Conclusion: The elf is not freed. The visitor, regardless of direct or indirect transfer of clothing, has no authority over the elf. To say this freed the elf is the same as saying I can walk into a random business locations and start firing people. Well, I can't, because I have no authority to do so. Second, all indications are the Dobby caught the Sock while it was in the air. Therefore, we have direct transfer of possession from master to servant. That doesn't fit the requirement to prefection, but it was enough for Dobby. This fits my long held and often stated belief that no magical or judicial law or contract binds Master and Elf. What holds the elf to his commitment is many many centuries of Elfin pride, honor, history, and commitment. When an elf binds himself to a house, he is bound by elfin honor. To betray that honor is an unfathomable disgrace to an elf. Sadly, wizards do not enter the agreement with the same sense of honor. For more information, see my published works. In the same vein as the current post- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106280 additional Elfin thoughts- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71752 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74080 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/82881 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88208 As to why Malfoy didn't specifically forbide his elf to pursue freedom, I don't think it would matter. In Winky's case, she consciously and directly resisted freedom, but her master freed her and there is nothing she can do about it. Also, Dobby did not persue freedom, he desired it, and seized the slightest opportunity when it came, but he did not persue it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 23:00:21 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:00:21 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth -Additional Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115719 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > > > > Me again - > > > > If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide > anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in > Slytherin? ... since ancestry is what caused Salazar to split from > Hogwarts, ...edited... > > > > Kethryn > > > bboyminn: > > First, there is no direct account of Salazar Slytherin /hating/ > unpureblood. What we have stated as fact from reliable sources is > that S.Slytherin didn't /trust/ muggles, ... > > So, Slytherin's view of /distrust/ was justified, but it wasn't > share by the other founders. Being out voted and unable to sway the > others to his point of view, he left rather than take the risk of > muggle/muggle-born/mixed-blood betrayal. ...edited.. > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) bboyminn: This thought just occured to me. Can we assume that up until Slytherin left each of the Founders chose their own students? If that is true, then would it imply that the Sorting Hat wasn't created until after Slytherin left? Extendng the premise, if true then how could Slytherin have participated in the Hats creation? It was, afteral, created by the founders for a time when the founders would no longer be around to make the choice themselves. That would imply a time after Slytherin left and indeed after the other founders were gone and probably in their graves. If Slytherin wasn't personally involved, and only some essense of himself was applied to the Hat by the remaining founder then that could easily explain the lack of a /pureblood/ bias by the Sorting Hat. It's a factor to consider, but I still stand by my original statement that Slytherin /hating/ unpureblood is a selfserving distortion added by others. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 23:23:02 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:23:02 -0000 Subject: Olivander--Good or Bad? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "songwriter42" wrote: > > > ...edited... > > But Olivander put the twin phoenix feather wand into Harry's hand---he didn't have to--knowing full well that there might be something very powerful about the relationship. Was it intentional or the wild guess he makes it look like in the story? > > ...edited... > > Deb bboyminn: First, no one will ever convince me that Mr. Ollivander is in anyway evil. Well, JKR certainly could, but no one else. True, he's a bit creepy when Harry first meets him, but creepy to an 11 year old who is in the wizard world for the first time ever, does not equal evil. That's nothing but my gut feeling. Second, Ollivander did not /put/ the Fawkes feather in Harry's wand. He put it in A wand, and put that wand on the shelf with all the others. Years later Harry came in and was a match to that wand. Remember, Harry tried other wands with phoenix feathers in them. In fact, he tried nearly every wand in the store before finding a match. That indicates that Ollivander did not try to push that wand off on Harry. When they match, they match; and Harry, Hagrid, and Ollivander all recognise the match. There is nothing to indicate any conspiracy on Ollivander's part. Besides, I see no advantage to Voldemort, or any advanced knowledge of the fact by Voldemort. Just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 23:56:17 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:56:17 -0000 Subject: Who Saved Harry? ...NOT Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115721 > Hannah wrote: I know Hermione meant well, but in actual fact it was lucky > she didn't *kill* Harry. If she hadn't *accidentally* knocked > Quirrel over as she rushed towards Snape, she would have caused > Snape to stop his countercurse while Quirrel was still performing > the jinx. That would have enabled Quirrel to have him off his > broom, or whatever it was he was trying to do exactly. > > Snape's countercurse may have been not terribly effective, but at > least he was doing something. There were other teachers there, > including McGonagall, and Madam Hooch who was supposed to be > refereeing, and they didn't appear to be doing anything. He also > refereed the second game (and I genuinely think he did do that to > protect Harry, and not to skew the results), and tried to keep an > eye on Harry (he seems to 'follow Harry around'). > > PoA is a different matter. Snape isn't acting out of a desire to > protect Harry, rather to get revenge on his childhood enemies. Even > as a Snape fan I can't really give him much credit for saving Harry > here. But I hope that *someone* gave him some praise for his > efforts in PS, even if it was DD and not Harry himself. Carol responds: Excellent assessment of the situation in SS/PS, but I think Snape also deserves some credit in PoA--not for trying to save the kids, necessarily, but for rushing in, Siriuslike, to face one man he knew to be a werewolf about to transform and another he believed to be a homicidal maniac. He didn't overhear the whole conversation and it would have been a miracle, given his history with MWPP, if he believed the Pettigrew animagus story before actually seeing Pettigrew transformed. He could have killed Sirius or Lupin and didn't, despite his threats. I think, BTW, that Snape *is* repeatedly trying to save Harry, at least in part because of his life debt to James, whether it's a genuine "binding Magical contract" as it would be if James were alive or a self-imposed matter of personal honor. We see him make the attempt yet again, in a less direct manner for which he would get no credit, certainly not an Order of Merlin, in OoP, both by going into the Forbidden Forest and by sending the Order after him. Even his attempts to keep Harry out of Hogsmeade in PoA are intended as protection, and he is extremely provoked with Harry not only for breaking the rules yet again but for risking his life. Whether he has actually succeeded in saving Harry yet is less important, IMO, than the fact that he is perpetually *trying* to save or protect him, irksome though he finds that duty. Carol From hosea172000 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 17:31:38 2004 From: hosea172000 at yahoo.com (Sweet G) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041016173138.17206.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115722 karen3k9 wrote: > Hello, This is my first time in a group so I hope I am doing this right. I would just like to know if anybody could help me with something. In Chamber of Secrets, after Hermione is petrified and Harry and Ron go down to Hagrid's hut under the invisibility cloak, why does Hagrid answer their knock on the door with his cross bow? Who was he expecting that he felt he needed to be armed? <<< This Karen is too my first time and for the record you did it right. Maybe Hagrid knew something about the chamber and/or its keeper. I came up with this conclusion because the chamber is one of the reasons Hagrid got kicked out or expelled from Hogwarts. Maybe Dumbledore told him something (to hush his fuss) about the chamber and if you read the HPbooks (1,2,3,4,5,) you and can tell that Dumbledore has this undeniable trust for Hagrid. I GIVE YOU EXAMPLES 1, 2 and 3: All within book 1 SS: EX#1: Dumbledore first shows his trust for/in Hagrid in by letting him deliver baby Harry to the Dursleys'. EX#2: Dumbledore again trusts him enough to pick him up from the Dursleys' and take him school shopping. EX#3: he allows Hagrid to get the stone from Gringotts (the wizards' bank). and he trusts him with some secret information. "Sweet G" From karen3k9 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 18:11:54 2004 From: karen3k9 at yahoo.com (Karen Heney) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041016181155.54760.qmail@web61106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115723 Becki: > > I always thought that he was armed because there was the "Monster from the Chamber" loose on the school. < < Hester now: > Welcome, Karen. Well, I never really thought about it before, but I agree with Becki. If a monster like that [Aragog] is afraid, I think it would be reasonable for Hagrid to be fearful as well. Also, he doesn't know what has been killing the roosters. /Someone/ is lurking at the school/on the grounds and he is on his own for protection. < Karen here: I just don't think that Hagrid would be afraid of a monster. This is Hagrid! He would be excited and trying to catch it to make a pet of it, remember Aragog, Norbert, the Skrewts? Also the man who frequently strolls through the Dark Forest is going to cower before something that's killing roosters? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe it. I think I'm going more toward the DE theory but I haven't decided on the particulars yet. Karen From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 19:52:56 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:52:56 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115724 "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > > I also think that if Voldemort ever truly dies, they will, too; > > which is one reason Voldemort was so angry in the graveyard in > > GoF--he *knew* they knew he wasn't dead, so why had nobody been > > looking for him? No wonder he was pissed. > Annemehr: > I like this theory; it does sound very Voldemorty, doesn't it? The > weak point, though, is that if true, I think the Death Eaters would > have acted very differently when Voldemort was vaporised. Wouldn't > they *all* have been looking for him, then, to treat him with the > utmost TLC just to make sure they themselves survived? After all, > if LV would just have slowly faded away, then so would they. barmaid now: I also really like this theory. And I wonder about the same things Annemehr does. I wonder -- if this theory is true -- if after GH, when the DE's did not die or suffer any physical side effects, if they thought "hey, maybe LV was lying when he said our lives were so closely tied to his wellbeing -- but look -- he is either dead or near death, but we are fine." If this thinking prevailed it would explain why they did not go look for him. This allowed them to get complacent. It maybe allowed some, like Malfoy for example, to think that the power he felt as a DE was really his own power, and not that of LV. I agree that the term "Death Eater" has some meaning to it more than just that it sounds really bad and evil. --barmaid From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 20:20:12 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:20:12 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. MWPP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115725 Tammy wrote: > > I think we've yet to hear the full reasons that Lupin, Black, and > Potter hated Snape so fully in school. And there are probably a > few more brief tidbits about MWPP's treatment of Snape as well. > > You can't judge Snape's behaviour in POA yet, as we still don't fully > know the full details of their past relationship, or all the bad blood > between them. Good call, Tammy! I completely agree; we just can't judge Snape's character yet, even after what we learn in GoF and OotP. JKR has done a *masterful* job of making his character infinitely intriguing and frustrating! I can't wait to learn more about Severus as a Hogwarts student. As horribly as MWPP seem to have treated him, I can't believe that 1) he didn't do * something* to bring it on himself, at least at first, and that 2) MWPP are the reason he is so horrible to Harry (and to most students) now. He must have been on his way to being such a sour soul before MWPP met him. 1) He must have done *something* to provoke James/Sirius to harrass him so. (I know Lupin wasn't *innocent*, but his was more of quiet acquiescence, as far as we know, so I'll leave him out of this.) Sirius already confirmed that Snape was up to his eyeballs in Dark Arts stuff during his Hogwarts time, and that James HATED the Dark Arts. (away from books; that quote comes from Harry's conversation with Sirius and Lupin in Umbridge's fire, OotP) There's a start. Maybe unfair, but that's how kids are. Maybe he was also a little jealous of James (and Sirius). James came from a good family (as far as we can tell; they took Sirius in!), and Sirius' family at least had money. James was a talented Quidditch player and Sirius, we're told over and over again, was very handsome; I think it's therefore reasonably safe to assume that they were fairly popular. Snape, OTOH, was NOT popular or attractive: greasy hair, oily skin, scrawny, pallid, ?grey undies?, obsessed with the Dark Arts -- not a pretty picture, and not the picture of a well-adjusted teenager, IMHO. As for what started all the feuding, we'll have to wait until JKR tells us! 2) As to the reason Snape is such an unpleasant person now (even though I love him dearly), I can't believe that it's just because he's hanging on to his hatred for MWPP. To a degree, I believe this, but a grudge can only carry you so far, IMO. Unless JKR shows us some pretty horrible exchanges between Snape & MWPP, I can't believe all of his foulness is due to their bad treatment of him. And let's not forget that Severus has seen some *horrible* things in his lifetime. He was a Death Eater -- one of Voldie's chosen!! Of course he is nasty! Of course he is emotionally/socially damaged!! He has seen (and probably done) some very, very evil things in his young life. The fact that he was predisposed to like the Dark Arts makes his status as a DE very understandable; I would expect someone like that to grow up to be a DE. So, the question is, what kind of horror did he witness (or was he forced to commit) that made him decide to spend his life fighting for DD (against LV)? Whatever it was, it MUST have been awful. LisaMarie, who hopes that everyone will forgive her for re-hashing everything that has already been said about Snape, but couldn't help herself, as she is such a believer in his deep-seated, well-hidden goodness at heart! From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 22:19:40 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:19:40 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115726 > Amanda Geist wrote: > > I also think that if Voldemort ever truly dies, they will, too > > Annemehr: > The weak point, though, is that if true, I think the Death Eaters > would have acted very differently when Voldemort was vaporised. > Wouldn't they *all* have been looking for him, then, to treat him > with the utmost TLC just to make sure they themselves survived? > After all, if LV would just have slowly faded away, then so would > they. > > Or am I missing something? > > Annemehr > who certainly agrees there's more to the Mark, one way or another, > than we've seen so far... Now LisaMarie: No question about the Mark: it is definitely a creepy, evil device of LV and I daresay it's purpose isn't solely as a paging device, IMO. I doubt LV put it there because he thought it looked cool. I think the DE had to do something truly *Dark* to receive it; I shudder to think what it must have been! As for the hole Annemehr pointed out in the "life-force bound to the Mark/LV" theory that Amanda proposed above, I second that. If LV's demise would have made their own inevitable, then they would surely have done something besides run and hide! IMHO, the DE were interested in self-preservation *in the eyes of the WW*, and that's the reason they all fled/hid/lied their way out of accusation/conviction by the MoM. They must have had some assurance that LV would, someday, return to power, as he finally did. LisaMarie, still trying *not* to imagine the application process of the Dark Mark! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 00:33:14 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:33:14 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115727 -Valky wrote: > > I tend to compound the nature of the issue with the fact that "Dark > Magic" and "Lord Voldemort" were the bane of the very society that > these boys existed in, making James and Sirius view of what was and > wasn't decent quite the highground of the two. And is probably why > Snape was unpopular and James/Sirius the opposite. Carol responds: Does taking the moral high ground make kids popular? It may just be that three-quarters of the students (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff) shared James's and Sirius's views that blood didn't matter and one-quarter (the Slytherins) shared Severus's views. No doubt there were exceptions in both cases, but I'm generalizing here. As for popularity, we don't really know that Severus was unpopular. That's Harry's perception. Some of the students (we don't know how many) were apprehensive; others (again, we don't know how many) were amused. It may be that the majority, like Lupin, just sat there, not making their feelings known. And we've already established that Snape's Slytherin friends were mostly older and had left Hogwarts. Any others who remained may have been the save-your-own-skin variety (say, Walden Macnair). Their behavior might not relate in any way to shared beliefs about blood purity. Nor is there any reason to believe that Severus at this time was loyal to Voldemort. He was only fifteen (or barely sixteen) and most likely had not yet been recruited to join the DEs. (Why would they want a kid not yet at the peak of his powers who couldn't even apparate?) As for James and Sirius, their popularity, as I understand it, was based in James's case on athletic ability (rather like the popularity of Viktor Krum), as well as a desire to be on the good side of a kid who's likely to hex people in the corridors "because they exist." Sirius's popularity, such as it was (girls ogling him) appears to be based solely on looks. He certainly was not popular because of his personality, which is arrogant in the extreme. He is rude not only to Severus but to his friends Remus and Peter. Whether he has rejected the family philosophy or not, he behaves like a Black, as if he were royalty, not deigning to speak politely to anyone and expecting James to entertain him when he's bored. The majority of the students at Hogwarts, especially the muggleborns and halfbloods, probably shared the idea that pureblood superiority was bunk. They knew from their own experience that muggleborns could be as magically powerful as anyone else. James and Sirius would not be popular for believing what most other students believed. They were popular for the same reason particular kids are popular in Muggle schools: athletic ability on the one hand and good looks on the other. And if Severus really was as unpopular as Harry perceives him to be, it would have been for similar reasons: he was a skinny, stringy-haired kid with his nose in a book. Clearly not the sort for James or Sirius to hang around with even if he hadn't been a Slytherin enamored of the Dark Arts (or so Sirius says). If it had been a matter of the high moral ground, James and Sirius as the aggressors would have been frowned down and Severus as the victim would have been supported by his peers. But morality seldom comes into play in schoolboy battles, regardless of the political or cultural philosophy the boys have been indoctrinated with at home. Carol From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 00:37:35 2004 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:37:35 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115728 Amanda wrote: > > > I also think that if Voldemort ever truly dies, they will, too; > which is one > > reason Voldemort was so angry in the graveyard in GoF--he *knew* > they knew > > he wasn't dead, so why had nobody been looking for him? No wonder he was > > pissed. > > Annemehr: > I like this theory; it does sound very Voldemorty, doesn't it? The > weak point, though, is that if true, I think the Death Eaters would > have acted very differently when Voldemort was vaporised. Wouldn't > they *all* have been looking for him, then, to treat him with the > utmost TLC just to make sure they themselves survived? After all, if > LV would just have slowly faded away, then so would they. > > Or am I missing something? Laurasia: It also makes you wonder how he can kill his own Death Eaters, eg. Regulus Black. I would think that if their lives were bound together Voldemort wouldn't be able to risk killing so many of them, and quite casually too. Like the way he casually comments at his Rebirthday Party that "the one who has left him forever" will be killed, of course. Maybe Voldemort can remove the mark when he chooses to and break the death sharing, however Regulus was not killed personally by Voldemort. We might also assume the inverse relationship- that if all of Voldemort's Death Eaters are killed, he too dies. This idea also makes you wonder if any of them we forced to bear the mark and after realising that their lives were bound to Voldemort's they *had* to help him. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:04:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:04:44 -0000 Subject: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... In-Reply-To: <001801c4af21$57bea530$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115729 charme asked: > > Forgive me, however I do need to ask this question: is everyone theorizing Nagini was the snake that bit Authur Weasley in the DoM? I'm confused, since in that same scene the bites are described as follows: > > "He reared high from the floor and struck once, twice, three times..." (I have a US Scholastic edition of OoP) > > Maybe it's coincidence, but wouldn't the "three bites" possibly mean a Runespoor (Fantastic Beasts) instead? Or is there canon I missed which says Nagini did it? > > Help me here... > > charme Carol responds: Snape tells Harry that the reason he saw from the snake's point of view is that Voldemort was possessing the snake at the time: "'You seem to have visited the snake's mind because that was where the Dark Lord was at that particular moment,' snarled Snape. 'He was possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it too'" (OoP Am. ed. 532-33). The only snake we know of that Voldemort could be possessing is Nagini. Granted, the animals that Voldemort possessed in the wild died (like Quirrell) when he left their bodies, but maybe Nagini, being magical, is immune to that fate, or maybe he didn't possess her long enough to sap the life from her as he did when he relied on the bodies of others for sustenance. There is, of course, the problem of how a snake, whether or not it was Nagini, got into the MoM (that's been discussed before but not resolved to my knowledge). It's possible, then, that Snape was wrong and that Voldemort is yet another unregistered animagus (who not surprisingly transforms into a snake as PP transforms into a rat). But, yes, there is canon for Voldemort possessing the snake that bit Mr. Weasley, if not for that snake being Nagini. Carol From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:05:49 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:05:49 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth -Additional Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > This thought just occured to me. Can we assume that up until Slytherin > left each of the Founders chose their own students? If that is true, > then would it imply that the Sorting Hat wasn't created until after > Slytherin left? [...] That would imply a time after Slytherin > left and indeed after the other founders were gone and probably in > their graves. Annemehr: The only canon I remember is this bit from the Sorting Hat's song of GoF: While still alive they did divide Their favorites from the throng, Yet how to pick the worthy ones When they were dead and gone? 'Twas Gryffindor who found the way, He whipped me off his head The Founders put some brains in me So I could choose instead! I sounds to me like they were thinking quite well ahead, and did this when even Salazar was still at the school. For clues to what Salazar's criteria actually were, here are the parts of the three songs we have where the Hat describes them: PS/SS: Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folk use any means To achieve their ends. GoF: And power-hungry Slytherin Loved those of great ambition. OoP: Said Slytherin, 'We'll teach just those Whose ancestry is purest.' [...] For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning, just like him, I notice that the hat never mentions pure-bloodedness until it's relating the *history* of who Salazar chose *himself.* I'm not sure if that means anything. We do know that during the last 50 or 60 years, the House has had both purebloods and half-bloods, but know of no Muggleborns at all. Make of it what you will! Annemehr From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:07:52 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:07:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: <416624D6.5030609@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115731 > Kathy: > I think that Dumbledore has some kind of plan requiring Harry > to be further exposed to the mind of Voldemort, which would explain his > "look of triumph". I also think that Snape disapproves, cannot just > refuse Dumbledore, and has used a very successful reason to prevent the > continuation of the occlumency lessons. It worked and Dumbledore bought > it. I think the lessons were making Harry worse. Alla: I strongly disagree. Dumbledore definitely has some kind of a plan, since he mentioned this plan several times in his last speech in OOP, but I don't think that exposing Harry's mind further to Voldemort was ever part of the plan. Protecting Harry from Voldemort - Yes. Exposing further - I don't think so. Do you base it on the quote "nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind further to Voldemort while in my presence-" - OOP, p.833? I know some posters weave very complicated conspiracy theories based on that. I personally prefer simpler explanation such as Harry's mind was ALWAYS open to Voldemort ever since he got that scar. So, Dumbledore would not want to strengthen the connection between Hary and Voldie. I disagree with the contention that Dumbledore would ever want to make Voldie even more comfortable in the Harry's mind than he already is. I think that Dumbledore genuinely wanted to protect Harry,albeit unsuccesfully, because he put such task on Snape's shoulders, due to having too much faith in Snape's "latent good qualities". Alla, who is very happy to be back home. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:14:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:14:18 -0000 Subject: About Ron ( was OotP Harry not a prefect & his Inner Voice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115732 > Del replies : > I personally don't believe in Jealous!Ron. Ron wasn't jealous in GoF, > he was hurt, because he felt Harry had betrayed him by not sharing > with him how to get past the age line. > > If you look all over the rest of the books, you'll see that jealousy > is most definitely *not* one of Ron's traits. A bit of envy > sometimes, but never jealousy. Alla: Hi, Del! Personally, I do believe in jealous Ron in GoF. Especially because I remember JKR specifically saying in one of the chats that she portrayed Ron as jealous. Yes, I read Dicentra's wonderful essay and think that Betrayed!Ron is very strong and very valid interpretation of the text, but I did see Jealous! Ron in GoF very clearly in my mind. If you acknowledge that Ron could be envious sometimes, then envy is a feeling that often goes together with jealosy. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 17 01:20:35 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:20:35 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth -Additional Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > OoP: > Said Slytherin, 'We'll teach just those > Whose ancestry is purest.' > [...] > For instance, Slytherin > Took only pure-blood wizards > Of great cunning, just like him, > > I notice that the hat never mentions pure-bloodedness until it's > relating the *history* of who Salazar chose *himself.* I'm not sureif that means anything. We do know that during the last 50 or 60 years, the House has had both purebloods and half-bloods, but know of no Muggleborns at all. > Hmmm..."pure-blood wizards...just like him" --What if that means, 'not really pure at all'? Could he have been a closet halfblood ? Maybe Salazar is the Halfblood Prince! Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:27:58 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:27:58 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115734 > SSSusan: > Well put, Laura--I like that "wrong sides of the same side." > > My question would be, how would the students in DA take having Snape > as their advisor? I agree with all the other points you've made -- > DD trusts him, he's in the Order, and he also presumably knows the > Dark Arts well. But these kids have had a really good time with > Harry as their leader. I wonder how they would react if ol' Severus > showed up to take charge? (Would be an interesting scene to read, > wouldn't it?) > Alla: I really and sincerely hope that such thing will NEVER happen. :) Ever. As Dzeytoun said, Dumbledore caused enough problems for Harry with his idealistic hope that Harry and Snape could ever get along. Although it did made a great read, I admit. Harry accomplished far more with DA members than Snape accomplished with Gryffs in his potions class. Hmmm, I wonder if Harry is a better teacher at 15 than Snape is at 36. Again, I am hoping that this will not be ruined and if Dumbledore decides that DA members indeed need to be inloved in the more complicated studies, someone else will be made their advisor. I so want to say Lupin :o). Maybe Dumbledore will make it unofficial position, so Remus can be at Hogwarts again? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:31:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:31:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115735 mhbobbin wrote: > > I forget some times that every time a volume is release, we must go > back and read all the previous volumes. I just did that as these > posts intrigued me. The chapter is rich. > > I agree that Petunia is hiding something. She has been in > communication with Lily at least once in the past 15 months --how > does she know what her nephew's name is? And her behavior is > unusually sharp. The falling asleep quickly is odd. > > What do you make of the Tawny Owl that flutters by unnoticed on the > second page. Where was that Owl going? Was that Owl leaving a > message for Petunia that she finds after Vernon heads for work? Or > was that Owl going to Mrs Figg's (did she live in the neighborhood > pre-Harry?) or to a yet undisclosed wizard on Privet Drive? > > And what was the short wizard (possibly Flitwick) who hugs Vernon > doing outside of his work building? Very odd. Was it Flitwick--could > he have been spying on Vernon? Were Hogwarts' classes cancelled for > the day? > > And was Ted the newscaster Ted Tonks? Carol responds: Okay, since no one else seems to have answered your questions (at least there are no threaded responses), I'll take a shot at it. I'm guessing the letter is not for Petunia because it's nighttime and Vernon is home. If DD sent her an owl, he'd be discreet and do it when Petunia is likely to be home alone. It could well be for Mrs. Figg, assuming that Dumbledore is implementing his contingency plan in advance (i.e., preparing for the worst in case the Fidelius charm fails. He seems *not* to think that Harry will die, for which reason I think he helped Lily with her "ancient magic," another part of the contingency plan). I think the wizard was Dedalus Diggle, the same tiny man with a violet tophat who once bowed to Harry in the street (SS/PS Am. ed. 30). As for the newscaster, he's a Muggle and Ted Tonks is a Muggleborn (see OoP, "The Noble and Ancient House of Black"). Carol, who of course is just guessing on all counts From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 17 01:02:53 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:02:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? Message-ID: <20041016.213556.2108.2.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115736 Carol said: > It turns out that > > the American edition of SS has Hagrid saying, "I'll be takin' > Sirius his bike back" (16) but the British edition has a different > reading. Can anyone provide that other reading and might it be a > correction made to later printings while JKR was writing PoA? That's what my UK ed. has. The red one with the train on the front, copyright 1997. Chancie said: >Also, I have wondered if maybe after Hagrid "discovered" that Sirius betrayed >the Potter's if he would have maybe thrown the bike in the lake not wanting >to have anything that belonged to that "trader." That'd be my bet. I'm sure the bike was rusted, melted, banished, or thrown off a cliff and dashed to pieces a long time ago. Aura ~*~ "I sat down to play yesterday and all of a sudden it was 4 hours later and dark -- as if God had hit my double arrow button." - The Sims forum Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 17 01:21:59 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:21:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained Message-ID: <20041016.213556.2108.3.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115737 I totally advocated this 'ship on another board, but I think marriage is a little extreme. Tom was evil pretty early on (he first became obcessed with the CoS in 2nd year); I don't think any Gryffendor girl would go out with him long enough to get to know his dark side. So I see McG/Riddle as two very popular students who dated because it's the thing you do when you're popular. That's how my grandma describes how teen dating went when she was a teenager. Today, "dating" to teenagers means "going steady" pretty much right off the bat, but 50 years ago, kids dated around a lot more. Young Minerva and Tom probably dated for part of one school year, were Yule Ball king and queen, but they broke up when Tom became more interested in a more evil Slytherine girl and McG started going with one of her quidditch teammates. BTW, I think Tom was popular b/c in school, he was charismatically rounding up supporters. All evil dictators are the popular type. Hitler, Hussein, Bush. I do think that McG is or was married, and has a passle of grandkids she visits on holidays. She just seems that type. Either that, or she's secretly married to DD. As someone on fametracker put it: "theirloveissototallyamutualagreement" The surprise marriage? I really think it'll be Snape. Not married now, but was. Maybe his wife's death has something to do with why he joined or left the DEs. (I'm betting 50 galleons he killed her.) Meri said: >Anyway, Hogwarts is a fairly contained >school; rumors could fly. I'd like to think that maybe Student! >McGonagal heard the rumors and stayed with him anyway...Maybe she >thought she could redeem him. It was specifically said that Riddle was only being called LV by a small, contained circle. I don't think even the other Slytherines knew. And, I think MiniMcG was smart enough to know better than to try to redeem any boy. Which is why I advocate a brief teen scream beach blanket bingo relationship. Aura ~*~ "I sat down to play yesterday and all of a sudden it was 4 hours later and dark -- as if God had hit my double arrow button." - The Sims forum Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:44:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:44:57 -0000 Subject: GH re-re-revisited - Portrait Spy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115738 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I thought that there was only one of each "character" but I guess > now that you ask directly, I'm not sure. I keep thinking of how > there was an *empty* frame in the bedroom where Harry was staying at > GP, and I took that to mean Phineas was absent, visiting one of his > other frames. BUT there were also times when Harry heard sniggering > or other sounds, weren't there? As if Phineas was actually there > but just didn't want to show himself, perhaps? So I guess I don't > know! Carol responds: I think each portrait would be a kind of limited two-dimensional clone of the person as he was when he was painted and each one has its own consciousness (rather like the chocolate frog cards but able to communicate with living wizards). So the portrait that hangs in DD's office and the one at 12 GP could both be "working" (spying for Dumbledore or whatever) at the same time and could visit with each other as needed. Since Harry hears Phineas chuckling, even though he doesn't see him, he's probably just slipped out of view inside his frame (rather like Photo!Penelope Clearwater hiding after Ron gives her a blemish by spilling water on the photo). So I think there are at least two portraits of Phineas, made at different times and hung in different places, both of which are occupied most of the time by two different painted versions of Phineas. Carol, who hopes that Mrs. Black doesn't have any other portraits From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 01:52:22 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:52:22 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. MWPP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115739 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy" wrote: snip. >> You can't judge Snape's behaviour in POA yet, as we still don't fully > know the full details of their past relationship, or all the bad blood > between them. > Alla: Just a quick comment. You are saying that we cannot judge Snape's behaviour in PoA yet, because we don't know the full amount of bad blood between them and Marauders. I MAY be inclined to agree with you, if you tell me that you agree that we cannot judge James and Sirius baehaviour in pensieve scene yet, because we don't know the full amount of the bad blood between them and Snape yet and it is impossible to judge seven year relationship based on ONE scene. Personally, as I said a few times earlier, I have a very strong belief that we will find out about HUGE amount of bad blood either between James and Snape or Sirius and Snape or their families, BUT just as I think that Pensieve scene is despicable on its own, no back story needed, I also think that Snape's behaviour in PoA is quite despicable on its own. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 02:04:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:04:24 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115740 macfotuk wrote: > > > > Two wizards (apart from Barman Tom who reappears in PoA and P-p-p- Professor Quirrel, whose presence it turns out later has huge significance) approach Harry in the Leaky Cauldron on the occasion of him first visiting it with Hagrid: one of whom is Doris Crockford. > The other wizard present is, of course, Daedulus Diggle - Member of OoP and hugely indiscreet eccentric person (sounds like DD with his hair properly let down and beard unfurled). co-incidence or what? > > > > Just who IS Doris Crockford? Or Daedalus Diggle for that matter? > > Geoff wrote: > Remember that Dedalus Diggle got a previous (rather disparaging) mention in PS from Professor McGonagall and is also revealed in OOTP as a member of the order; he is one of the group who come to Privet Drive to take Harry to Grimmauld Place. He doesn't get much more of a mention (so far) but there are also Elphias Doge and Hestia Jones who seem to be in this kind of situation. Carol responds: There's also Emmeline Vance, who's introduced as a member of the Advance Guard but has yet to play a role. (Interesting that the female members of the Order, other than Tonks, were not at the MoM, but I don't want to get into that.) But Dedalus Diggle has been mentioned rather frequently for a very minor character. In fact, he's the first wizard other than DD, McGonagall, and Hagrid, that we meet. Harry recognizes him in the Leaky Cauldron as the wizard who bowed to him in the street. It seems likely that he's also the one who shakes hands with Vernon and tells him that "even Muggles like yourself" should be celebrating. He's a colorful character (in more ways than one--he seems to be associated with violet) and I expect we'll see him again, possibly providing comic relief in an increasingly dark WW. (Is he also in the photo of the old Order that Moody shows Harry in OoP? I can't recall.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 02:11:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:11:12 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: <004701c4af27$b02952a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115741 Kethryn wrote: > > Well, if JKR does kill off the Weasley children, not only will I be upset that she killed off some of the best characters in the book, but I will be hugely upset at what I will see as a cop out. Ho - hum, kill the hubby and most of the children...funny, doesn't Saving Private Ryan start something along those lines? Or, in other words, that's a plot that's been dragged through the mud a couple thousand times. I will agree, however, that the odds are stacked against the Weasley family surviving intact (which sucks cause I do like them, even that git, Percy) simply because there are so many of them floating around, either in the Order, working for the Ministry, or being Harry's friend (and all sundry combinations therein). > > How wrong would it be to start a pool on who survives and who doesn't? Personally, I have this feeling that McGonagall is a goner but it could also be Lupin or one of the elder Weasley children. You know, removing Harry's support group one person at a time... Carol responds: I just had a thought based on your last sentence. Suppose she removes his (adult) support group one person at a time: first Lupin, then McGonagall, then Dumbledore--and his support group is reduced to one person, Snape, as it was in OoP, only this time the others are all dead? Just a thought, but it could happen, and we know that Snape will play a key role of some sort in Book 7. Carol, not wanting all those deaths but still intrigued by the possibility From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 02:16:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:16:50 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115742 >> Carol responds: > I just had a thought based on your last sentence. Suppose she removes > his (adult) support group one person at a time: first Lupin, then > McGonagall, then Dumbledore--and his support group is reduced to one > person, Snape, as it was in OoP, only this time the others are all dead? > > Just a thought, but it could happen, and we know that Snape will play > a key role of some sort in Book 7. > > Carol, not wanting all those deaths but still intrigued by the possibility Alla: Oh, no, no, no. Please, JKR, no. :o) I am horrified by such possibility. I do want Harry and Snape to reach an understanding at the end, but certainly not at such price. I am hoping that Lupin will be a survivor at the end (just as Harry will be too). I know I maybe asking for too much, but I am hoping that Harry will have an adult at the end, who is capable of loving him and I don't think that Snape is capable of any such thing. Who will die? Hmmm. I agree that either Charly or Bill will be gone and Molly and Arthur are huge possibilities. Dumbledore - very possible. I don't know whom of the kids she decides to kill of, but despoite her promise of the more deaths, I still don't believe in the bloodbath. I could be wrong, of course. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 02:37:31 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:37:31 EDT Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) Message-ID: <15b.41eb5da3.2ea334eb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115743 Ginger wrote: > The other part that I thought would be interesting was the > Durmstrang/Slytherin connection. Draco and Co. would be familiar > with him as the Durmstrang crew took their meals at the Slytherin > table for almost a year during the tournament. I can just see > them: "Come on, Prof. Krum, show us some REAL Dark stuff, like you > learned at your school!" Unfortunately, we wouldn't get to see it, > since Gryffindor and Slytherin don't have DADA together. > Hmm...unless...with smaller post-OWL classes, maybe they combine the > two. Worth a thought. > > You are right that he doesn't have the experience, but DD is getting > desperate to fill the position. It was more of an off-hand thought > than a full theory. But it could be fun. Too bad it makes Krum > potential coffin-filler. > > Ginger, needing to get to her housework I think whoever becomes the new DADA teacher will be potential coffin-filler too. How else will Snape become the DADA teacher in Book 7? ;-) But my best guess for DADA teacher in Book 6 is Bill Weasley. He has the experience, and it's time again for a DADA teacher who is not incompetent or working for Voldy. (Books 1&4 were the Voldy guys, Books 2&5 were the incompetent teachers, and Books 3&6 are the competent teachers--Lupin and now Bill). Plus, if it's Bill, that provides the Weasley who will probably die. As someone said, there are just too many Weasleys for them all to survive. Ron and Ginny seem pretty safe. So are the twins, because you can't kill one twin--it's too mean! That does leave Charlie, as well as Arthur and Molly. But if Bill becomes the DADA teacher in Book 6, that will seal his fate I think. Also, I'd love to see Bill as the DADA teacher. And I wonder how Snape would react to him? They don't have a history, like Snape did with Lupin and Moody. And Snape couldn't harass him on grounds of incompetence (Lockhart, Umbridge) or questionable motives (Quirrell). I think it would be very interesting to see if Bill would take Snape down a peg or two ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 02:42:34 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:42:34 -0000 Subject: Should Neville Stand or Sit in Defiance WAS Re: Snape Re: good ides bad idea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115744 > SSSusan: > > Yikes! Snape as DA advisor?!? My first reaction was, "Oooooh, > > bad idea!" Is there anybody out there who could argue that it > > would be a GOOD idea, though? > > Laura B.: > As a member of the OotP Snape is in essence a member of DA, he has > just not yet been "cordially invited", so why not advise? I don't > think it is that much of a far-fetched idea. I say it could > happen. The man is trusted by DD, he is a part of the OotP. Snape > is serving a higher purpose than has yet been written out. As for > right now Snape and DA are are on the wrong sides of the same side. > Perhaps at some time in the near future, they will heed DD advice > and stand united. > > Just a Thought... Carol responds: Unless Steve (bboy) is right and Snape is DADA teacher instead of potions master in Book 6 (which I don't think will happen), he wouldn't be the proper person to advise the DA. That duty would fall to the DADA instructor, who I'm guessing will be the lionlike man from the excerpt on JKR's site. If they have a competent DADA instructor, they may not even need the DA. (OTOH, maybe they should reinstitute the Duelling Club!) Carol From feklar at verizon.net Sun Oct 17 02:54:15 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:54:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth References: Message-ID: <004001c4b3f4$96f4e340$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 115745 > bboyminn: > > So, given that it was more the /risk/ of making the wizard world known > to muggles that worried Slytherin than an actual hatred of > muggle/muggle-born/mixed-bloods, I don't see any reason why the modern > Sorting Hat would exclude less than purebloods from Slytherin. The > true prerequisites are cunning and ambition. Feklar: I do agree that the Hat's decision is based on personality traits, not bloodlines. There's nothing in what the Hat or any other character says to indicate the sorting is based on bloodlines. I also don't think there has been a reliable explanation of what Slytherin's motives really were, so this idea occurred to me: What if the COS and the basilisk were like a doomsday device? He left them there as a last resort for the school, or at least Slytherin house, if they were ever attacked by magic hating muggles. Then the legend of Slytherin leaving a "last line of defense against muggles" was distorted over the centuries to he left "something to kill muggleborns" and ultimately LV used it for his own purposes which seem to match the distorted legend. Feklar From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 02:56:23 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:56:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115746 RedLena wrote: > Harry's glasses are a primary part of his characterization. They are a visible reminder that in many ways he's just a normal boy with flaws, in this case weak eyesight. I can understand why JKR would be upset that the dust jacket didn't depict them. Carol responds: Yes, but weak vision is not just any weakness. Being able to see is crucial to life as Harry lives it, whether he's playing Quidditch or writing an essay for Transfiguration or Potions. It's even more crucial--in fact, vital--when he's duelling with DEs or Voldemort. Suppose that Voldemort were to Accio his glasses and then vaporize them so that they could neither be resummoned nor repaired? Harry would be at a terrible disadvantage with blurry vision--much more so if without his glasses, he's nearly blind. I don't disagree that they're part of what makes him "a normal boy with flaws," but JKR's words, "the key to his vulnerability," suggest that they may be something more. Possibly they don't tie in clearly with her key themes of good vs. evil or death, though to some degree they tie in with self-determination (if you can't see because an enemy took your glasses, your chances of survival are limited and your choices are restricted. You are in that person's power as surely as if you were under the Imperius Curse). If you don't buy the thematic connection, at least it would be a highly effective means of increasing the tension in the plot. Carol From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 17 03:02:47 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:02:47 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: <15b.41eb5da3.2ea334eb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115747 Julie wrote: > Also, I'd love to see Bill as the DADA teacher. And I wonder how > Snape would react to him? They don't have a history, like Snape did with Lupin and Moody. And Snape couldn't harass him on grounds of > incompetence (Lockhart, Umbridge) or questionable motives (Quirrell). I think it would be very interesting to see if Bill would take Snape down a peg or two ;-) Potioncat: According to the Lexicon, Bill would have had Snape as a teacher. And I think Ginny says Bill doesn't like Snape. (it may have been Charlie who doesn't like him.) So they could have a history. But this time they would be fellow Order members. Given the requirements for treasure hunter in the career pamphlets, Bill just might have the right experience to teach DADA! OTOH, I would think banking would pay better than teaching. Potioncat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 03:21:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:21:10 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115748 mhbobbin wrote: > Now, why didn't DD try to kill LV in his duel with him in the MoM-- > (not obviously when Harry was possessed by LV) if he thought that LV > might now be slightly mortal? Does DD really put that much faith in > a prophecy that indicates Harry must be the Vanquisher? Hasn't DD > worked to that point to convince Harry (and us) that predicting the > future is at best an inexact skill? Carol: For one thing, he has powers that he's "too noble to use," as McGonagall informs us at the very beginning of the series. That would include the Unforgiveable Curses. (And, no, it wouldn't be noble to avoid using an AK so Harry could use the same spell later. There must be another, less evil way, to destroy Voldemort that only Harry can use.) Carol From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 17 03:29:49 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:29:49 -0000 Subject: Wizards at Large. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115749 Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn): Wizards might live among muggles, but that doesn't mean they live with them; among them but not a part of them. Just as some Chinese are IN London, but not PART of it. So, seeing wizards out and about in Surrey and nearby, while not common, is still reasonable and possible. Bookworm: They might be about in Surrey, but they would have to make a point of visiting Little Whinging. [OoP, Ch8] "'I'm a resident of Little Whinging, close to where Harry Potter lives,' said Mrs. Figg. 'We have no record of any witch or wizard living in Little Whinging other than Hary Potter,' said Mrs. Bones at once." If, as another poster mentioned, it is likely the Dursleys walked to the local shops, then whoever the bowing wizard is, it probably wasn't a coincidence that he ran into Harry in the shop. He would have traveled, if only from the next town, to visit Little Whinging. Ravenclaw Bookworm From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 04:10:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:10:06 -0000 Subject: The Hand of Glory and H-BP question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115750 > Doddiemoe here: > > Or it may be how Draco gets Dad and his cronies out of Azkaban. Even > if Draco did not get the hand of glory that particular day--he knows > where it is and has the money to purchase said hand. > > Doddie--who wonders who guards Azkaban prison these days. Carol responds: Great idea, but how will Draco, who's not yet old enough to apparate, get to an island prison, regardless of who's guarding it? We've been promised a bit more of Narcissa. Maybe she'll set them free after Draco talks her into buying the hand of glory? Just a highly speculative thought growing out of what's already been said. Carol P.S. This is OT for this post, but can anyone direct me to a site with the UK publication dates for books 1-6 and to an interview in which she states (I think) that she's halfway through the writing (not the production!) of Book 6? I'm sure I read it somewhere but I can't find it on Quick Quotes. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 05:00:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 05:00:56 -0000 Subject: Rowling's Death Prediction: Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115751 daughterofthedustwrote: > > Okay, so Rowling has divulged that another main character will meet > his/her end in book six... Carol responds: Forgive me if I make a small correction here. JKR has made no such revelation. All the articles now appearing on the web and elsewhere stem from her answer on her website to the question, "Are you going to kill any more characters?" which was, "Yes, sorry." So it's not that one major character will die in Book 6, it's that characters, plural, will die in Book 6, or Book 7, or most likely both. As an article on HPANA states, this two-word phrase is old news to HP fans: "Fans of JK Rowling's Harry Potter series aren't shocked by wide media announcements that the author has warned of additional deaths in her final two stories. "In fact, the author hinted as far back as 2001 that there would be deaths in the series: "There are deaths, more deaths coming," she told the BBC then. "Recent widespread media attention of this very old news is the result of updates Rowling made on her official site last week: 'Are you going to kill any more characters?' 'Yes. Sorry.'. . . ." http://www.hpana.com/news.18338.html We already know that "the war has begun in earnest" (JKR's own words from, I think, the World Book Day chat) and that one death per book does not a war make. I think we need to expect several deaths in both books, both major and minor characters, on-page and off. (Harry, after all, can't witness the death of an Order member if he's at school, and though he's not the narrator, the narrator still relates the book from his POV.) As JKR told us long ago, not everyone is going to survive the war. We know from an interview that Snape will make it at least to Book 7, and we didn't need JKR's assurance that Harry will. Of course he will, and so will Voldemort. Chances are extremely good that Hermione and Ron will survive their sixth year as well. Their seventh is a lot more iffy. Lupin or an adult Weasley seems more likely to be the first of the H-BP deaths, simply because they are outside the (relative) safety of Hogwarts and directly fighting the war. Or JKR might start with relative strangers, Tonks or Kingsley Shacklebolt, maybe, but it won't end there. Anyway, the silly little poll that appeared on CNN naming five or six characters, all of them students, and asking "Which one do you think will die?" misses the point altogether. This is war, and more than one person is going to die. It will most likely be Order members in Book 6, but students will die, too, most likely in Book 7. If you're writing children's books, says JKR, you have to be a ruthless killer. And it's not going to be one death per book, as in GoF and OoP. It will be multiple deaths, some of them painful for the readers. Voldemort and the DEs will at last show why the WW lived in fear of them for so many years. Because this, at last, is war. Carol, who does not want or expect a bloodbath, only a sense of what Harry and the WW are really up against From chrissilein at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 07:59:35 2004 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 07:59:35 -0000 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115752 Hi guess what I found at a catholic martyrian website ???? The 3 saints Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus. They all died in 309 AD in Egypt as martyrians. Well. Does these names sound familiar to you? What are your spontaneous thoughts? The link!!!! www.catholic-forum.com/sa...ints95.htm From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 10:00:26 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:00:26 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth -Additional Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" > wrote: > > OoP: > > Said Slytherin, 'We'll teach just those > > Whose ancestry is purest.' > > [...] > > For instance, Slytherin > > Took only pure-blood wizards > > Of great cunning, just like him, > > > > I notice that the hat never mentions pure-bloodedness until it's > > relating the *history* of who Salazar chose *himself.* I'm not > sureif that means anything. We do know that during the last 50 > or 60 years, the House has had both purebloods and > half-bloods, but know of no Muggleborns at all. > > annemehr > pippin > > Hmmm..."pure-blood wizards...just like him" --What if that > means, 'not really pure at all'? Could he have been a closet > halfblood ? Maybe Salazar is the Halfblood Prince! > > Pippin bboyminn: What I was thinking of was Prof. Binns answer to Hermione during History class in CoS. --- CoS, Am Ed, Hb, Pg 149-151 --- "For a few years, the founders worked in harmony together, seeking out youngsters who showed signs of magic and bringing them to the castle to be educated. But then disagreements sprang up between them. A rift began to grow between Slytherin and the others. Slytherin wished to be more selective about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families. ***He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy.*** After a while, there was a serious argument on the subject between Slytherin and Gryffindor, and Slytherin left the school." Professor Binns paused again, pursing his lips, looking like a wrinkled old tortoise. "Reliable historical sources tell us this much," he said. "But these honest facts have been obscured by the fanciful legend of the Chamber of Secrets. The story goes that Slytherin had built a hidden chamber in the castle, of which the other founders knew nothing." "Slytherin, according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that none would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the school. The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets, unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic." - - - end quote - - - It's true the book does try to lead us to believe that Slytherin was a /racist/. But it's hard to tell how much of that is self-serving exaggeration, and how much is truth. It's clear Slytherin had a bias against Muggles, and had justifiable reasons to hate what some muggle were doing at that time, but I don't feel that confident that Slytherin was an evil nasty hatefulled monster. He and Gryffindor were apparently very close friends, and if Slytherin was that nasty and hate-filled, it would seem reasonable that Gryffindor would have figured it out before he entered into a partnership in the school with him. I'm not saying Slytherin was a real sweetheart or anything, he might have been somewhat Snape-like, but if his true nature was as bad as he is made out, why did the other three founders become partners in the school with him? That seems sufficient doubt, at least for me, to question whether Voldemort and other purebloods'portrayal of Slytherin is accurate. Of course, I can't prove this for sure. All we can do is wait for the remaining books to clear things up. But I think we should be very cautions of taking people's word 1,000 years after the fact. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 10:07:09 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:07:09 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Julie wrote: > > Also, I'd love to see Bill as the DADA teacher. .... I think it > > would be very interesting to see if Bill would take Snape down a > >peg or two ;-) > Potioncat: > According to the Lexicon, Bill would have had Snape as a teacher. > And I think Ginny says Bill doesn't like Snape. ... So they could > have a history. But this time they would be fellow Order members. > > Given the requirements for treasure hunter in the career pamphlets, > Bill just might have the right experience to teach DADA! OTOH, I > would think banking would pay better than teaching. > > Potioncat bboyminn: I too have championed Bill as the new DADA teacher in the past. Being a curse breaker means he must have a huge bank of knowledge about curses and countercurses. Logic says that some of the tombs he is breaking curses on had the curses put on them in languages and by schools of magic that don't exist anymore. That's quite a feat in my book. There is just one problem, I like Bill, and sadly, I am confident that if he becomes the new DADA teacher, he will be dead before the end of the book, and I really don't want him to die. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 17 12:05:20 2004 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:05:20 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115755 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" > wrote: > > > Sigune begs to differ: > > He shows the Mark to *Fudge*. By that time, Crouch Sr is dead. > Crouch Sr, by the way, KNEW about Snape's former DE > allegiances: he had been the prosecutor in the DE trials, and > though we aren't shown Snapes, we are shown Karkaroff's > 'information session' in which Crouch hears DD mention, yet > again, that Snape has switched sides.< Pippin wrote: > Yet again? There's something curious about that. Crouch tells > Karkaroff that Dumbledore vouched for Snape and that Snape > has been cleared. But when Karkaroff insists, Dumbledore has > to rise to report that Snape was indeed a former Death Eater, but > that he turned spy and is now a Death Eater no more. Wouldn't > Crouch be the logical person to tell the tribunal this? Wouldn't > the permanent members of the tribunal already know? Unless, > perchance, they'd been memory charmed. Is Dumbledore's > function at the trials to recall information which the tribunal > needs to know to decide a particular case, but which would be > dangerous for them to retain afterwards? Sigune again: Crouch does point it out himself as well - sorry, I forgot about that line: "'Snape has been cleared by this council,' said Crouch coldly. 'No! shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains which bound him to the chair. 'I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!'" (GoF Ch. 30 The Pensieve, p. 513 British ed.) That is when DD rises to re-state that he has given evidence on the matter, in view of Karakaroff's vehement insistence. I had the feeling, reading this, that he thought his fellow Wizengamot members might need some reminding - that Snape could do with some extra defending. What keeps puzzling me - but I have little knowledge of the workings of law and court - is that Snape is 'cleared'. The word suggest to me that he is proved not guilty, whereas he clearly has been a Death Eater. Does anybody know what kind of status spies have, that is, are they 'cleared' of crimes committed because they made 'good' use of their experiences in the end? Even so, I think a verdict of 'not guilty' is a bit rich, but maybe that's just me. Yours severely, Sigune From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 17 12:27:29 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:27:29 +0100 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115756 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > Question for you, then; so Lupin buys it [Sirius's innocence] hook and sinker too? Lupin seems to change his mind so quickly because he knew there was always something a little...off with Sirius going to jail, methinks. But, of course, being Lupin, he's really rather passive in his approach to it all. But convince him... > Kneasy: Lupin doesn't *want* to believe in Sirius's guilt. Sirius doesn't have to give a word of explanation before Lupin is all over him like a rash, putting words in Sirius's mouth and convincing *himself* of Sirius's innocence. No doubts or hesitation, no matter that Black has just broken Ron's leg, tried to throttle Harry, all is sweetness and light. Except for the trivial matter of the disposal of Pettigrew. "Let's cap the love-fest with a spot of murder." How nice! > Nora: From his perspective, as we've discussed before, I don't think he's putting much faith in the WW system or Dumbledore. Besides, Peter's body would probably be good enough to prove 'something is the hell wrong here', right? :) > Kneasy: Unlikely. It'd be "We've caught that murdering traitor Black and he's finally killed poor Pettigrew; he tried before, you know. Pettigrew's been hiding from Black's friends for years, it seems. Oh, and he's got some cock and bull story about Pettigrew being the traitor, but who's going to believe that when we know Black was the Potters SK." Peter is the only way Sirius could prove he wasn't the SK. There wasn't a trial last time and there wouldn't be this time either. Killing Peter would probably confirm his guilt in the eyes of the WW. > Nora: You know, I'm trying very, very hard to square 'Sirius set up Peter to fail' against JKR's recent comments about Sirius as a character. The comments fundamentally admit he's flawed--like that wasn't obvious. But you, Kneasy have the much harder task. You have to convince me that, given the explicit authorial and canonical information that Sirius loved James like a brother, hated the Dark Arts, all that jazz--you have to come up with WHY Sirius would set up James, Lily, and the child whose godfather he was. (Nice authorial confirmation of the Christening and the importance placed on his role as Godfather, on the website, you know.) No matter what you say, it's going to be a massive complication of the text, because it's *not* merely filling out a portrait (like finding out that James was a git--the clues for that were always there)--this is a complete reversal of character. I'm not sure it makes good literary economy, either, to subvert the Big Punch of one entire book. 'Escaped convict not actually guilty'--what, we're going to spend plot time ono that, instead of what's happening NOW? > Kneasy: Loved him like a brother - Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, Arthur and Lancelot, lots of brotherly or near-brotherly love that ends in betrayal, plus about half of Shakespeare's tragedies that would be boring if not for anger, envy, jealousy directed at a so-called loved one. A classic theme - I can see Sirius as Brutus any day of the week - "et tu, Padfoot?" I don't have to convince you of anything, just as you don't have to convince me - it's an impossibility anyway, given the twists, switches and concealed information that JKR seems addicted to. We have a modicum of information and we make of it what we will. And JKR's pronouncements can be as misleading as the clues in the books. From being her favourite character (stated in interview after OoP was published) who she cried buckets over, Sirius is now downgraded to a socially retarded misfit with double standards who *had* to die and who we will learn more about in due course. The fact that she's written reams on his back-history is encouraging; whatever comes out it's unlikely to be boring. The re-assessment of James (for the reader at least), took just two pages out of 766 (UK ed.) and wasn't particularly important to the main plot of OoP anyway. The explication of GH, Voldy, Sirius, Snape, Pettigrew and all the rest will need a lot more, I think. I expect at least a combined total of a quarter of the remaining two books to concentrate on what happened when and who did what. I truly believe we won't understand what's happening *now* until we know and understand what happened *then*. The characters we bash keyboards about are what they are, do what they do, for good plot reasons - they are not arbitrary constructions. > Nora: So, go for, Kneasy! Convince me that a dead character is going to have his function completely changed in the story, and the thematic idea he represents completely tossed out the window. Convince me that Voldemort's spy wouldn't have or know about the Dark Mark. Convince me that JKR has been completely sneakily hiding the TRUTH about this character behind her nice words. God knows he's not perfect in any way, shape, or form--but your willful character mutilation goes way beyond that. :) > Kneasy: "Wilful character mutilation" - I like it, though a trifle emotional, I think. What character am I wilfully mutilating? The one that has made two attempts at premeditated murder? The one who sends an unsuspecting student to a werewolf? The one that breaks limbs? The one that revels in bullying? The one named Black? (JKR's predilection for tying surname to character is pretty pointed.) Black the hypocrite? (His words re Crouch and Winky cf his own treatment of Keacher) Black the arrogant? All strictly canon. If you want to make excuses for him that's your business. I'll take the one described in canon; and needless to say I take his own words and explanations with a large pinch of salt and will continue to do so until he's backed by corroborative evidence - and I haven't seen any yet. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 13:29:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:29:05 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115757 > Kneasy: > "Wilful character mutilation" - I like it, though a trifle emotional, > I think. Alla: Emotions are a good thing Kneasy. Really, they are. :o) Science treatise could be analysed only using logic a nd reason. When we analyse HP books, for me , at least, enotions definitely get involved, because I am emotionally attached to many characters (Sirius is included, of course). Of course, I'd like to think that I am capable of using logic and reason too, but I definitely refuse to forget about my emotions. Kneasy: > What character am I wilfully mutilating? > The one that has made two attempts at premeditated murder? > The one who sends an unsuspecting student to a werewolf? > The one that breaks limbs? > The one that revels in bullying? > The one named Black? (JKR's predilection for tying surname to > character is pretty pointed.) > Black the hypocrite? (His words re Crouch and Winky cf his own > treatment of Keacher) > Black the arrogant? > > All strictly canon. > If you want to make excuses for him that's your business. > I'll take the one described in canon; and needless to say I take his > own words and explanations with a large pinch of salt and will continue > to do so until he's backed by corroborative evidence - and I haven't > seen any yet. Alla: Yes, Kneasy, I will take Sirius described in canon too. The one, whose animagus form is dog, the one who indeed loved James like a brother. (You cited Kain and Avel in rebuttal - true, they were brothers, but I cannot remember anywhere in the Tora saying that Kain LOVED Avel. Envied, Yes. Loved, cannot remember. On this point I am fully prepared to be proven wrong though, because last time I read their story a few months ago) The one, who risked to be recognised, but somehow used his wault to get money to buy a gift for Harry. The one, who ate rats in the cage to be closer to Harry. The one, who died for him (this point I am still in doubt of though) I will also take exception to "sends an unsuspecting student to werewolf" and made "two attempts at premeditated murder". We don't know what exactly Snape suspected at that night. Two attempts at premedidated murder, I actually don't understand at all. What do you mean? Of course Sirius is very far from perfect, but I agree with Nora - that answer of JKR to me effectively forecloses the possibility of Sirius being a trator. Actually, I am willing to bet 1000 galeons that if we will have another traitor in the Order - that won't be Sirius. Ready to take a bet? :) I won't get much into fascinating discussion about Peter, simply because I am very preconceived against him. To me, from the literary point of view , his redemption will be one of the most unsatisfying endings, which JKR could do. I am not prepared to bet that such thing will not happen. I think it is a possibility, but I will be very dissapointed, because to me Peter crossed all the lines after which redemption is possible. I was not very sold on his possible redemption when I learned that he betrayed Lily and James. But after he repaid Harry by tying him to the stone, I can only say - die, Peter, die. No, he was not calm, as Pippin stated, when he was doing his deed, but to me it does not really matter much.l He did it instead of at least trying to save Harry and that is what matters to me. Although, I admit, I find Pippin's point about Wormtail's calmly killing Cedric to be quite intriguing. JKR certainly uses doubles throughout the book. I think that second traitor is a likely possibility. I just don't think that his name is Remus Lupin. :o) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 14:05:22 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:05:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Now, I'm not a herpetologist, *but*... References: Message-ID: <000a01c4b452$589ae280$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115758 From: "justcarol67" > > > Carol responds: > Snape tells Harry that the reason he saw from the snake's point of > view is that Voldemort was possessing the snake at the time: "'You > seem to have visited the snake's mind because that was where the Dark > Lord was at that particular moment,' snarled Snape. 'He was possessing > the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it too'" (OoP > Am. ed. 532-33). The only snake we know of that Voldemort could be > possessing is Nagini. Granted, the animals that Voldemort possessed in > the wild died (like Quirrell) when he left their bodies, but maybe > Nagini, being magical, is immune to that fate, or maybe he didn't > possess her long enough to sap the life from her as he did when he > relied on the bodies of others for sustenance. There is, of course, > the problem of how a snake, whether or not it was Nagini, got into the > MoM (that's been discussed before but not resolved to my knowledge). > It's possible, then, that Snape was wrong and that Voldemort is yet > another unregistered animagus (who not surprisingly transforms into a > snake as PP transforms into a rat). But, yes, there is canon for > Voldemort possessing the snake that bit Mr. Weasley, if not for that > snake being Nagini. charme: Thanks, Carol. I recall Snape's words, but didn't see where anything alluded to Nagini specifically. Part of my question was WRT to the "3 bites" as described as canon: wouldn't one bit have done the job? I still like to think the 3 bites allude to a clue in JKR fashion, however I suppose anything goes, right? :) charme From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 14:25:57 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:25:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another death? (in HBP) References: Message-ID: <003701c4b455$388c11a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115760 ----- Original Message ----- From: "dumbledore11214" > > > Alla: > > Oh, no, no, no. Please, JKR, no. :o) > I am horrified by such possibility. I do want Harry and Snape to > reach an understanding at the end, but certainly not at such price. > I am hoping that Lupin will be a survivor at the end (just as Harry > will be too). I know I maybe asking for too much, but I am hoping > that Harry will have an adult at the end, who is capable of loving > him and I don't think that Snape is capable of any such thing. > > Who will die? Hmmm. I agree that either Charly or Bill will be gone > and Molly and Arthur are huge possibilities. Dumbledore - very > possible. I don't know whom of the kids she decides to kill of, but > despoite her promise of the more deaths, I still don't believe in > the bloodbath. I could be wrong, of course. > charme: I also believe some of the Muggles and students we've come to know will bite the dust: Uncle Dursley in particular strikes me as a likely candidate for the long line of death or torture possibilities for plot tension in the next 2 books. For example, Percy's death would reveal what exactly he's been doing: bad judgement, mental hijacking, or spy for the Order? I think characters we do like as well as characters we don't will be eliminated, and this includes a few students in the wrong place at the wrong time, too. With this being the next to the last book, I'm inclined to believe JRK will select a wide variety of people to show how war affects everyone, regardless of station, creed, or culture; these folks will also exemplify the "choices" concept JKR embraces from the beginning of the septology in PS/SS. charme From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 17 15:02:06 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Oct 2004 15:02:06 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1098025326.81.46733.m3@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115761 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 17, 2004 Time: 11:00AM CDT (GMT-05:00) Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change 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 Hope to see you there! From syroun at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 03:23:06 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:23:06 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115762 > > > Sigune: > > > Yes, I've been wondering about that Order of Merlin too... But > > > I think that when it comes to assessing Snape, Dumbledore > > > might be a tad more reliable than Harry, so I wouldn't dismiss > > > his comment straight away. We don't know for sure what Snape > > > is doing in VW2, but in VW1 he was a spy, and NOT a member of > > > the Order of the Phoenix. > > Syroun asks: > < Do we really know that?> > > Sigune: > Well, 1) we know from OotP that he's not in the group photo of the > Order Moody shows Harry; which proves nothing... 2) Black is surprised to hear Snape is at Hogwarts in PoA, which > suggests he didn't know what Snape was up to around the time of GH; not necessarily. It just shows that he was did not keep up on the professional progress of his adolescent enemy then or while in prison. If he was not privy to the everyday goings-on at Hogwarts, it would not be hard to imagine. We have no exact information on how long Snape has been at Hogwarts, do we? 3) in GoF he is surprised to hear Snape was a DE, and he never mentions anything like, 'Goody, and there was me thinking he was one of us - he was in the Order... which, again, proves nothing...other than the fact that even Sirius, someone who hated Snape, did not think him capable of such a terrible feat. > 4) if Snape knew Moody as a fellow Order member, he would have no > reason to be so nervous around Fake!Moody in GoF, and he might > have suspected he was facing an impostor when Moody kept lashing > out at him. again, not necessarily. Snape may have had a similar past with Moody as he had with Sirius, James, Lupin, et. Al. and may not have felt comfortable around him beause of that. It seems that few HP characters actually react to Snape as a old chum - why should Moody be any different? It is actually most likely that the fake Moody treated Snape exactly the same way that the real Moody would have, otherwise everyone would have questioned Moody's behaviour towards Snape as patronizing or pandering. The Moody character suspects others as a general outlook; why should Snape be any different? > > > > > Sigune continues: > > > I agree that Snape appears a loner etc, but I don't think that > > > precludes a certain craving for recognition. I also have a > > > problem with the assumption that the WW at large knows that > > > Snape was a DE. > > Finally, Syroun writes: > < Does canon actually provide any proof that it was common > knowledge that Snape was a DE? In fact, canon shows that Snape > himself has to physically prove to Crouch Sr. that he was a DE by > showing Crouch his dark mark to convince him, albeit unsuccessfuly > of LV's return. It seemed to be quite a shock to Crouch.> > > Sigune begs to differ: > He shows the Mark to *Fudge*. By that time, Crouch Sr is dead. sorry, my mistake in misnaming characters. But the reaction stands. Even Fudge, the Minister of Magic did not know about the DE's and Snape's allegiance, let alone the WW at large... > Crouch Sr, by the way, KNEW about Snape's former DE allegiances: > he had been the prosecutor in the DE trials, and though we aren't > shown Snapes, we are shown Karkaroff's 'information session' in > which Crouch hears DD mention, yet again, that Snape has switched > sides. In fact, the point I was arguing in the paragraph you quote > was that NO, the public did not know about Snape's DE activities. > Then we agree on that one point; we have no indication that Snape was ever brought to trial and even the information gleaned in that "session" was not to have become public knowledge. It would not serve the purposes of the OOTP to utilize Snape as a spy, if it had. He would likely be in Azkaban or dead. Espionage does not function well in the limelight. And, again to my point, Snape is likely to have served a specific tasks for LV and his past actions may still play an important role to the DE cause, even though we have been shown that he is a spy for the Order. JKR gives us indication that although Snape now appears to wear a white hat, we should not expect that he is fundamentally different. DD has said much the same. There is a profound reason for that...to again, hone my original thesis. Syroun From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 04:15:32 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:15:32 -0000 Subject: Snape vs. MWPP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115763 > Alla: > > Just a quick comment. You are saying that we cannot judge Snape's > behaviour in PoA yet, because we don't know the full amount of bad > blood between them and Marauders. I MAY be inclined to agree with > you, if you tell me that you agree that we cannot judge James and > Sirius baehaviour in pensieve scene yet, because we don't know the > full amount of the bad blood between them and Snape yet and it is > impossible to judge seven year relationship based on ONE scene. > > Personally, as I said a few times earlier, I have a very strong > belief that we will find out about HUGE amount of bad blood either > between James and Snape or Sirius and Snape or their families, BUT > just as I think that Pensieve scene is despicable on its own, no > back story needed, I also think that Snape's behaviour in PoA is > quite despicable on its own. Tammy: At this point Sirius comes off as pretty much a childish prat, but he's damaged goods too. I generally feel the need to protect Snape more so than James and Sirius since they seem to be more well loved overall by more HP fans. But I fully agree that they can't be judged from that incident either. I think of it this way: If we take Draco and move him forward 20 years, I'm pretty sure that he'd have a few memories he'd like to put into a pensieve to get rid of (the same as Snape). Say he puts the memory of Harry tossing mudballs at him from POA (it's the only example I can think of from the books at midnight, sorry). Looking at that one memory, Harry comes off as a jerk and the bad guy. As for Snape's behaviour in PoA being despicable, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think that, while he borders on uncontrolled, a very good argument can (and has been in the past I'm sure) be made that Snape was acting within normal judgement and reasoning based on the assumption that Sirius was a murderer and that Lupin, his best friend, had been helping him get into the castle. After all, Dumbledore - while being very smart, was fooled before by Sirius/Peter From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 17 06:20:07 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 06:20:07 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > I think we've reached a point where we're dealing with preferences > rather than rational arguments. I don't like the scenes where Harry > and friends hex Draco and company, however much they may deserve it. Allow me to disagree. I find them some of the most entertaining and highly rewarding portions of the books. A personal opinion, of course. However, for what it's worth (and I acknowledge it isn't worth very much) I think that is probably the majority opinion. > Retribution isn't righteousness; vengeance isn't justice. As for > Snape, he has every right to hand out detentions and deduct points. > Note that the points may be deducted unfairly, but detentions are > always deserved. As for the marks Harry receives, it's the > end-of-the-year marks (and the OWLS) that matter, and Harry always > passes. I'm not bothered by Snape's teaching methods; they're far > outweighed, for me, by his courage, his loyalty to Dumbledore, and his > repeated attempts to save Harry despite his dislike. And I would not > be at all entertained by any form of retribution by Harry or Neville > against him. Once again, allow me to disagree. I would find this to be extremely humorous and most appropriate. And once again, for what it's worth (which isn't much) I think this is probably the majority opinion of readers of the books. He's make a hell of an > auror, IMO. Not without a change in attitude, he wouldn't. I would hope that law- enforcement officials would have a much more highly developed sense of propriety, and a much greater maturity, than Severus has displayed. > > As for Harry killing Voldemort, I hope it won't come to that, but if > it does, I want it to be an act of justice for the good of the entire > WW, not a personal act of vengeance for the death of his parents. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, what better situation can you have when you are able to execute justice for society and vengeance for yourself in the same act? Nor do I agree that the simple act of taking deserved vengeance somehow taints or darkens Harry's character. Dumbledore, for instance, urged Harry to recognize that pain is part of being human. So is anger and vengeance. Perhaps not a pretty part of humanity, to be sure, but an inevitable and inexpungable part. But > I'm hoping for a way to destroy Voldemort without resorting to the > means and methods of the enemy--no Unforgiveable Curses, which > apparently corrupt the soul. It would be better, however sappy it may > sound, to kill him with kindness somehow. I doubt Harry will use the unforgiveables to destroy Voldemort. I think we will see him use love of some type in his struggle. In my opinion, that is sappy, in fact insipid. However, it seems decreed by JKR so there you have it. I don't know what I want, > exactly, except that I don't want Harry motivated by the petty and > ignoble desire to punish or get even, whether the enemy (or perceived > enemy) is Snape, Draco, or Voldemort. We saw that ignominious motive > with Sirius Black's vicious crusade to murder Peter Pettigrew. What > chance Black had to grow and develop as a character occurred only > because his quest for vengeance failed and Harry prevented him from > tainting his soul with murder. > > Carol Well, first of all I'm not sure we did see Sirius grow and develop much as a character. Secondly, I think a good case can be made that not killing Pettigrew was a foolish mistake taken at the behest of a naive and overly sentimental child. Without Peter, Voldemort would not have been able to inact the ceremony in the graveyard. Yes, he might have been able to return, somehow, but it is nevertheless the fact that Harry's mercy led to Voldemort's return, and thus to Sirius' death. Thus Sirius' soul remained "clean" at the expense of his life. Which was better? To live after killing a traitor who richly deserved it, or to die with clean hands leaving your godson torn and in pain from his part in your death? Would Pettigrew's death have been a greater evil than that of Sirius? These are religious questions, I admit, and not ones on which we will ever reach consensus. Nevertheless, the arguments for punishing this character or that are extremely complex, and different opinions can easily be justified using similar moral systems. But most of all we should probably remember we are dealing with a book primarily valuable for its entertainment value, not some modern annex to the King James Bible. Lupinlore From averyhaze at hotmail.com Sun Oct 17 15:38:00 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:38:00 -0000 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115765 LadyOfThePensieve wrote: Hi guess what I found at a catholic martyrian website ???? The 3 saints Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus. They all died in 309 AD in Egypt as martyrians. Well. Does these names sound familiar to you? What are your spontaneous thoughts? The link!!!! www.catholic-forum.com/sa...ints95.htm Dharma replies: Thanks for posting this information! My first thought is the obvious, given this context. Lucius, Peter and Snape are going to all be dead at the hands Death Eaters or Voldemort by the time book 7 comes to an end. Much wild speculation comes to mind in thinking about how they might die!! The simplest scenario that I can come up with would be Lucius having a reason to betray Voldemort, say and attack on Narcissa or Draco, and being killed after handing over too much/the-wrong-piece-of information over to Snape, who is revealed to be Dumbledore's spy. Pettigrew's death would more than likely be directly related to trying to save Harry, considering the life debt issue. From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 04:54:44 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 04:54:44 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115766 > >> Carol responds: > > I just had a thought based on your last sentence. Suppose she > removes > > his (adult) support group one person at a time: first Lupin, then > > McGonagall, then Dumbledore--and his support group is reduced to > one > > person, Snape, as it was in OoP, only this time the others are all > dead? This is a brilliant extension of an opinion that I have long held, which is that some good bit of time before the end of book 7 Dumbledore must die in order for Harry to truly face Voldemort on his own. But of course to make it truly harrowing, other supportive characters must also be put out of commission. Remember, of course, that this does not require them being *dead*, just unavailable. Actually, I believe that we have seen JK Rowling do this in every book to some extent. Lets see if I can remember enough to make a case for it... Book 1: Harry thinks Snape is going to steal the stone. Dumbledore is mysteriously called away. McGonagall does not believe him, nor does Hagrid. Harry and his friends go without adult assistance, but first Ron has to sacrifice himself (only to injury, fortunately)and then Hermione cannot continue because there is not enough potion for both of them to get past the flames. So at the climactic point of the story, Harry faces Quirrel/Volemort *alone*. Book 2: Ginny is taken, Dumbledore is (once again) gone, and the teachers, in despair of finding Ginny, have to close the school. Hermione is petrified. Ron and Harry drag a useless Professor Lockheart with them, and he of course causes a rockslide that cuts Ron off from Harry. Once more, Harry must face Riddle/Voldemort alone. Book 3: With Lupin howling at the moon, Sirius in custody, Snape and Fudge ignoring their pleas, Ron wounded in the hospital wing, Dumbledore *sends* Harry and Hermione back in time to do some major rescue maneuvers. Conveniently enough, they must *avoid being seen at all costs* which means of course they can't ask for help. Ultimately, Harry must drive away the dementors himself because Hermione doesn't know the spell, and his expected father never shows up. Book 4: A Portkey whisks Harry away from all potential helpers (except Cedric, who is immediately killed) and he has to face Voldemort and all his supporters alone. Well, except for the ghost/echoes. Actually, that doesn't bode well for book 7, either. Book 5: Dumbledore is on the run. Hagrid is sacked and also in hiding. McGonagall is seriously injured. Harry's Godfather is believed (at least by Harry) to be in Voldemort's clutches. A truly twisted woman is controlling Hogwarts, making contact with anyone outside impossible. Harry manages to escape to the MoM with 6 *students*, who begin to drop like flies once they meet the death eaters. Then come reinforcements from the order who are all kept busy with the remaining death eaters. Sirius dies. In the confusion, Harry gives chase to Bellatrix. Members of the Order are kept busy during his confrontation with her and with Voldemort, who would have used AK successfully had Dumbledore intervened. But in spite of all his efforts, it is not Dumbledore who saves Harry when he is possessed by Voldemort. Dumbledore dares not attack in any way at that point, for fear of hurting Harry... and perhaps JK has hinted there were other reasons as well? In any case, it seems to me that Harry's isolation for the climax of each book grows more and more pronounced, with more and more serious causes-- death being a major one in books 4 and 5. Injuries also appear to escalate in frequency and severity. And remember, non- death injuries can be just as severely debilitating and just as permanent--as in the case of Neville's parents. Remembering that Dumbledore's influence has been a lifesaver in at least four out of five books, I am the more convinced that his permanent departure is imminent by the end of book 7. I also believe there will be at least 4 or 5 more deaths among major characters before the end. Not like a Weasley bloodbath-- She'll probably spread them out a bit for maximum impact. But yes, at least one Weasley (I hope not Ron, Ginny, or a twin) will likely die, with other serious complications/sufferings likely for that tribe. I expect at least one teacher, and probably at least a couple members of the Order (notice these categories overlap, making Snape a very likely candidate). Students... well, its possible. It seems to me members of the DA are vulnerable (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing-- and the Death Eaters will likely know better than to underestimate them again). And no doubt students will suffer the loss of family members, and the impact will be felt at Hogwarts. Our trio is especially vulnerable. JK has made it known that Harry himself could die-- but not, I trust, before the very end of the last book. And at least one close friend of Harry's must survive to become a Hogwarts teacher. "Not the one you'd expect" says JK, effectively ruling out bookworm Hermione. Ron, she says she cannot picture spending his life in academia. To me that says probably Neville will survive. I'm glad of that. And I suspect at least one member of the trio will live. If JK is a romantic, at least 2. And given her not-so-subtle relationship hints, I'd say R&H. Which makes Harry a *very* likely martyr. Sorry, that's just my best guess, although it makes me very sad to contemplate. I hope that JK is more into happy endings than she lets on. After all the regrets she expresses for the awful stuff coming up for Harry, maybe she can give him a break and let him live his life once the final confrontation is finally over... Hopefully, Andrea From erinellii at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 16:12:40 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:12:40 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115767 > bboyminn wrote: > I too have championed Bill as the new DADA teacher in the past. Being > a curse breaker means he must have a huge bank of knowledge about > curses and countercurses. There is just one problem, I like Bill, and sadly, I am confident that > if he becomes the new DADA teacher, he will be dead before the end of > the book, and I really don't want him to die. Erin: Die? Possibly. But remember, the bad luck of the job is supposedly the result of a jinx, and Bill just happens to have been a curse breaker. If anyone had a chance to break that jinx and stay in the job, it would be Bill. As for what Potioncat said about banking paying better than teaching, who knows? The wizarding world may value its educators more than the muggle one. I think, however, that if Bill takes up teaching, it will be because sometyhing has happened to his banking job-- something like a goblin rebellion. And Bill not liking Snape? That would be a refreshing change for the DADA teacher-- usually it's Snape who starts out with a grudge, except for Crouch Jr./Moody. --Erin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 16:25:35 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:25:35 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115769 Carol: >I'm not bothered by Snape's teaching methods; they're far > > outweighed, for me, by his courage, his loyalty to Dumbledore, and > his > > repeated attempts to save Harry despite his dislike. And I would not > > be at all entertained by any form of retribution by Harry or Neville > > against him. Alla: Yes, this is the bottom line of our disagreements, Carol. :o) The fact that Snape is on the right side does not give him a free pass to display everyday cruelty to Harry and Neville, IMO. In fact, I am extremely bothered by it and that is why I don't consider Snape to redeem himself just yet. As I said earlier I find abuse, cruelty to chidren to be major turn off in the emotional appeal of the character. But, as I also said before, my hope for Snape realising at the end that Harry is not James is alive ... yet. :) Lupinlore: > Once again, allow me to disagree. I would find this to be extremely > humorous and most appropriate. And once again, for what it's worth > (which isn't much) I think this is probably the majority opinion of > readers of the books. Alla: Agreed. Absolutely. If Snape does not get who Harry is at the end, I want justice. I don't really care whether it is an opinion of the majority or not. Many,many readers are ready and willing to forgive Snape every misgiving and it is their right, because as Sirius' fan I am also ready and willing to forgive him A LOT ( not everything,of course) So, I am not sure whether majority of the readers wants Snape to get his dues at the end. I know I do and that is what matters for me. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 16:36:42 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:36:42 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115770 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shallowdwell" wrote: snip. >> I hope that JK is more into happy endings than she lets on. After > all the regrets she expresses for the awful stuff coming up for > Harry, maybe she can give him a break and let him live his life once > the final confrontation is finally over... > Alla: Yes, I hope so too. I really want Harry to survive. I stated earlier that my prediction is that "temporary" death and then resurrection is in store for Harry. Don't ask me how. Whether it will be some potion made by Snape or he will fall alive behind the Veil with Voldemort and will be convinced that it is not his time yet, I don't know. I so don't want to be wrong on this one. I actually think that trio will survive intact, or Ron will die as foreshadowed by the chess game. I think Luna is a likely candidate to die. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 17 16:42:12 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:42:12 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115771 > > bboyminn wrote: > > I too have championed Bill as the new DADA teacher in the past. > Being a curse breaker means he must have a huge bank of knowledge about curses and countercurses. There is just one problem, I like Bill, and sadly, I am confident that > > if he becomes the new DADA teacher, he will be dead before the end of the book, and I really don't want him to die. Hannah now: I think that Bill is useful to the Order where he is, since he can try to convince the goblins to join them, and also keep an eye on any developments within the goblin community. Also, with two siblings still at Hogwarts, it could be quite awkward. I don't think the DADA teacher will be anyone we've encountered before, and I reckon they'll last the year, and then be replaced by Snape in book 7. It won't be Krum (IMO) since JKR has said that we won't be seeing him again soon. This would suggest an appearance in book 7, but not in book 6. Snape is going to hate the DADA teacher whoever they are. Unless it turns out to be a relative of one of the teachers (hence JKR's reticence about their spouses/offspring). I'd like to see him forcing himself to suck up to DD's great-great grandaugher... or work alongside his own long lost love child! Hannah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 16:47:31 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:47:31 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115772 > Hannah now: snip. > Snape is going to hate the DADA teacher whoever they are. Unless it > turns out to be a relative of one of the teachers (hence JKR's > reticence about their spouses/offspring). I'd like to see him > forcing himself to suck up to DD's great-great grandaugher... or > work alongside his own long lost love child! > Alla: I find it very funny. Hanna, do you have any suggestions who could be a mother of Snape's long lost love child? :o) Seriously, though I agree with those who think that this mysterious lion-like character will be new DADA instructor. From averyhaze at hotmail.com Sun Oct 17 17:50:07 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:50:07 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115773 justcarol67 wrote: -Valky wrote: I tend to compound the nature of the issue with the fact that "Dark Magic" and "Lord Voldemort" were the bane of the very society that these boys existed in, making James and Sirius view of what was and wasn't decent quite the highground of the two. And is probably why Snape was unpopular and James/Sirius the opposite. Carol responds: Does taking the moral high ground make kids popular? It may just be that three-quarters of the students (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff) shared James's and Sirius's views that blood didn't matter and one-quarter (the Slytherins) shared Severus's views. No doubt there were exceptions in both cases, but I'm generalizing here. Dharma replies: In some situations, it is clear to me that morality matters for adolescents. In the real world, I went to high school that was very ethnically integrated, however, we had a problem white supremacist. Once it became known that a student held these views, it was taken very seriously by his/her peers, and had a direct effect on popularity. The majority ostracized the supremacists and made serious efforts to make sure that everyone knew who expressed such views. If one of the kids holding these views went on attack against a minority student, we would have a riot. The majority would disrupt the running of the school until they were able to either get their hands on the supremacists, or every teacher and administrator in the building had been called in to halls to stop the chaos. At which point the instigators of the riot would insist on refusing to budge until administration punished to the offending supremacists and their parents were called. This went on at least 2 times a year for 6 years. And just to be clear, this was in the 90's. Pushing the bit of real life to side for a moment. I'd just like reiterate something that others have hinted at, or said in the past on this topic. At 15, the Hogwarts kids are 2 years away from going into the adult world. There does not seem to be much in the way of delayed adolescence in the Wizarding World. By the time we see James hexing Snape, they very well could have had some very adult sense of morality. Their views on pureblood supremacy really could have been intellectually and morally very important at that time. They were only 2 years away from being expected to participate fully in the adult world. At the time the Marauders and Snape are 15 years- old violence is increasing, and they are facing going out into that world. Why wouldn't any of the older students have an opinion about this situation? James may have initially been popular for other reasons, but his stance against the Dark Arts could have impacted how others perceived him as well. Carol wrote: As for popularity, we don't really know that Severus was unpopular. That's Harry's perception. Some of the students (we don't know how many) were apprehensive; others (again, we don't know how many) were amused. It may be that the majority, like Lupin, just sat there, not making their feelings known. And we've already established that Snape's Slytherin friends were mostly older and had left Hogwarts. Any others who remained may have been the save-your-own-skin variety (say, Walden Macnair). Their behavior might not relate in any way to shared beliefs about blood purity. Nor is there any reason to believe that Severus at this time was loyal to Voldemort. He was only fifteen (or barely sixteen) and most likely had not yet been recruited to join the DEs. (Why would they want a kid not yet at the peak of his powers who couldn't even apparate?) Dharma replies: I agree that Snape might not have been loyal to Voldemort, but the perception that he supported the Dark Arts, could have impacted the way people viewed him. Even if some of the students did not agree with James' bullying behavior, they may have held a negative general view of Snape as well. We don't know why they were looking apprehensive. It is significant to me that only Lily is willing to confront James. Is the student body generally afraid of James? That could be, but then why is he consistently described as popular and not intimidating or overly aggressive? As an adult, even Snape describes James arrogant but not as a generally aggressive individual. The exception might be "The Prank," which would depict James a manipulative rather than physically intimidating Which leads me to other thoughts Are the apprehensive students not interested enough in Snape's safety to risk entering a conflict with James, who is a very talented young Wizard? This seems more likely to me. Or, could it be that those who were apprehensive about the happenings had seen James/Sirius and Snape in conflict enough times to think, "This could get very dangerous!" Given any of these situations, the students are generally not very supportive of Snape where this conflict is concerned. Carol wrote: As for James and Sirius, their popularity, as I understand it, was based in James's case on athletic ability (rather like the popularity of Viktor Krum), as well as a desire to be on the good side of a kid who's likely to hex people in the corridors "because they exist." Sirius's popularity, such as it was (girls ogling him) appears to be based solely on looks. He certainly was not popular because of his personality, which is arrogant in the extreme. He is rude not only to Severus but to his friends Remus and Peter. Whether he has rejected the family philosophy or not, he behaves like a Black, as if he were royalty, not deigning to speak politely to anyone and expecting James to entertain him when he's bored. Dharma replies: Lily was very angry with James when she makes this comment. We don't know how accurate it is to say that James will hex just anyone. He might have been arrogant and quick to the draw, but is there any canon for people who are not angry with James accusing him of hexing people for being annoying. He was a bit of a show off, but where is the evidence that other students generally feared him? Lily's angry outburst is not enough to convince me personally. She very well could have been exaggerating a negative character trait out of frustration and anger in that moment. As to Sirius he could be "acting like a Black", or he could be just carried away with his own cleverness. His negative attitude could just reflect over-confidence. By this time he is good Quidditch player, is one of the two brightest students in his year, has pulled off the animagus transformation right under Dumbledore's nose and is very handsome. Maybe he's just obnoxious teen and not necessarily acting from a place of class superiority. Carol wrote: The majority of the students at Hogwarts, especially the muggleborns and halfbloods, probably shared the idea that pureblood superiority was bunk. They knew from their own experience that muggleborns could be as magically powerful as anyone else. James and Sirius would not be popular for believing what most other students believed. They were popular for the same reason particular kids are popular in Muggle schools: athletic ability on the one hand and good looks on the other. And if Severus really was as unpopular as Harry perceives him to be, it would have been for similar reasons: he was a skinny, stringy-haired kid with his nose in a book. Clearly not the sort for James or Sirius to hang around with even if he hadn't been a Slytherin enamored of the Dark Arts (or so Sirius says). Dharma replies: In the real world people, including adolescents, do rally around those who are willing to stand up for their beliefs. Even if most of the students did think that pureblood supremacy was a bunch of non- sense, they might have identified with someone who was willing to say so publicly. If James was willing to share his views regularly, that might have attracted the attention of others. I do agree with the idea that Snape was very likely unpopular for aesthetic reasons. People in general do judge others on superficial traits. That seems to be a consistent problem in the Wizarding World as well. Carol wrote: If it had been a matter of the high moral ground, James and Sirius as the aggressors would have been frowned down and Severus as the victim would have been supported by his peers. But morality seldom comes into play in schoolboy battles, regardless of the political or cultural philosophy the boys have been indoctrinated with at home. Dharma replies: This view, to me, presumes that the other students had not reason to questions Snape's morality. They may have reasons to have little regard for Snape. Could it be that in the escalation of the conflict between James/Sirius and Snape that Snape had been up to some nastiness of his own that we don't know about? It seems to me that our information on events leading up to the pensieve is too sparse to completely eliminate morality as an issue for the onlookers. Also, older students might have been able to deal with the inconsistencies of life and personal interaction. Perhaps the students could generally see James, Sirius and Snape as good people, but chalk the unending conflict up to irrational anger and poor decision-making on both sides. If they truly always mutually disliked one another, why would the other students believe that intervening would change the situation? Lily was willing to speak up, but why no one else? More mature students could well have viewed it as immaturity that Sirius, James and Snape would have to out grow, but not the sole criterion on which any of their fundamental personalities should have been judged. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 18:13:41 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:13:41 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115774 I have been thinking about the dynamics in the relationships of folks who attended Hogwarts as members of Slytherin House. We can assume that members of other houses have normal feeling and relationships with their friends, spouses, children, etc. Of course, the Ravenclaws might seem a bit aloof because of their high intelligence and *thinking type* personality, but basically they are capable of love and feeling of affection like all the rest. But what of the Slytherins? I was watching a skating show today where a couple was acting as two sinister characters and the dynamics between them made me think of Bella and her husband. I am thinking that when two Slytherin marry it must be like 2 snakes. Each with a certain cold respect for the other, a mutual understanding of like personalities. A member of any other house could never find happiness with a Slytherin, because the Slytherin would eat them alive, so to speak. Others would be too sensitive, heart on sleeve types, for a Slytherin. Any thought? Tonks_op From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Oct 17 18:26:06 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:26:06 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Doris Crockford/Diggle/Flitwick/Wizards at Large References: <1097976488.7521.9388.m13@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001001c4b476$c620de80$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 115775 Steve wrote: > Wizards might live among muggles, but that doesn't mean they live with > them; among them but not a part of them. Just as some Chinese are IN > London, but not PART of it. > > So, seeing wizards out and about in Surrey and nearby, while not > common, is still reasonable and possible. Harry, being part of the WW (albeit unknown to himself) sees wizards out and about, but I suspect that they have a "don't notice me" charm to make sure that the average Muggle's vision just drifts over them without their noticing anything untoward in someone exotically dressed going into the local Tesco's. But I would have thought that in the normal course of events, if a group of wizarding folk started having a street party in whatever town it was that Vernon saw them, that a Ministry prodnose would very quickly descend and move them on. Which in turn leads to the question about just where all the Ministry enforcers were that morning? Rounding up DEs, perhaps? Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From editor at texas.net Sun Oct 17 19:20:47 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:20:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? References: Message-ID: <001501c4b47e$6950d2c0$ce59aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115776 Amanda Geist wrote: > > > > I also think that if Voldemort ever truly dies, they will, too Annemehr: > > The weak point, though, is that if true, I think the Death Eaters > > would have acted very differently when Voldemort was vaporised. > > Wouldn't they *all* have been looking for him, then, to treat him > > with the utmost TLC just to make sure they themselves survived? > > After all, if LV would just have slowly faded away, then so would > > they. > > > > Or am I missing something? Amandageist: Likely you're not; it's just one of my private theories. I thought about your point--which has not been raised before, of all the times I've raised this idea. All I could think of was that maybe many of them were actually relieved, or thought they got out easy--"Wow, looks like something went wrong with the spell, I'm not dead! How cool is that. I felt something, what a nasty knock that was, but I don't think he's dead. Maybe that broke the connection. Hope so. And if his spirit is alive somewhere? As long as he's floating around, I'm fine, and that's only *if* the connection wasn't broken by that *whatever* that happened. I mean, damn, I just talked myself out of Azkaban time, I'm sure not going to endanger my own ass trying to find Voldemort if he's not the biggest baddest dude on the block." The ones who are his strongest supporters--Bellatrix, Lucius--are more than capable of advancing their own agendas alone. Voldemort was just a faster avenue. I don't think they *need* him. Pettigrew, the one who *did* seek him out, did so because all other options were closed to him, and he *is* weaker than Voldemort (even as a vapor). Barty Crouch, Jr., had fixated on Voldemort as a father-figure; his search for him had nothing to do with survival and everything to do with love (albeit twisted) and loyalty. So maybe the majority of Death Eaters were "middle of the road" or strong enough alone, hoped the bond had been broken by the totally unforeseen effects of Harry on the Avada Kedavra spell, did know Voldemort was semi-alive, and chose to ignore him and go back to their lives (and their own agendas). That's all I can think of. ~Amanda From kjones at telus.net Sun Oct 17 03:18:20 2004 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:18:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4171E47C.4050007@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115777 Kathy: > > > I think that Dumbledore has some kind of plan requiring Harry > > to be further exposed to the mind of Voldemort, which would > explain his > > "look of triumph". I also think that Snape disapproves, cannot > just > > refuse Dumbledore, and has used a very successful reason to > prevent the > > continuation of the occlumency lessons. It worked and Dumbledore > bought > > it. I think the lessons were making Harry worse. Alla: > > I strongly disagree. Dumbledore definitely has some kind of a plan, > since he mentioned this plan several times in his last speech in > OOP, but I don't think that exposing Harry's mind further to > Voldemort was ever part of the plan. Protecting Harry from > Voldemort - Yes. Exposing further - I don't think so. > > > > I think that Dumbledore genuinely wanted to protect Harry,albeit > unsuccesfully, because he put such task on Snape's shoulders, due to > having too much faith in Snape's "latent good qualities". Kathy: You could certainly be absolutely correct. It is all very ambiguous. I find it interesting, however, that in GoF Dumbledore was pleased that Harry had become, perhaps, even more closely connected to V when his blood was used in the potion. If DD was only out for the care and protection of Harry, he should have looked worried instead of triumphant. He obviously considers this to have placed him in a better position which he intends to use. In OotP Dumbledore states that he recognized the scar when Harry was a baby as a possible connection. Dumbledore has been intending to make use of this fact for 15 years. I think that this is why he said that he made an old man's error in becoming too attached to Harry and trying to protect him, knowing that he can not do that if he is to use Harry to defeat V. After the snake attack on Mr. Weasley, the first thing DD did was check some instrument, which showed one smokey snake coming out and then splitting in two. DD asked "in essence divided". His main interest is the connection between Harry and V. and I think that connection has to be encouraged to allow V to be defeated. DD also knew enough about what was going on with Harry that he refused to meet with him, look at him or make eye contact with him to protect himself from V. Dumbledore doesn't mind using people, choosing Snape to teach Harry occlumency, knowing that V could enter his mind during the lesson. If Snape is a spy, his cover would be shot. I felt that, like other posts, Snape staged the worst memory tantrum. The most logical reason for doing this would be to force a stop to the occlumency lessons. If Snape disapproved of what Dumbledor was doing, it would be the most Slytherin way to put a stop to it. They all seem like such nice, mild, supportive, lovable people, that perhaps I just have a nasty suspicious mind. Kathy P.S. Thanks for the discussion From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 15:59:27 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:59:27 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115778 > mhbobbin wrote: > > > Now, why didn't DD try to kill LV in his duel with him in the MoM-- > > (not obviously when Harry was possessed by LV) if he thought that LV > > might now be slightly mortal? Does DD really put that much faith in > > a prophecy that indicates Harry must be the Vanquisher? Hasn't DD > > worked to that point to convince Harry (and us) that predicting the > > future is at best an inexact skill? > > > Carol: > For one thing, he has powers that he's "too noble to use," as > McGonagall informs us at the very beginning of the series. That would > include the Unforgiveable Curses. (And, no, it wouldn't be noble to > avoid using an AK so Harry could use the same spell later. There must > be another, less evil way, to destroy Voldemort that only Harry can use.) > Tammy: I think that Dumbledore knows that Harry is the only person who can kill LV. My pet theory revolves around Dumbledore knowing what LV did to make himself immortal, thus he knows that no one can kill him (perhaps this is information that Snape supplied to Dumbledore). Voldemort is fulfilling the prophesy, first by picking Harry and "marking him" as an equal. Then by insisting that it's HARRY who has to supply the blood to return him to his body, LV makes Harry the only person who can kill him. That explains the gleam in Dumbledore's eye when Harry tells him in GoF that LV used Harry's blood. Dumbledore didn't try to kill LV in the MoM battle because he knows that Harry is the only one who CAN kill LV. (of course my theory is much longer and drawn out with examples and such, but that's the basics. I'm sure I'm not the only buying into this theory of the prophesy/why DD didn't kill LV) -Tammy From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 18:56:22 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:56:22 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115779 Barmaid randomly snips what is impossible to snip: Kneasy: I don't have to convince you of anything, just as you don't have to convince me - it's an impossibility anyway, given the twists, switches and concealed information that JKR seems addicted to. We have a modicum of information and we make of it what we will. And JKR's pronouncements can be as misleading as the clues in the books. From being her favourite character (stated in interview after OoP was published) who she cried buckets over, Sirius is now downgraded to a socially retarded misfit with double standards who *had* to die and who we will learn more about in due course. The fact that she's written reams on his back-history is encouraging; whatever comes out it's unlikely to be boring. Nora: So, go for, Kneasy! Convince me that a dead character is going to have his function completely changed in the story, and the thematic idea he represents completely tossed out the window. Convince me that Voldemort's spy wouldn't have or know about the Dark Mark. Convince me that JKR has been completely sneakily hiding the TRUTH about this character behind her nice words. God knows he's not perfect in any way, shape, or form--but your willful character mutilation goes way beyond that. :) Kneasy: "Wilful character mutilation" - I like it, though a trifle emotional, I think. Barmaid timidly sticks her toe in the water: This thread is so amazing and beautiful. You guys are brilliant. I feel a bit like Peter P as I attempt to enter where I am not really worthy. But, having some of Peter's determination (but hopefully none of his motivation), I try once more. I would be very disappointed if either Sirius or Lupin ended up being traitors. I find that JKR has constructed a very complex, nuanced and important discussion of "good and evil" and how these concepts play out in the world, WW or RL. I strongly see the characters as "types", but not typical two dimensional types we often find when "good and evil" are explored. I believe (and could certainly be proven wrong in books 6 and 7) that this exploration of good and evil is an overriding motivation for JKR and will win out over simply trying to make the most surprising our outrageous plot twists. Now, I know I have a vision limited by current canon and I could find that an even more complex and nuanced vision is served by a plot twist that changes my idea of what "types" Sirius, Lupin or Peter may be. In that context here is what I think is important about Peter and why I believe he is the traitor: I do not see a conflict between Peter as a rather weak and less talented wizard and Peter as an effective spy. Peter is someone who is completely externally referenced. His self image is all tied up in who he is hanging out with, what those people think of him and what others think of him because of his associations. Peter is very determined to be accepted by and useful to those more talented and powerful than he himself is and thus to be able to share in the glow of that power. As someone less talented he has figured out that this is his path to some pale sort of greatness. While his animigus form is rather pathetic, the fact that he can do it at all is impressive, most wizards can not. His determination to be in the company of the coolest guys on campus won out over his limited talent. While this shows a weakness of character it also shows a strength of will. This strength of will would serve him well once he finds that there is more secondhand power to be inhaled by getting close to LV and the DE's than there is being a straggler with the Marauders. It seems that the Marauders keep him at arms length ? not really close enough to get that power contact buzz. He is close enough though, and underestimated enough, to do damage. There is a way in which Peter's actions (taken at face value and accepting Sirius and Lupin's version of events) show that he really believes in LV's doctrine of "no good or evil, only power." He is so focused on himself and his need to find worth, and a measure of power, in someone else's shadow that he can do things that are hard for him and scary for him through this determination, that both clouds and focuses his mind. But this is a dangerous road to take, especially for someone who *is* essentially weak. It is easy to get in over his head, but when it comes to self preservation he is able to focus all of his skills, mental and magical, and act in a quick and clever manor. I believe Peter is the traitor that Sirius and Lupin tell us he is. I believe his character provides an important glimpse of the particular way in which "evil" can use this dangerous combination of low self image that is externally referenced and a strong sense of self preservation. Peter is a rat ? as in rat fink ? as in will sell out his friends, because they are not *really* friends but only one of many means to be used to find a secure place near power. As hard and scary as it is for him, there is no place more powerful (from the point of view of this "type") than the one in which we find him in GoF. He is indispensable and could see himself as irreplaceable in keeping LV alive and in bringing him back his body. His weakness and his strength are so intertwined in GoF, both on display in all their glory. Maybe next time I will hold forth on Sirius, but for now I will stop and bow to the greatness of Kneasy and Nora whose theories and ideas give me much to think about! --barmaid From krussell98 at comcast.net Sun Oct 17 12:13:23 2004 From: krussell98 at comcast.net (Kathi Russell) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:13:23 -0400 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? References: Message-ID: <000a01c4b442$b33e1cd0$3f8f3f44@Dude> No: HPFGUIDX 115780 Del: >> I personally don't believe in Jealous!Ron. Ron wasn't jealous in > GoF, >> he was hurt, because he felt Harry had betrayed him by not sharing >> with him how to get past the age line. >> >> If you look all over the rest of the books, you'll see that > jealousy >> is most definitely *not* one of Ron's traits. A bit of envy >> sometimes, but never jealousy. > > > Alla: > Personally, I do believe in jealous Ron in GoF. Especially because I > remember JKR specifically saying in one of the chats that she > portrayed Ron as jealous. Yes, I read Dicentra's wonderful essay and > think that Betrayed!Ron is very strong and very valid interpretation > of the text, but I did see Jealous! Ron in GoF very clearly in my > mind. > > If you acknowledge that Ron could be envious sometimes, then envy is > a feeling that often goes together with jealosy. Now it's Kathi here: There is a thin line between envy and jealousy, but I always seem to get them mixed up. On one hand, one of the emotions is basically wanting what someone else has, but not necessarily begrudging them for having it - you just want it too (whatever "it" may be). On the other hand,however, you want what the other has, you don't want them to have it at all, and you think they didn't deserve to have it in the first place, but *you* do.... Can anyone clear it up for me? Maybe we are more specific about the difference between the two it will help us define the character's better. From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 19:52:30 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:52:30 -0000 Subject: Death omens Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115781 Since we've been on the subject of who might die in the next two books, maybe we should take a hint from our seer Trelawny, who likes to look for Death omens. Not that it will necessarily tell us the future, but it could be interesting to look at the text closely as if for hints. Fun, too. For example, when Sirius was first seen (unbeknownst to us, early in book 3) it was as his big black dog form. Shortly thereafter, Harry saw a like image on the cover of a book about death omens in the Wizard bookstore. This omen was called (as we later learned from Prof. Trelawny) a grimm. Everybody (but Hermione) supposed it meant that Harry would die, and even Harry wondered given that he saw it more than once. Of course Harry's not dead (yet). But Sirius, whose animagus form was the grimm incarnate, *is*. Coincidence? Or clever hint from JKR, who obviously knew what would happen to Sirius before she even introduced him? YOU DECIDE ;) Any others? It doesn't have to be a symbol, it could just be an interesting play on words that catches your attention. Among my favorites is when Malfoy and his chums find Harry at the end of OotP: "You're dead, Potter," says Malfoy. "Funny, you'd think I'd have stopped walking around," Harry replies. (this is from memory--so the words may be inexact) Which makes me wonder if the nice idea of a death/resurrection might not be quite appropriate. It might explain why (aside from maintaining her secrets/dramatic tension) JKR likes to tease us about whether Harry lives or not. If she says he lives, and we find a death scene for him, won't we all go "liar, liar" and "shame on you", or maybe if we're the hopeful reared on Disney types, say, "don't worry, she says he'll live so I know the death thing won't last." On the other hand, if she says "he'll die" we might mope around, decide not to read on because its too depressing, and thus miss out on her twist ending. And of course if she says, "he'll die but I'll bring him back" then she's given the whole thing away. Actually, while I love resurrection stories myself (my whole faith is based on one!) I rather doubt that is what JKR has in mind. She has taken a hard line on death, the value of life, and even has presented a potentially hopeful picture of what comes after. She refuses to give even her youngest, most innocent, and most hopeful fans hope that Harry's parents or his Godfather will return. Why would Harry be different? However, I remember thinking thoughout book 5, "Can this really be it for Mr. Weasley?" or else "oh no, there goes McGonagall!" and "Nooooo! She can't have killed Hermione!" If I'm any judge of character, JKR may well delight to tease us with several longer duration *apparent* deaths, and Harry could even be one of them. But if we see the body clearly lifeless, or have a character finally pronounced dead, that will be that. She isn't likely to bring them back to life as by miracle. That's just my hunch based on some of the quotes I've read from JKR. So-- omens anyone? Here's another that had me sweating out the last two books: Remember when Molly said to the twins at the beginning of GoF that she had been afraid that they would die and the last thing she would have said to them is that they didn't get enough OWLs? That memory still gives me a forboding that one of the twins will be untwinned before this is all over. Brrrrrrr. expectantly, Andrea From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 20:01:26 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:01:26 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: <15b.41eb5da3.2ea334eb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115782 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: Julie: > But my best guess for DADA teacher in Book 6 is Bill Weasley. > He has the experience, and it's time again for a DADA teacher > who is not incompetent or working for Voldy. (Books 1&4 were > the Voldy guys, Books 2&5 were the incompetent teachers, and > Books 3&6 are the competent teachers--Lupin and now Bill). PS -- Quirrel!Mort (DE) CoS -- Lockhart (non-DE villian) PoA -- Lupin (Order) GoF -- Fake!Moody (DE) OooP -- Umbridge (non-DE villian) H-BP -- if there is a pattern developing (and I think there is) we'll be due for an Order member, and then in the last book, a Death Eater. --Frugalarugala, who also thinks it's nicely ironic that detention with Umbridge was writing 'I must not tell lies,' while with Lockhart it was writing replies to fanmail that was earned by telling lies... From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 20:18:53 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:18:53 -0000 Subject: Lily's role in the Worst Memory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115783 Snape's worst memory shows us James and Sirius having a go at Snape. >From the description of it, it's pretty obvious that this wasn't their first public fight, far from it. What bothers me is Lily in this scene. The more I think of it, the more I feel something is not quite right. First, it seems to be the first time Lily ever intruded on a James/Snape fight. She asks James what Snape has done to him. If she'd ever intervened before, she would have learned a long time ago what's behind all of this, and she wouldn't need to ask yet again. So my first question is : if the public J/S fights were as common as the Pensieve scene makes them look, how come Lily never intervened before ? Second, there's the problem of the insult. Snape calls Lily a Mudblood and Lily *reacts*. She seems surprised. It could just be that she didn't expect to be insulted by the person she was rescuing, but that would be quite naive IMO. It would be like Hermione being surprised to be insulted by a Draco that she would just have defended from Harry. Hermione would *not* be surprised, IMO. She would put it on the count of humiliation, just like when Draco started insulting Mrs Weasley after Slytherin's defeat against Gryffindor : it is to be *expected*, as McGonagall clearly stated. But Lily *is* surprised. Worse, she then leaves Snape to his own means. That clearly indicates to me that this insult was a first-time : - either it was the first time Snape insulted Lily at all - or it was the first time Snape insulted Lily while she was defending him. Both cases are interesting, IMO. So it seems quite obvious to me that it was the first time things went that way : 1.Snape and James fighting publicly, 2.Lily showing up to save Snape's skin, 3.Snape insulting her, 4.and she leaving him to deal with James on his own. We already know that 1. can't have been a first time. Given Lily's character, if 2. were a first time, then I would dearly like to know what kept her before. If 3. is a first, then it's very surprising as well. Draco has been insulting Hermione pretty much forever. And if 4. was a first, then I'd like to know what was different this time. Couple that with the fact that this scene is called Snape's Worst Memory, and I can't help but think that there's indeed something about Lily here. But I just can't figure out what ! A Snape/Lily SHIP seems to obvious to me, I mean, it's an old trick, the enemy who was in love with the hero's mother. So *what* was different this time ? And most importantly : WHY ?? What pushed whoever (Snape, Lily, maybe James) to act differently this time ? Del From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 20:28:39 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:28:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV Inmortality References: Message-ID: <000a01c4b487$e3d79e80$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115784 From: "Tammy" > Tammy: > I think that Dumbledore knows that Harry is the only person who can > kill LV. My pet theory revolves around Dumbledore knowing what LV did > to make himself immortal, thus he knows that no one can kill him > (perhaps this is information that Snape supplied to Dumbledore). > Voldemort is fulfilling the prophesy, first by picking Harry and > "marking him" as an equal. Then by insisting that it's HARRY who has > to supply the blood to return him to his body, LV makes Harry the only > person who can kill him. That explains the gleam in Dumbledore's eye > when Harry tells him in GoF that LV used Harry's blood. Dumbledore > didn't try to kill LV in the MoM battle because he knows that Harry is > the only one who CAN kill LV. (of course my theory is much longer and > drawn out with examples and such, but that's the basics. I'm sure I'm > not the only buying into this theory of the prophesy/why DD didn't > kill LV) > charme: This is a theory I can buy, other than the thought that keeps floating around in the back of my brain concerning LV's graveyard comments in GoF about being "less than the meanest ghost" and Sir Nick's statements to Harry in OoP regarding how people chose not to "go on" when they died and became ghosts. Adding those parts and a few other references together, it causes me (maybe you folks will think I'm whack & I'm ok with that ;)) to wonder if in fact LV wasn't "dead" in a sense prior to the incident at GH, hence why he couldn't "die" then. I concur with the thought above about DD suspecting or knowing only Harry can "kill" LV because of LV using Harry's blood, but I have the sneaking suspicion it's much more complicated than that. I wonder as well about the "half life" Firenze referred to in PS/SS and how that plays into this mix: how do you "kill" something which may be less than alive but may not truly be able to experience death? I suspect (only a suspicion) LV used many methods to try to achieve immortality: snake venom, potions (Snape), unicorn blood (that's after GH, but may count toward LV's current state), and perhaps dragon blood (check his appearance description in GoF as he's lowered into the cauldron.) I've read the "Changling" theory and while I think it's brilliantly written, I don't completely buy into it. LV rather reminds me of a poltergeist (or even demon maybe although that seems severe) superior to Peeves - and I'm not sure how Peeves came to be. Anyone know? charme From saitaina at frontiernet.net Sun Oct 17 20:09:48 2004 From: saitaina at frontiernet.net (Saitaina) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:09:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin Relationships References: Message-ID: <038501c4b485$425da560$01fea8c0@domain.invalid> No: HPFGUIDX 115785 < A member of any other house could never find happiness with a Slytherin, because the Slytherin would eat them alive, so to speak.> Not really. Most Slytherin's would actually find it relaxing to be with a Ravenclaw or a Gryffindor because they don't constantly have to be looking over their shoulder for a knife in the back. Dating/seducing/marrying for power, money, whatever is all well and good, but when you come right down to wanting a happy, normal relationship, a Slytherin would never choose one of their own unless forced. A Slytherin wants to be top dog, and to have the power. To marry another Slytherin would mean constantly fighting, trying to out play the other person. If they married from another house (another personality type) this constant butting of heads would lessen. The only way I can't see this working is a Slytherin/Hufflepuff match because the basic personality traits that got them into those houses would pull them apart, loyalty, hard work, those aren't things a lot of Slytherin's are fond of. You never mentioned love (in regards to the Slytherin), in your post. Why? Slytherin personalities feel it, and there are advantages to love beyond the happy mushy ideals. A common respect for each other, a feeling of affection and warmth (which is what love is), would be ideal to a Slytherin relationship because it's a measure of protection. How many actively seek to hurt or destroy those they care about? Not only that, but a Slytherin, in love (or in friendship) would be a great alley. They want to achieve the best, and why not help their friends along with it? Granted, Slytherin's aren't natural givers, but if you have a solid relationship with one, there's going to be some boons, if only for you to later return the favor for them (which is what a good friendship/marriage is anyway, a balance of give and take). To love a Slytherin, either in friendship or romantic is hard, I'll give you that. But if you can work past the manipulation, the ambition, the drive to "BE", a Slytherin would have a lot to offer. A Ravenclaw for instance could find a brilliant mind to debate with, a partner who also has a lot of knowledge, but for different reasons then simply desiring it. A Gryffindor would find a soul brave enough to risk their neck when needed, strong enough to succeed where others have failed, simply because they desire it, and someone to keep them from running off half cocked and without an idea of what to do once they get there. Even a Hufflepuff can find someone to hold them up when they can't stand, someone to help them when they can't figure it out, and someone to guide them along, weather they need it or not. While a Hufflepuff/Slytherin relationship would be one of the most easy to fail, it's also the best to succeed if their personalities are right. This is where the dom/sub personalities would come into play (the actual personalities not the sexual kink). A Slytherin is, by nature, a dominate personality. If he finds the right Hufflepuff with a sub personality, it could be a great relationship. One to lead, the other to follow. This is harder to find in the other houses (Gryffindors, again by nature, are dominate, Ravenclaws could be either depending on the person). This doesn't mean there won't be some spectacular fights, but as in all life, there's going to be some rough patches. A Gryffindor/Slytherin match would have the highest rate of these, but the passion they feel for each other would balance those out. It wouldn't destroy them, unless they let it. A lot of us have the same personality traits as described in the books, some to a lesser extent, and some to the same cookie-cutter molds as in the books, and we have relationships with the people who have the other personalities. And that, is the easiest way to see how a relationship would work in the books. By looking at our own lives. But the fact remains, we do see cookie cutter versions of the four houses in the books, where one facet of a person's personality is brought to light and not the other bits. That said, I am a Slytherin, and no, I don't mean "I'm a Slytherin but I also have..." I AM a Slytherin, in all it's cookie cutter glory. I live with a Hufflepuff in her cookie cutterness, I have friends who are various other bits and one cookie cutter Gryffindor. Yes I have problems in my relationships, yes I have few friends and no love interest. But I work hard a relationships (when they're worth it), and I try to do what's right by them. I give when I can, take when it's offered, and try to be a good friend who just happens to be a manipulative, cunning, narcissistic twit. You can't judge a relationship, until you've seen it in action. The worst people in the world for each other can often have the best relationship around. Saitaina **** I've planned my dream wedding since I was five. I have it all planned, invitations, cake, heck I even know what flatware to use. I'm twenty-three now, and I'm watching those dreams go up in flames. All because I'm a lesbian, a second class citizen. 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." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 20:34:01 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:34:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] envy vs. jealousy? References: <000a01c4b442$b33e1cd0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: <001301c4b488$a3651840$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115786 From: "Kathi Russell" > Now it's Kathi here: > There is a thin line between envy and jealousy, but I always seem to get > them mixed up. On one hand, one of the emotions is basically wanting what > someone else has, but not necessarily begrudging them for having it - you > just want it too (whatever "it" may be). On the other hand,however, you want > what the other has, you don't want them to have it at all, and you think > they didn't deserve to have it in the first place, but *you* do.... > > Can anyone clear it up for me? Maybe we are more specific about the > difference between the two it will help us define the character's better. > > charme: How interesting that "envy" should also be in Webster's definition for "jealousy." I guess by "degrees," envy is less negative than "jealousy." I believe Hermoine describes Ron's behavior in GoF as "jealous." Envy: A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another. Jealousy Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or position. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others. Inclined to suspect rivalry. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name. Intolerant of disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Oct 17 20:45:25 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:45:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death omens Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115787 In a message dated 10/17/2004 12:57:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, shallowdwell at yahoo.com writes: Since we've been on the subject of who might die in the next two books, maybe we should take a hint from our seer Trelawny, who likes to look for Death omens. Not that it will necessarily tell us the future, but it could be interesting to look at the text closely as if for hints. So-- omens anyone? What of when Ron and Harry are talking about Prof. Trelawny's class and (sorry I too am writing form memory) says something about he doesn't care if his tea leaves spell out "Die Ron Die". Could that possibly be some type of foreshadowing? Chancie-Who hates to think of the possibility of any of the Trio not making it past book 7 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 20:50:05 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041017205005.91066.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115788 First off - Kneasy, I completely agree with your assessment of Sirius' character (as I usually agree with most of your assessments of characters). Rock on Kneasy!!!! *Ahem* back to the point... --- hogsheadbarmaid wrote: > I do not see a conflict between Peter as a rather weak and less > talented wizard and Peter as an effective spy. Peter is someone > who is completely externally referenced. His self image is all > tied up in who he is hanging out with, what those people think of > him and what others think of him because of his associations. > Peter is very determined to be accepted by and useful to those more > talented and powerful than he himself is and thus to be able to > share in the glow of that power. As someone less talented he has > figured out that this is his path to some pale sort of greatness. > >Barmaid We do Peter a disservice if we see him as weak-willed or in some way not a resolute character. He doesn't have the same priorities as Sirius and James but he was able to convince them that he had and for seven years they lived in the same dorm and chummed around together without twigging to Peter's real character. Rodent that he is, that implies that Peter does have something on the ball. My assumptions about Peter are: - he's able to project back at you whatever image of himself is necessary for you to drop your guard and let him get close to you; - he's lazy and more than pleased to let you do all the scut work that's necessary to change into animagi or finish a Charms essay or whatever, and he's willing to abase himself to get you to do it ("Oh I'll NEVER get this essay finished! I haven't got your brains, James!"); - he doesn't lose his head in a crisis - all that whining and pleading in the Shrieking Shack was an attempt to buy time, until he could figure out what to do to get away. Once an opening presented itself he was all over it and out the door like a streak of lightning. Also his presence of mind when confronted by Sirius after the Potters' deaths and his ability to turn the tables on Sirius was nothing short of inspired; - he gets his jollies from manipulating people so that they don't know they're being manipulated. It's a dangerous sport, sort of like riding a tiger but the exhileration must be intense and the "rush" quite addictive. I'm sure he did it to James, Sirius and Remus, so well that they didn't realize he was doing it. He's probably - very carefully - doing it to Voldemort too (the ultimate high!). Why else is he there? I don't think for a minute that Peter is a pureblood supremicist or is anti-muggleborn on principle. He's in it for the power. We got most of our info in POA about Peter from Sirius which probably means we should take it with a grain of salt - Sirius never understood Peter and wouldn't share his warped values system. I don't think we've really seen Peter because when he's on the page, he's usually performing for an audience that he's trying to manipulate. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 17 21:54:50 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:54:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115789 Hello all, this is a little behind schedule. Luckily Chapter 28 has stayed active. I've tried to avoid those topics frequently discussed from this chapter, but feel free to add a question if you want to. Potioncat CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice CHAPTER SUMMARY: The chapter starts with the beginning of Easter break. Most 5th and 7th year students are stressed from the exam preparations. Harry is upset over the scene in the Pensieve concerning James and Severus. He allows the others to think it is exams bothering him, but Ginny isn't so sure. She suggests he talk to Cho. But he reveals that he really wants to talk to Sirius. Ginny at once says it can be done. She says living with the twins has taught her that anything is possible if you have the nerve. Harry had never believed Snape's taunts about his father. But now he wonders about all the good things he'd heard from McGonagall, Hagrid and Sirius. He recalls that Sirius had been just as bad as his father was. He thinks that McGonagall thought of them as forerunners of the Weasley twins. "..and Harry could not imagine Fred and George dangling someone upside down for the fun of it not unless they really loathed them Perhaps Malfoy, or someone who really deserved it " Lily's support of Snape makes Harry doubt that Snape deserved it. Lily's expression disturbs Harry as much as any of the events. He believes she loathes James and cannot understand how they ever married. Lupin's behavior is disappointing as well because he did nothing to stop it. Fifth years are notified that they will be attending career advice sessions with their head of house and provided with career pamphlets. Some of the information includes: Healer requires an E in N.EW.T. level Potions, Herbology, Transfiguration, Charms, and DADA. Ron was immersed in this pamphlet, but says he doesn't fancy it, "I mean blimey Don't want much, do they?" Muggle Relations requires an O.W.L. in Muggle Studies. Curse breakers for Wizard banking asks for Arithmancy (job includes travel, adventure, and danger-related bonuses.) Harry suggests it for Hermione. She isn't interested but is immersed in a pamphlet on training security trolls. Fred and George interrupt just as Hermione reaches for MAKE A BANG AT THE DEPARTMENT OF MAGICAL ACCIDENTS AND CATASTROPHIES. The twins and trio plan for Harry to break into Umbridge's office to contact Sirius. Hermione protests, and asks for Ron's opinion. "Harry was reminded irresistibly of Mrs. Weasley appealing to her husband during Harry's first dinner in Grimmauld Place. It appears that Snape had decided to ignore Harry. Used to this technique from Uncle Vernon, Harry actually thrives and easily concocts an Invigoration Draught. He is hoping for an E. However, he hears a smashing noise then turns to see Malfoy laughing, and Snape gloating. "Whoops," he said softly, "Another zero, then, Potter " Unfortunately, Hermione has cleared up Harry's site and there is no more sample. Harry forgets his Career Advice appointment and goes to Divination Class. So he arrives late to McGonagall's office. Umbridge is there as well. McGonagall says he'll need top grades for Auror. The requirements are five N.E.W.T level grades, none below E; followed by character and aptitude tests; then three years of training. She advises taking DADA, Transfiguration, Charms, and Potions. "Yes, Potter, Potions" she added, with the merest flicker of a smile. "Potions and antidotes are essential study for Aurors." She also warns him that he needs to study harder in Transfiguration and Potions as he will need an E in Transfiguration O.W.L.s and an O in Potion O.W.L.s. Umbridge and McGonagall exchange barbs over Harry's potential for making Auror. McGonagall dismisses the current DADA marks and specifically quotes Professor Lupin's opinion. She vows to do everything in her power to help Harry succeed. "If it's the last thing I do." Harry breaks into Umbridge's office and speaks with Black and Lupin by floo. Neither of them are as concerned with James' behavior as Harry is. Both agree that James grew out of that sort of behavior by 7th year and began dating Lily. Black and Lupin are angry that Occlumency lessons have stopped. Black says he'll go tell Snape to resume lessons. Lupin insists he will be the one to talk to Snape but first Harry should talk to Snape. Harry mutters that he'll try. Then they are interrupted. Harry breaks away in time to hide from Filch. Filch has come to get the Approval for Whipping. Harry follows him out and finds another crowd of students watching as Fred and George are cornered. The twins leave in a blaze of glory, giving Peeves an order to "Give her hell from us, Peeves." CHAPTER QUESTIONS: 1. Fred and George wouldn't act like that unless they loathed someone . Lily looked like she loathed James. JKR tells us Sirius loathed Severus and the feeling was mutual. What is it with all this loathing? 2. Harry lets everyone think his bad mood is due to the upcoming O.W.L.s. But Ginny sees that it is something else. She advises immediately that he talk to Cho. But when he tells her the real problem she quickly comes up with a solution for that. What does this say about Ginny? 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what broke the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? 4. McGonagall schedules Harry's Career Advice during Divination. What does that say about her opinion of Divination? 5. Are classes for Auror set, or was McGonagall making her own recommendations here? Why was she smiling about Harry taking Potions? 6. Ron wasn't interested in Healer, but notice, the courses McGonagall offers for Auror are almost identical to Healer. What do you think Ron will take? 7. Healer, Auror, Troll Trainer, Treasure Hunter, Office of Magical Catastrophes. Just what is JKR telling us? What might this information tell us about different characters? 8. McGonagall ignores Umbridge, and pretends to think Umbridge has a sore throat. Then she is scornful of Umbridge's note and quotes Lupin as a better judge of DADA knowledge. What do you think of McGonagall in this situation? 9. Do you think Black and Lupin really listened to Harry? Did they just dismiss his worries? 10. Black and Lupin are very upset that Occlumency lessons have stopped. They don't think Dumbledore will approve. Black will talk to Snape. No, Lupin will. Harry has to. Why does JKR set this up, then leave us in the dark about who, or when, or if anyone ever talks to Snape or Dumbledore? 11. The twins leave Hogwarts as heroes. Do you think we'll see these two playing a big role again? 12. Your own question here. 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 To volunteer as a chapter discussion leader for any of the following, ch. 30 (Grawp) Oct. 25, 2004 ch. 31 (O.W.L.s) Nov. 8, 2004 ch. 32 (Out of the Fire) Nov. 22, 2004 ch. 33 (Fight and Flight) Dec. 6, 2004 ch. 34 (The Department of Mysteries) Dec. 20, 2004 ch. 35 (Beyond the Veil) Jan. 3. 2005 ch. 36 (The Only One He Ever Feared) Jan. 17, 2005 ch. 38 (The Second War Begins) Feb. 14, 2005 please contact penapart_elf @yahoo.com (minus that extra space) with your interest. Thank you! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 22:10:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:10:56 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: <001001c4afd9$d40de160$77c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115790 Neri wrote: > "As you say, it would be a huge cop out if everybody Molly saw dead > will indeed be killed (especially as it includes Harry also), and if > it is only one or two of them who die then this whole scene was a > rather bad clue. This is why I'm afraid that the dead Weasley will be one that the boggart did NOT change into. This can be either Ginny > (which is suspiciously absent from this vision) or Molly herself, or > both. I sure hope I'm wrong in this." > > DuffyPoo: > > Or Charlie, who was missed by the Boggart as well. Carol responds: I know this has been said before, but Harry apparently didn't enter the room at the beginning of Molly's encounter with the boggart. He happened to enter when it was most traumatic for him, with "dead Ron" lying on the floor. It's entirely possible that the boggart had already shown Ginny and Charlie but Harry didn't see them. As for Mrs. Weasley herself, the boggart wouldn't have included her. Her greatest fear is not of her own death but of the death of those she loves: her husband, her children, and Harry. Arthur and Ginny have already come close to death, so I tend to think that one or more of the others will die instead. Maybe Charlie, whose career places him in grave danger every day, in Book 6 and someone we know better (and care about more deeply) in Book 7. Not I think that these will be the only deaths in the books, but I'm only talking about Weasleys here. IMO, one of the hands on the Weasley's clock will point to Mortal Peril again, and soon. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 22:30:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:30:15 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <20041011.173920.1960.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115791 Feklar said: > > Hermione is ambitious,liberal and pro-active. Ron may be likeable enough, but he is hidebound and a slacker and proud of it. > Annegirl responded: > 15-year-old boys are a helluva lot less mature than 15-year-old girls, especially overachieving 15-going-on-25 girls like Hermione. I have no doubt that Ron will *grow into* a resonsible, socially conscious, motivated young man; I think he'll probably turn out a lot like his father. > > However, right now he does have latent tendencies of the man he'll become. He wouldn't be Gryffendor if he wasn't brave, noble, and loyal; he wouldn't be hanging around Harry if he didn't have White Hat tendencies (ie a drive to save the world - he did volunteer to help Hagrid with Buckbeak's trial); he wouldn't be friends with a smart girl like Hermione if he couldn't keep up, intellectually, even just in conversation. Carol comments: I agree with most of what you say here (except Ron's being able to keep up with Hermione intellectually; I do think both he and Harry are intellectally lazy because they know she'll go over their homework--part of the immaturity thing, I guess.) But one small quibble re your characterization of Gryffindors as "brave, noble, and loyal." Brave, yes; courage is the trait required to be placed in Gryffindor, the one GG prized above all others, the one I'm still waiting to see in Percy Weasley and Peter Pettigrew, who were surely placed in Gryffindor for a better reason than Weasley family tradition or DD's manipulation. Loyalty, OTOH, is one of the defining qualities of a Hufflepuff, at least according to one of the Sorting Hat's songs. I'm not denying that Ron is loyal, only that it's a defining trait of a Gryffindor. Look at Peter Pettigrew as the most notorious example. And Seamus (who also has yet to show his courage) wasn't very loyal in OoP (though I agree with Del that he had every reason to think Harry was not quite right in the head). And noble? Is nobility a defining Gryffindor trait? DD has been described as noble. I'm not aware that anyone else has. Certainly not a pair of arrogant little berks that we viewed in the Pensieve. Aside from that, I think you're right that Ron has many good traits and will develop others as he matures and that he and Hermione will come to terms with their differences and their affection for each other. He just doesn't understand his own feelings quite yet. (Hermione, *you're* a girl." "Oh, well spotted!") Carol From coremi at web.de Sun Oct 17 00:43:33 2004 From: coremi at web.de (real icon) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:43:33 -0000 Subject: HP Bibliography Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115792 After reading some HP-related essays in different scholarly journals recently I felt quite irritated because some of the authors didn't seem to give a damn about other things that had been published about HP before. As if they were pioneers exploring worlds no man had seen before. Why didn't they notice all the other HP publications that obviously *are* there, right before their noses? I decided to start compiling a "Harry Potter Bibliography": http://www.eulenfeder.de/hpliteratur.html In this bibliography, I aspire to assemble predominantly examples of HP scholarship, i. e. books, articles and essays discussing HP on a clearly academic level. (This includes even publications from other areas than the humanities, like marketing, mathematics or even IT.) But I also want to incorporate examples that do not quite keep that standard, especially of anti-HP-polemics, because they triggered off some very interesting and substantiated debate in many cases. If you are aware of any important publications (even forthcoming!) I have missed up to now - if you discover any mistakes in my list - or if you can help me to fill some of the gaps (e. g. missing page numbers or dates): please do not hesitate to contact me. "real icon" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 22:52:11 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:52:11 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <1056477445.20041011175157@vcem.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115793 Susanne wrote: > Also, Ron does not seem threatened or annoyed by Hermione's > brains whatsoever, in the books, and there are plenty of > important jobs out there that don't require you to have an > outrageously high IQ to be successful and helpful to > society. Carol responds: My impression (from GoF) is that Ron wants the Trio to be aurors together. Crouch!Moody has praised both Harry and Hermione as possible aurors and he wants to be in on it, too. An important job in the post-VW2 world where they could usefully combine their talents? Carol From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Oct 17 22:57:59 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:57:59 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115794 This post attempts to put the greasy, wine-stained Agent!Peter theory through the MAGIC DISHWASHER, using either ESE!Sirius or ESE!Lupin to remove limescale and provide added sparkle. If you are happiest taking the events in the Potterverse at face value, and think conspiracy theorists need their heads examined, you are undoubtedly right, and it's probably best to move on hastily. You can always have the last laugh ? and do the washing-up by hand. Meanwhile, those of a more sinister disposition might like to put their feet up while the machine is running, and mull over past conversations, whilst finishing up what's left in the bottles and snacking on plates of left-over trifles. Skip to the end for the conclusions if it gets too tedious. ******************* .`Enchantingly nasty' said Dumbledore, his eyes twinkling, `I particularly enjoyed your description of me as an obsolete dingbat.' . As at all the best parties, it is sometimes difficult to remember who said what to whom when the booze started to flow and the arguments got heated, so the following posts might be a useful recap, or alternatively, ammunition for further exchanges: MD: 39662 [Spying Game I; Bluesqueak]; 39854 [MD recap; Grey Wolf]; 40044 [Spying Game II; Bluesqueak]; 81010 [MD, post-OOP update; Bluesqueak]; 81067 [Jen Reese response], 81074 [Kneasy response]; 81097 [Bluesqueak response]; 81104 [postscript from Melody]. ESE!Lupin: 39362 [Pippin's original post]; 39368 [Bluesqueak response]; 82860 [post-OOP update from Pippin]; 85139 [critique from Olivier Fouquet]; 115596 [Recent Pippin contribution to Agent!Peter thread]. ESE!Sirius: discussed to some extent in MD and elsewhere; 103685 [Sirius Revisited] from Kneasy [and subsequent thread] provides an entertaining reminder of the main points; see also recent posts 115689 [Kneasy] and 115682 [Snow]. Agent!Peter: This is a portmanteau term invented to cover the various roles the rat might or might not be playing in the series, and doesn't relate to any one poster or theory. Generally, in this post I am using it to represent what Pettigrew's POV might have been. There are very few posts from this POV on HPfGU [two recent ones in this thread were 115779 & 115788], but a presentation by Amy Webb & Sharon Brown called `Let's Chat About the Rat' at ConventionAlley this August provided an extensive (50-page) run through some of the arguments. Unfortunately, AFAIK, the paper is not available electronically (although you can buy a copy of the proceedings). ********************* QUICK SUMMARY OF MD, ESE!LUPIN, ESE!SIRIUS, AGENT!PETER In the first MD post, Spying Game I [39662], Pip launched her theory of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore on a careful analysis of what really happened in the Shrieking Shack at the end of POA. To ruthlessly summarise a very long and closely-argued post: - Dumbledore always knew the MWPP were animagi. - When James & Lily were killed, DD was not sure, out of the various suspects, who had betrayed them, but subsequently discovers that Peter had been made Secret Keeper by Sirius. - Dumbledore knows that it is only a matter of time before Voldemort will be resurrected, and believes it will be an added protection if Voldemort has a servant who has a life-debt to Harry. - Snape and Dumbledore work closely together to help Harry save Pettigrew's life at the right moment, and allow the rat to return to Voldemort. Although Pettigrew is absolutely central to this plot, his personal motives are not examined in great detail; it is assumed he is probably what he appears ? a betrayer, a DE who will return to his master at the earliest opportunity (mainly because it is the safest place for him once his cover is blown). However, in this post, Pip also makes clear that a significant questionmark hangs over both Sirius' and Remus' actions; she says: `Dumbledore has *no* idea whether Sirius Black is a Voldemort supporter or not. Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and is very suspicious of Lupin.' Earlier, Pippin had already sown the seeds of these doubts with her first ESE!Lupin post [39362]. The main premise of the ESE!Lupin argument is that: - Lupin is an outcast as a werewolf, unable to earn a living in the WW; Voldemort tempts him by offering him a chance to be valued for what he is; and/or the possibility of introducing werewolf rights; and/or funding for finding a permanent cure for lyncanthropy. - At school his greatest fear is being found out. He knows Snape is on to him, and when the prank takes place, he is nearly undone, except that Dumbledore hushes it up. He hates Snape for nearly exposing him, Sirius for causing it to happen and James for saving Snape. - Subsequently he takes his revenge by betraying James & Lily to his new master, Voldemort, by telling V about Peter the SK. Voldemort breaks Peter and goes to GH to murder them all. Not only aghast at his master's death, like everyone else Lupin thinks Peter dies the day after, and that Sirius killed him. Ideally, he wants both Peter and Sirius dead, as they are the only people who can reveal his betrayal, but he has to bide his time whilst Sirius is in Azkaban. The doubts about Sirius have been around almost since the beginning of the HPfGU list, mainly because even if he isn't ESE, his actions are so plainly foolhardy that they almost become ESE by default. The case against Sirius opens as follows: - He is a clever, hot-headed, arrogant, wealthy trouble-maker who thinks he can get away with murder, and at school, very nearly does kill someone. - He comes from a family which is heavily into the Dark Arts, and has a brother who actually joined the DEs. - He persuaded James not to use DD as SK, and worse, came up with the plan for switching the SK from himself to Peter. He either then betrayed Peter to Voldie, or Peter acted of his own accord, either way causing Lily & James' deaths. He subsequently tries to summarily execute the only person who could clear his name ? and not once after GH, but twice (POA). Finally, there is the alternative view of Pettigrew, Agent!Peter, which just as ESE!Lupin and ESE!Sirius argue the reverse of the character's as they initially appear in a superficial reading, suggests that Peter may have more of a conscience than is popularly supposed. He may be doing his best to repay the error that lead to James & Lily's deaths ? either in connivance with Dumbledore, or as a solo initiative. Some key points of this theory are: - Dumbledore trusted him enough to allow him to be in the first Order of the Phoenix - James, Sirius and Lupin treated Peter with contempt at school and after; did their behaviour make the worm turn? - Why did Peter wait 12 years at the Weasleys, and then voluntarily return to Voldemort when he could have easily escaped to anywhere in the world and laid low for ever? - Why does Dumbledore not inform the Ministry about Pettigrew after his escape back to Voldemort? - Peter did not intend that Bertha Jorkins should die. - Peter argues with Voldemort over his plans. He is the only person to try and do this in the whole series so far, apart from DD. - He may have enabled Barty Crouch Sr to escape. - He may not have killed Cedric in the graveyard. - He gives his right arm to help Voldemort become mortal again. Why? Because he knows that is the only way Voldemort can be killed? All of these theories run together quite effectively, but do have crucial differences at various key points, as the following five questions show. ******* FIVE QUESTIONS 1. Did Dumbledore know that James, Sirius and Peter were animagi, and when did he know? MD: Yes, emphatically. DD's comment `not least keeping it from me' is regarded as simply untrue. He is not only an omniscient headmaster who knows everything that is going on at the school, but also a specialist in transfiguration. He also turns a blind eye to many student activities. MD speculates that Dumbledore made the connection between animagus Pettigrew and Scabbers the rat at the same time Sirius did ? when he saw the picture of the Weasley's on holiday in Egypt in the Daily Prophet. He only shared this information with Snape, no one else. ESE!Lupin/ESE!Sirius/Agent!Peter: None of the original marauders would volunteer the information unless they had to, as it was an illegal activity, and all of them thought DD didn't know. Sirius had no choice but to admit it to DD at the end of POA. However, Pippin in 115596 says that she does not believe DD had any prior knowledge, and would not have been able to extract it from Sirius at Azkaban even if he had visited. Significance: The form that animagi take is important as an insight into their characters, and practically in plot terms as it would have given Dumbledore food for thought as to what Sirius or Peter might be capable of doing. It would have occurred to him, for instance, that Sirius could have escaped more easily from Azkaban as a dog, and Peter's particular animagi form might remind him of Ron's pet rat ? which as far as we know was the only such pet in the school. ******** 2. Was Peter spying for Voldemort before GH? Why would Peter betray his friends like this? MD: Not definitive either way. Dumbledore accepts it could have been Peter, but retains a suspicion it could be either Sirius or Lupin instead. No insight into why Peter might have done it. Another way of looking at it is that Dumbledore thought there were several spies, knew Peter was one of them for definite, and on this basis decided to pursue his bold plan in POA to return Peter to Voldie full of misinformation and in Harry's debt. He would then deal with the other possible spies in due course. ESE!Lupin: No, the spy was Lupin. Peter is assumed to be loyal. ESE!Sirius: Depends if you view Sirius as totally evil or just stupid. If Sirius was evil, Peter was not spying. If plain stupid, either Peter or Lupin could have been the spy. Agent!Peter: The argument that he was a spy is based on seeing Peter as a very weak man who James, Lily, Remus and Sirius treated with contempt, leaving him wide open to an approach by Voldemort, and once in with Voldemort there was no way out. The alternative reading is that he was a clever, inconspicuous but very loyal member of OOP, whom DD had identified for a dangerous double-agent role, feeding misleading information to Voldie. It depends on who you view as the more powerful Legilimens ? Peter would have had to have been taught to resist either Voldie's or DD's intrusions into his mind to have survived in his role for long. Significance: Considerable for character readings. If Peter was a long-term spy, it begs many questions about what made him do it, and what his `great' friends at school, and later in the Order were really like as people. If nothing else, it is also a failure of Dumbledore's leadership that he didn't prevent it happening, knowing all the players so well, man and boy. Did he not see fit to speak to James, Lily or Remus about their behaviour? If on the other hand, DD didn't just make the best of a bad job by sending Peter back to Voldie as he was, but actually turned Peter or trained him for a long-term deep-cover mission, it sheds an entirely new light on many of Peter's actions later on, and his integrity as a character. ****** 3. Why was the SK switch made? Who knew about the SK switch? Why did James & Lily agree to it? MD: DD does not believe that Sirius is essentially evil, but he does think he is weak. He gives evidence to the MoM that he knew Black was SK, but MD asserts that he did not believe this statement himself, although he did not know the truth at the time of GH, only subsequently after getting information about the mutterings at Azkaban. ESE!Lupin: James and Sirius suspected Lupin, they thought if they pretended Sirius was SK, Lupin might take the info back to Voldie, leaving Peter safe. However, Lily, being soft-hearted, wanted to show Lupin she trusted him despite being a werewolf, and told Lupin about the switch to Peter. Lupin then betrayed this info to Voldie. James did not go along with DD's advice because he suspected it was influenced by Snape's opinion, and he continued to distrust Snape even if DD didn't. Peter, meanwhile, was left with the impression that he was betrayed by Sirius. ESE!Sirius: Sirius proposed the switch either because he was a coward and wasn't after all, prepared to die for his friends, or to set Peter up for betrayal. Agent!Peter: He did not suggest that he was made SK to anyone; he was volunteered, and only had a very short time in the role. If he is ESE, this information is dynamite, and would blow the role he has been so carefully playing for a year if he passes it on. He would have to be very sure it would lead to Voldie's permanent triumph before risking disclosing it. If he is not ESE, but has been spying on a double-agent basis for DD, then he has been put in a dangerously high-risk situation, and is afraid he will blow it. If he is neither ESE or a double-agent, but just plain frightened, do his equivocal feelings about the contempt with which his friends treat him lead him to moan miserably to the wrong person and prompt the train of events which leads Voldie to him, and the resulting extraction of his secret? NB, the Fidelius charm cannot be passed on unless the SK `chooses to divulge it', but what does `choose' mean if you are being tortured? Significance? It seems that Sirius, James and Lily - three very young, frightened Order members took the fateful decision on their own and ignored their leader's advice. Or had Dumbledore tried to convey some of his concerns about Sirius, Pettigrew and Lupin to James, and ended up angering James, who, storming out (leaving his Invisibility cloak behind), then insisted to his wife that they at least trust his best friend? And Dumbledore, believing in `it's our choices', left them to it and intervened no further? It's a motif (and arguably a mistake) that DD repeats with Harry in OOP. A very high risk strategy and some tough love, if that's what it is. ********** 4. Why did the Pettigrew/Sirius confrontation take place after GH, and why did Peter eventually return to Voldemort after a wait of 12 years? MD: At the time, in the absence of other information, the confrontation could have been a falling out between two traitors; at best it was a stupid, rash thing for Sirius to have done. Snape is certainly convinced that Black is a traitor ? what knowledge drives this? Peter is assumed to have no other place to go by POA. ESE!Lupin: Lupin was present at that encounter, although neither of them saw him. He needed to make sure both Peter and Sirius were dead so they could not give him away. He threw the curse that blew up the street, but failed to get either of them, although he thought he had killed Peter. Peter was already in the process of faking his own disappearance, being faced with the impossible odds of a furious Sirius who he couldn't out-duel. The MoM squad turned up too quickly for Lupin to have another shot at Sirius. Peter no longer has any choice but to return to Voldemort ? he is hopelessly compromised and under threat from the other DEs. Voldemort keeps him alive in order to blackmail Lupin to stay in line. ESE!Sirius: Sirius had to get rid of Peter to avoid his betrayal becoming public. He fails after GH, but manages the events in POA to discredit any story that Peter is trying to tell, and nearly manages to kill him. Although Peter escapes, the dispute between them effectively becomes unfinished business between traitors. If you vote for stupid, as opposed to ESE!Sirius, his rashness ensures Pettigrew runs to Voldemort. Agent!Peter: If not ESE, Peter thought Sirius had betrayed him, and didn't intend Sirius to catch him. He was competent enough to blow up the street and fake his own death simultaneously, as it was essential he remained a free agent in order to avenge James & Lily. If ESE, he trapped and framed Sirius as suggested in the books, but it is difficult to explain why he then remained in hiding with the Weasley's for 12 years. Almost any other continent would be a more sensible location, let alone staying in the UK. If he did have the black mark, it would alert him to Voldie's return, should it happen. After the events in POA, assuming he had stupidly remained in hiding in the UK, yet again, it makes no sense, psychologically, to go and seek out Voldie as a cloud of noxious dust in Albania. Significance? All three main theories pay little attention to Peter as a person. They take him at face value, as a weak person placed in a non- negotiable position. At the same time, they also postulate that he may have had the intelligence to be either an effective spy for Voldemort, and/or bright enough to have staged a credible disappearance. There is something not right here, and it could be evidence that Peter is playing a different role ? although on his own initiative or another's, it is impossible to tell. *********** 5. Why did Dumbledore leave Sirius in Azkaban and why did Dumbledore enable Sirius to be rescued in POA? MD: DD did not know at the time whether Sirius was guilty or not immediately after GH. After the events in POA, DD's thoughts are summed up by Pip as `DD will try to make sure you're not wrongly executed or re-imprisoned, but that's as far as it goes.' The last thing DD wants is Harry put at risk by allowing him to live with Sirius. He gets the idiot out of the country PDQ. ESE!Lupin: The last thing Lupin wants is Sirius out of Azkaban; he would make no effort to help clear his name. Lupin had every intention of killing them all except Harry in POA, but is prevented by Snape's intervention. He has to run off into the Forbidden Forest to maintain his cover, and despite setting the Dementors on Sirius is unable to influence events further. He finally sees a chance to safely deal with Sirius in OOP, but Peter remains unfinished business. ESE!Sirius: He has no illusions why he's there; when he's sprung from Azkaban, he concentrates all his efforts on discrediting Peter and Snape. If not ESE, he is fully aware he is on borrowed time with DD. Agent!Peter: If not ESE, all he can do is bide his time and wait for an opportunity to clear his name. When it becomes clear during the Shrieking Shack scene in POA that Sirius is to be freed, this will give Peter furiously to think who did betray him ? was it Lupin? If ESE, as before, there is no logical reason for him to wait for Sirius to be freed, or later for him to return to Voldie. He could have done that any time immediately after GH. Significance? Whichever way you read it, this episode is evidence of Dumbledore's ruthless approach. Even though he wasn't sure if Sirius was guilty or not, he made no effort to ensure he got a fair trial. He also made no effort to convince Fudge of his changed opinion about Sirius at the end of POA. It was more important to his other plans that Sirius remained a fugitive. Dumbledore's statement `you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight' also sheds new light on Trelawny's ambiguous second prediction `Tonight before midnight.. the servant will set out to rejoin his master ' Did Dumbledore really mean Sirius and Buckbeak, as a simple reading of the book might suggest, or did he mean Buckbuck and Peter, or even Buckbeak and Harry? Or all three? ******** SO WHAT? This post is far, far too long, and was longer. Here are some conclusions. 1. How does Agent!Peter theory alter established conspiracy theories? Quite a bit. There is not space here to analyse anything beyond the GH/POA episodes relating to Peter, but there is no doubt the plot turns around his actions in each case. If he is treated less as a cardboard cut-out baddy, but as an individual tortured with indecision and self-doubt, it throws new light on the characterisations of protagonists like Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, James & Lily. [Less so Snape ? he remains a constant!]. If he is not what he seems at all, it throws the theories wide open. MD: yet another major headache for DD to second-guess, even if Peter is not ESE ESE!Lupin: A highly intelligent opponent, who's rumbled him and is still at large. ESE!Sirius: Another devastating piece of information for Harry to absorb. 2. Does Agent!Peter theory make conspiracy theories more convincing? Yes, immeasurably, but they'll need fine-tuning to accommodate him. At the heart of every spy story is a human story ? why they did what they did, if they did. It's highly personal, up front and painful. That seems to be the kind of story that JKR is telling, if she is not going for the epic war story, littered with bodies. 3. Does Agent!Peter theory give us any new insights into what might happen in Books 6 & 7? Essentially, Agent!Peter theory agrees that Peter's role is far from over, but over and beyond the involuntary life-debt aspect referred to in canon, he may (or may not) try to influence future events to save himself, or atone for what he has done (or is accused of) ? shades of `it's a far, far finer thing I do' etc etc. Extending the three conspiracy theories compared in this post, here's some ideas of what this might amount to. MD: [See 81104] Dumbledore's current agenda is to buy time for as long as possible. His analysis must be that Peter will not be suddenly treated with respect but continuing contempt by Voldie, and all the other DE's. After the re-bodying, Peter is of no real use to them, although they are probably wary of his new silver hand. DD's calculation could be (a) Peter went to V voluntarily, but the attraction is waning ? therefore, what would tempt him back ? or (b) Peter is a brave double agent, what is the most useful way he could support him in the circs? I would suggest (a) DD puts Ron at risk ? the one person who Peter/Scabbers had real affection from in his life, that he would remember (he bit Goyle Jr for him). Ron is used as a decoy to extract some information from Peter which can be used to prevent a dastardly plot of Voldemort's. As counterpoint, V may have realised that Peter has special knowledge of the Weasley's and sent him on a mission to either harm one of them, or extract information for V. This sub-plot might end in a moment of conscience for Peter ? whom does he betray? In version (b), Ron is again used as the conduit for passing information, but this time because he is the person Peter most trusts. It comes to a sticky end when Peter is found out, and by this point Ron has grown up a lot and it hits him hard what happens to friendship in the murky halfworld of spooks and spying. And it generates more extensive discussion by the fanbase of whether DD's world is worth fighting for [see 81067]. ESE!Lupin: Peter sets himself an agenda to be Lupin's nemesis, either to personally avenge James & Lily, who trusted him, or to simply clear his name. Peter manages to achieve this at some crucial point where Lupin is on the point of delivering Harry to Voldemort yet again, but Peter also dies as a result. He gets another posthumous Order of Merlin to put beside the other one on his mother's mantlepiece. ESE!Sirius: Since Sirius is now, to all intents and purposes, dead, we will be talking back history, and it will involve Snape. The only thing that broke into Sirius's concentration in the Shrieking Shack in POA was Remus remarking that Snape was teaching at Hogwart's. There is no question that their enmity is/was deep, real and personal, and Peter finds out the reason (or already knows). He also thinks Sirius betrayed him by making him SK. It is information that Snape does not want made public (although Dumbledore knows it), but eventually Peter is trapped by Snape, and the unpleasant details come out, leading to more revision on Harry's part of the characters of his godfather, of Snape, and of Peter. Life, he increasingly realises, is extremely messy. I could go on spinning scenarios, but better not WHAT'S IN A NAME? Whatever the truth about the rat, JKR is certainly having fun with us over his many names (and their very multiplicity is perhaps a warning against a simplistic reading of him as a character). [Acknowledgements to Master Froggy Encylopedia and Akashic Record for some of them]: Scabbers: from English slang `scab', meaning strike-breaker, a person who doesn't show solidarity with work colleagues but sides with the management in a dispute? Or `scabby' meaning something unclean, covered in sores? Peter: a reference to the top Apostle, whose belief was designated the rock (Lat: petra) on which the Christian faith is built, and holder of the keys to heaven ? but who also wavered and denied Christ when Jesus was arrested? (And who is frequently depicted as balding with fringes and tufts of hair on his head). Or Peter as in `peter out', to diminish, run away into nothing? Pettigrew: literally from the French `petit' (small) and `cru' (growth), or a play on words: `Pet-I-Grew', a reference to his ability to turn from rat to man? Wormtail: an insinuator and a liar, and a feeder on corpses, or a weak person who might finally resist, as in `the worm will turn'? Carolyn From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 20:07:51 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:07:51 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape: second chance? In-Reply-To: <001501c4b47e$6950d2c0$ce59aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115795 Annemehr: > > Wouldn't they *all* have been looking for him, then, to > > treat him with the utmost TLC just to make sure they themselves > > survived? After all, if LV would just have slowly faded away, > > then so would they. Amandageist: > All I could think of was that maybe many of them were > actually relieved, or thought they got out easy > > So maybe the majority of Death Eaters were "middle of the road" or > strong enough alone, hoped the bond had been broken by the totally > unforeseen effects of Harry on the Avada Kedavra spell, did know > Voldemort was semi-alive, and chose to ignore him and go back to > their lives (and their own agendas). Barmaid: I proposed something like this in post 115724. I think most of the Death Eaters have some kind of hunger for power of their own. If this bond is real, and they all somehow need each other to stay alive, it seems very plausible that when they do not suffer any real damage from LV's fall at GH they think that their power is their own and may feel, as you suggest, that they have lucked out and do not want to tempt fate by going to look for LV. From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 17 23:16:49 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:16:49 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth -Additional Thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115796 Professor Binns paused again, pursing his lips, looking like a wrinkled old tortoise. "Reliable historical sources tell us this much," he said. "But these honest facts have been obscured by the fanciful legend of the Chamber of Secrets. The story goes that Slytherin had built a hidden chamber in the castle, of which the other founders knew nothing." "Slytherin, according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that none would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the school. The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets, unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic." - - - end quote - - - Steve/bboyminn: It's true the book does try to lead us to believe that Slytherin was a /racist/. But it's hard to tell how much of that is self-serving exaggeration, and how much is truth. It's clear Slytherin had a bias against Muggles, and had justifiable reasons to hate what some muggle were doing at that time, but I don't feel that confident that Slytherin was an evil nasty hatefulled monster. He and Gryffindor were apparently very close friends, and if Slytherin was that nasty and hate-filled, it would seem reasonable that Gryffindor would have figured it out before he entered into a partnership in the school with him. Bookworm: I'd like to agree with you and think that Salazar's reputation has been distorted over the years. But that doesn't explain *why* he built the Chamber in the first place, hid it from his supposed-friends, and wait for an heir to come along and "purge the school". That would have taken much more planning and effort than a quick revenge spell cast as he stormed out of the school after an argument. Ravenclaw Bookworm From tookishgirl_111 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 23:25:25 2004 From: tookishgirl_111 at yahoo.com (tookishgirl_111) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:25:25 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: <038501c4b485$425da560$01fea8c0@domain.invalid> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Saitaina" wrote: > < A member of any other house could > never find > happiness with a Slytherin, because the > Slytherin would eat them > alive, so to speak.> > > Not really. Most Slytherin's would > actually find it relaxing to be with a > Ravenclaw or a Gryffindor because they > don't constantly have to be looking > over their shoulder for a knife in the > back Tooks: well, I'm not so sure about that either, I thinks it really depends on the individual. Some Slytherins may find it refreshing to be with someone of another house, but not all. I could see others (such as Lucius) becoming very annoyed with those of the other houses - Gryffindor's honesty, Ravenclaw's nerdiness, and Hufflepuff's unwavering kindness could all end up rubbing a Slytherine the wrong. And as the saying goes: Like attracts like (okay, maybe it's not a saying, but it's very true). Tooks - Slytherin, and proud of it From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 23:32:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:32:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115798 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > CHAPTER QUESTIONS: > 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what broke > the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that > Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco > have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? Alla: First of all, great questions, Potioncat. All of them. When I first read this one, I for some reason thought that we are still talking about the jar with cockroaches. Don't ask me, why. :O) Yes, I definitely think that Snape broke it. I think that was his petty attempt of revenge for Harry's looking into his pensieve. Do you think that it fallen down by itself? I reread the paragraph and could not see any indication of it. What gets to me the most is Snape reaction, of course "His potion sample lay in pieces on the floor and Snape was watching him with the look of gloating pleasure" -OOP, p.661, paperback. Tell me, does he have to enjoy Harry's humiliation THAT MUCH? This is definitely one of my "Need to slap Snape, NOW" moments. :o) > 4. McGonagall schedules Harry's Career Advice during Divination. > What does that say about her opinion of Divination? Alla: That her opinion of Divination is not very...erh...high, I guess. :0) > 5. Are classes for Auror set, or was McGonagall making her own > recommendations here? Why was she smiling about Harry taking > Potions? Alla: I don't think that McGonagall is making her own recommendations here. I think the classes for Aurors are set, but I do find her smile about Harry's taking potions to be intriguing. Does she know some of Snape's good side we haven't seen yet? I don't know. I just hope she does not share Dumbledore's illusions about Snape and Hary understanding each other. > 8. McGonagall ignores Umbridge, and pretends to think Umbridge has a > sore throat. Then she is scornful of Umbridge's note and quotes > Lupin as a better judge of DADA knowledge. What do you think of > McGonagall in this situation? Alla: I always liked McGonagall, but I think that in OOP she rocked. I LOVED her replies to Umbridge. I think that she tried to resist Umbridge as much as she could and rightfully so. >> 11. The twins leave Hogwarts as heroes. Do you think we'll see > these two playing a big role again? Alla: Yep, I definitely think that their joke shop will produce some very interesting devices to help in the fight. I just hope that both of them will survive the war. Twins and Ginny are my favourite Weasleys/ From tookishgirl_111 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 23:34:00 2004 From: tookishgirl_111 at yahoo.com (tookishgirl_111) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:34:00 -0000 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115799 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" wrote: > > LadyOfThePensieve wrote: > The 3 saints Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus. > > They all died in 309 AD in Egypt as martyrians. > Well. Does these names sound familiar to you? > Dharma replies: > > Thanks for posting this information! My first thought is the > obvious, given this context. Lucius, Peter and Snape are going to > all be dead at the hands Death Eaters or Voldemort by the time book > 7 comes to an end. Much wild speculation comes to mind in thinking > about how they might die!! > Tooks: That is a fastinating thought...one I could see occuring. The only one I doubt is Lucius being named after Saint Leucius, he really doesn't come across as a saint or one to redeem. It's more likely, IMHO, that he was named after the character of the same name in William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus - a throughly nasty man who attempts to bring about the destruction of King Titus by hurting and/or causing the deaths of all those close to the king. (Pardon me for not going into the plot, I haven't read the play, just heard of the Lucius character.) - I know JKR named Hermione after a character from A Winter's Tale by Shakespeare, so it's possible she did it more than once. Tooks - Lucius fan, who prefers him evil (ever so evil) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 23:53:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:53:25 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: <76.43f4d5a2.2e9ca09c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115800 Brodeur wrote: > > Boggarts are not future detectors. They are simply figures that turn into your worst fears and nightmares. I would not take it to seriously, do you really expect Snape to begin to wear Neville's grandmother's clothes? Or see a spider with roller skates on? > But there's a difference here. Molly's fear is not ridiculous, nor can it be made ridiculous. Lupin changes the boggart to his own moon (which in turn can't be ridiculed because it's a valid fear) and sort of sweeps it away. Likewise, Harry's Dementor boggart can't be made ridiculous. It, too, is a valid fear and is only controlled by Lupin's turning it into his own boggart. (There's a cockroach in there somewhere, but I've never figured out how it fits in.) Neville is going to have to get over his fear of Snape and face his real fear, his true boggart, if you will, Bellatrix Lestrange. (I wouldn't be surprised if Snape expected her--or at any rate, a DE--to be Neville's boggart and in his snarky way was warning Lupin of that possibility, but I know no one agrees with me on this.) Ron, too, needs to overcome his fear of spiders (and will nod doubt have to confront Aragog at some future point) and concentrate on VW2. Those boggarts, like Parvati's mummy, reflect childhood fears of mean teachers, monsters in the closet, creepy-crawly creatures. But Dementors and monthly bouts of insanity caused by being a werewolf and your teenage children's possible deaths in a coming war are all valid fears in the WW, and the last is a valid fear in the RW as well. Unlike the mummies and creeping hands and so forth that we saw in Lupin's class, Harry's and Lupin's boggarts (or rather, the real fears they represent) have already played an important role in the books and may do so again. I think Molly's very traumatic and prolonged ordeal with her boggart is also foreshadowing. If not, why include the incident? It certainly wasn't integral to the plot of OoP. Watch out for the clock in her living room. Carol From navarro198 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 18 00:04:21 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:04:21 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20041017205005.91066.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115801 Barmaid: I do not see a conflict between Peter as a rather weak and less talented wizard and Peter as an effective spy. Peter is someone who is completely externally referenced. His self image is all tied up in who he is hanging out with, what those people think of him and what others think of him because of his associations. Peter is very determined to be accepted by and useful to those more talented and powerful than he himself is and thus to be able to share in the glow of that power. As someone less talented he has figured out that this is his path to some pale sort of greatness. Magda: We do Peter a disservice if we see him as weak-willed or in some way not a resolute character. He doesn't have the same priorities as Sirius and James but he was able to convince them that he had and for seven years they lived in the same dorm and chummed around together without twigging to Peter's real character. Rodent that he is, that implies that Peter does have something on the ball. Bookworm: For brevity, I snipped the rest of Madga's comments, but she makes an excellent characterization of Peter. I agree with both Barmaid and Magda, and I've posted before (many thousands ago!) that Peter is weak *compared to the people he associated with* ? James and Sirius, and Voldemort. Madga's comment also make me wonder how astute James and Sirius were. Did Peter really have to hide his cunning, or were they so cocky they were oblivious to others? Ravenclaw Bookworm From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 00:11:36 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:11:36 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115802 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > Madga's comment also make me wonder how astute James and Sirius > were. Did Peter really have to hide his cunning, or were they so > cocky they were oblivious to others? Or, perhaps, is the problem that we're thinking of the glimpse of 15- year old Peter that we got, and just cleanly extrapolating it to 21- year old Peter? There's the eminent possibility that some things changed quite a bit from one situation to the other. Not really enough information to tell, perhaps. One could address the issue of the last sentence a number of ways; Peter hiding cunning, the others being trusting and not noticing changes, OscarWinning!Peter (a nice change of pace from OscarWinning! Snape)...not enough information. Just wanted to toss out the possible influence of the passing of time, though. -Nora sits down with Faust From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 00:13:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:13:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's doorstep bed, basket or blankets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115803 Geoff wrote: > There is a basket (IIRC) in "the medium that dare not speak its name" but the book doesn't mention one. > > Hagrid brings Harry on the motor bike... > and when Dumbledore makes his exit.... > > "He could just see the bundle of blankets on the step of number four." > > Where would a basket come from, unless someone conjures one up? > Hagrid hasn't got one, McGonagall arrives in animagus form, > Dumbledore isn't carrying anything. > > Mark you, I agree that a 15-month old child might kick off the > blankets; I have memories of my mob when they were that age. Carol responds: I agree that a blanket seems inadequate for a toddler of fifteen months, though I'm not sure a basket would be much better. (Slightly more comfortable, maybe.) But you'd think they'd put some sort of charm on Harry to keep him from wriggling free of the blankets. Maybe they're snugly wrapped and it's cold enough that he wants to stay warm. But what about animals or kidnappers or just waking up and wandering off? Dawn, we know, is only a few hours off, but still, why are Hagrid and Dumbledore, at least, so sure he'll be safe that they say goodbye and leave him? Does McGonagall, who goes off around a corner in cat form, stay to watch and make sure Petunia takes him inside? It doesn't look that way. She disappears from Dumbledore's view before he leaves (the one and only time we see from his POV). Or does the blood protection charm DD has placed on him keep Harry safely asleep on the porch? Might Mrs. Figg be secretly watching, just in case he wakes up and starts to toddle off somewhere? Carol, who knows that JKR is withholding info at this point but is still bothered by a fifteen-month-old being treated like a three-month-old From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 18 00:21:44 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:21:44 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" Carolyn wrote: ******* > FIVE QUESTIONS > > 1. Did Dumbledore know that James, Sirius and Peter were > animagi, and when did he know? > > MD: Yes, emphatically. DD's comment `not least keeping it from me' > is regarded as simply untrue. Pretty much. But MD's feeling is that Dumbledore generally lies by telling the exact, but not the complete truth. James, Sirius and Peter did manage to keep their animagi status from Dumbledore for a time; it may have been 'blown' when Snape nearly got killed in the Shrieking Shack and Dumbledore worked out that the only way the three boys could have safely played with a werewolf was as animagi. It's even possible that Dumbledore never did 'find out'; he got told, by James the Order of the Phoenix member (for some Order related reason) after the three left Hogwarts. In which case they would have been some of the very few students to successfully keep a secret from Dumbledore until one *chose* to tell it - and Dumbledore's compliment is quite genuine. Dumbledore therefore knew about the animagi status of Peter and Sirius when Harry, Ron and Hermione went into the Shrieking Shack. He is not only an omniscient headmaster > who knows everything that is going on at the school, but also a > specialist in transfiguration. He also turns a blind eye to many > student activities. MD speculates that Dumbledore made the > connectionbetween animagus Pettigrew and Scabbers the rat at the > same time Sirius did ? when he saw the picture of the Weasley's on > holiday in Egypt in the Daily Prophet. He only shared this > information with Snape, no one else. > > > ******** > > 2. Was Peter spying for Voldemort before GH? Why would Peter > betray his friends like this? > > MD: Not definitive either way. Dumbledore accepts it could have > been Peter, but retains a suspicion it could be either Sirius or > Lupin instead. No insight into why Peter might have done it. > Another way of looking at it is that Dumbledore thought there were > several spies, knew Peter was one of them for definite, and on > this basis decided to pursue his bold plan in POA to return Peter > to Voldie full of misinformation and in Harry's debt. He would > then deal with the other possible spies in due course. There's a real possibility that two of James's schoolfriends betrayed him; possibly each thinking they were the only one. What Dumbledore does know is that by getting Peter, Sirius and Lupin together at Hogwarts he's got the jackpot. One of them is the betrayer. > 3. Why was the SK switch made? Who knew about the SK >switch? Why did James & Lily agree to it? > > MD: DD does not believe that Sirius is essentially evil, but he > does think he is weak. He gives evidence to the MoM that he knew > Black was SK, but MD asserts that he did not believe this > statement himself, although he did not know the truth at the time > of GH, only subsequently after getting information about the > mutterings at Azkaban. > Yup. Weak is the word - though 'coward' is the one that Snape uses in OOP. Given that Snape's assessment of James's character in PoA turned out to be brutally accurate, it's entirely possible that Sirius is someone who can cope with the thought of dying quickly, but can't cope with the idea of slow death by torture (in PoA Sirus is practically in a state of collapse when faced with the Dementor's kiss). That would give Sirius motivation to swap with Peter. OK, not a nice motivation [grin], but still... At the time of GH, Dumbledore had been told Black was SK. I think he thought that until Hagrid was released from Azkaban, at the end of CoS - and told Dumbledore what he'd heard some DE's saying. > > MD: At the time, in the absence of other information, the > confrontation could have been a falling out between two traitors; > at best it was a stupid, rash thing for Sirius to have done. Snape > is certainly convinced that Black is a traitor ? what knowledge > drives this? Peter is assumed to have no other place to go by POA. > Note that in OOP Snape won't eat at Sirius's house. > Significance? > All three main theories pay little attention to Peter as a person. > They take him at face value, as a weak person placed in a non- > negotiable position. At the same time, they also postulate that he > may have had the intelligence to be either an effective spy for > Voldemort, and/or bright enough to have staged a credible > disappearance. There is something not right here, and it could be > evidence that Peter is playing a different role ? although on his > own initiative or another's, it is impossible to tell. > > *********** Um. I think all the theories have to cope with the canon fact that Peter *did* betray the Potters (as SK, he was the only one who could). Unless we're going for a very dark Dumbledore indeed, that betrayal was probably his own idea - or the idea of the canonically evil Voldemort. Non-negotiable is probably a good description of his situation - unless Peter was the one who heard half the First Prophecy, he did *not* know that Harry might be the one powerful enough to destroy Voldemort. Not knowing that, he'd be bright enough to figure out that, frankly, Voldie and the DE's were powerful enough that the Order were all going to die. The character flaw of weakness would mean that he'd be strongly tempted to find a way out of that. > > 5. Why did Dumbledore leave Sirius in Azkaban and why did > Dumbledore enable Sirius to be rescued in POA? > > MD: DD did not know at the time whether Sirius was guilty or not > immediately after GH. After the events in POA, DD's thoughts are > summed up by Pip as `DD will try to make sure you're not wrongly > executed or re-imprisoned, but that's as far as it goes.' The last > thing DD wants is Harry put at risk by allowing him to live with > Sirius. He gets the idiot out of the country PDQ. > And he later tries to keep Sirius safely out of sight at 12 Grimmauld Place. Except when Sirius decides to accompany Harry to the Hogwarts Express. 'Idiot' is the word. [grin] In OOP we find (which I didn't know when I wrote Spying Game I and II) that Harry is magically protected at the Dursley's. So moving to live with Sirius would put Harry in quite considerable danger. > WHAT'S IN A NAME? > > Peter: a reference to the top Apostle, whose belief was designated > the rock (Lat: petra) on which the Christian faith is built, and > holder of the keys to heaven ? but who also wavered and denied > Christ when Jesus was arrested? (And who is frequently depicted as > balding with fringes and tufts of hair on his head). Or Peter as > in `peter out', to diminish, run away into nothing? Peter is probably the most important part of Pettigrew's many names. I'd go for Peter the apostle, because it is connected with betrayal through weakness. Peter the rat knows what he *should* do - but doesn't. Pip!Squeak From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 00:33:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:33:35 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115805 impherring13 wrote: > During PA, Harry begins to regain memories of the night his parents were killed. He hears his mother (or the person we are almost positive is his Lily), and his father (or the person we are not so positive is James). Really all we know for sure is what is spoken between them. We hear the male voice saying that Voldemort is there > and that he will hold him off. We do not learn the outcome of this > "duel". The scene moves on to Voldemort killing Lily. What I propose is that the male voice is not James, but Peter Pettigrew. In the wand order we are given in GF, we are told that Voldemort killed James, then Lily with no intervening spells. > > This is my idea of the sequence of events: > Voldemort (or one of his Death Eaters) kills James while he is on > an Order of the Pheonix mission shortly before Voldemort arrives in > Godric's Hollow. Peter, who as secret keeper has been staying with > the Potters meets Voldemort at the door. He lies to Lily, saying that > Voldemort is there and he will hold him off. He actually Brings > Voldemort to Lily. After Voldemort's failed attempt to kill Harry, > Peter takes Voldemort's wand and runs off. > This tells us why Remus is surprised to hear that James was in the > house. We must remember that at this point Remus still believes Peter is innocent, therefore there is no reason to mention to Harry who was > really there. This also clears up how Peter came to have Voldemort's > wand. Tell me what you think. > > -SD Carol responds: Not to be a spoilsport, but I think the male voice is James's and Lupin reacts as he does because he was a close friend of James's and hopes to hear more of what happened. But he can't reveal to Harry his relationship with James and Sirius without giving away all of his own and Sirius's secrets. He answers Harry rather curtly and cuts off further discussion. But he couldn't have been present at GH himself; everyone thought he was the traitor. As for Peter, I do think he was present, but not in the house. I think he showed LV where the house was, changed to rat form to watch events, and changed back to a man long enough to take Voldemort's wand and hide it. (He probably lost his own wand later in the street confrontation with Sirius.) So, yes, JKR is again making us suspicious of Lupin, as she does in the Hogwarts Express incident by making him so mysterious, but it's only to prepare us for his being part of the foursome of MWPP. (Note that he's *not* mentioned in the conversation between McGonagall, Flitwick, Fudge, et al. This is our first and only hint of his membership in the group until we get to the confiscation of the Marauder's Map.) Think about the words the man speaks, which Harry doesn't reveal to Lupin. Surely this is a man speaking to his wife, warning her to save herself and their child? He's going to try to fight and give them a chance to escape. But he doesn't know that Lily has other plans--the ultimate sacrifice to activate the "ancient magic" that will save her child. And BTW, the person who killed James has to be Voldemort. He claims to have fought James and James was definitely killed with his wand. Nor does JKR in all her comments on these events ever indicate otherwise. Carol From navarro198 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 18 00:37:51 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:37:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115806 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice "Yes, Potter, Potions" she added, with the merest flicker of a smile. "Potions and antidotes are essential study for Aurors." She also warns him that he needs to study harder in Transfiguration and Potions as he will need an E in Transfiguration O.W.L.s and an O in Potion O.W.L.s. Umbridge and McGonagall exchange barbs over Harry's potential for making Auror. McGonagall dismisses the current DADA marks and specifically quotes Professor Lupin's opinion. She vows to do everything in her power to help Harry succeed. "If it's the last thing I do." Alla: I always liked McGonagall, but I think that in OOP she rocked. I LOVED her replies to Umbridge. I think that she tried to resist Umbridge as much as she could and rightfully so. Bookworm: McGonagall really came into her own in OoP ? her dry wit and the way she stood up to Umbridge. IMO, the smile when she mentioned potions was her acknowledging Harry's feelings toward continued classes with Snape. She is too professional to say anything specific to a student, especially with Umbridge there, but she obviously knows about the animosity between them. Unfortunately, her comment to Umbridge about helping Harry become an Auror, gave me shivers. I'm afraid that it *will* be the last thing she does. Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 00:43:22 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:43:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115807 > Bookworm: snip. > Unfortunately, her comment to Umbridge about helping Harry become an > Auror, gave me shivers. I'm afraid that it *will* be the last > thing she does. > Alla: I had this thought, but it passed fast. Do you think that Dumbledore is more likely survivor than McGonagall? Somebody has to be a Headmaster at the end. Somehow I doubt that Snape is a good candidate. :o) From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Oct 18 00:47:51 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:47:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > > IMO, the smile when she mentioned potions was her acknowledging > Harry's feelings toward continued classes with Snape. She is too > professional to say anything specific to a student, especially with > Umbridge there, but she obviously knows about the animosity between > them. > I agree. IMO this is just a common way of conveying sympathy and understanding without having to denigrate another teacher, especially in front of Umbridge. McGonagall seems to be one of those unfortunate souls possessed of a tender heart combined with an inability to unbend beyond a certain rather limited point. Thus she must rely on minimal expressions and gestures, especially in professional situations, to convey her feelings. Lupinlore From navarro198 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 18 00:52:13 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:52:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115809 Bookworm: Unfortunately, her comment to Umbridge about helping Harry become an Auror, gave me shivers. I'm afraid that it *will* be the last thing she does. Alla: I had this thought, but it passed fast. Do you think that Dumbledore is more likely survivor than McGonagall? Somebody has to be a Headmaster at the end. Somehow I doubt that Snape is a good candidate. :o) Bookworm: I wouldn't want my kids to attend a school that had Snape in charge! ;-) I agreed that McGonagall is `more' likely to survive than Dumbledore ? mostly because she isn't in the front line. It's just that JKR takes delight in planting hints... I also suspect that the entire Wizarding World is going to be turned upside down by the end of the series and there will be changes everywhere. Ravenclaw Bookworm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 00:56:51 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:56:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115810 > Bookworm: > I wouldn't want my kids to attend a school that had Snape > in charge! ;-) Alla: Oh, yes. I would be ready toi grab my kids and move far away from such school. Bookworm: > I agreed that McGonagall is `more' likely to survive than > Dumbledore ? mostly because she isn't in the front line. > It's just that JKR takes delight in planting hints... I also > suspect that the entire Wizarding World is going to be turned upside > down by the end of the series and there will be changes everywhere. > Alla: I agree, most of the time JKR plants very skillfull clues (as long as we forget about Mark Evans fiasco :o)) Let's speculate that McGonagall and Dumbledore are both dead at the end. Who do you think will be a Headmaster? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 01:04:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:04:52 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115811 Geoff wrote: > Unless she emulates the last episode of "Blake's Seven" and kills all the goodies off, there'll be folk around and, hoping that my wish re Harry is observed, we can spend our time speculating where our friends have gone, especially [if] JKR makes the last chapter an epilogue outlining what has happened to folk. Carol responds: She's already stated in a December 28, 2001 interview that that's exactly what she intends to do: "Rowling promises sex and death in Potter books "Emma Yates "In a revealing interview for the BBC, JK Rowling has said that she has already written the last chapter of the final Harry Potter book, and that some of the boy wizard's adventures to come will make for distressing reading. "The billionaire author reveals that she has already decided the fate of all the major characters, and hints that some could be killed off. The programme, to go out tonight on BBC1, shows Rowling holding the final chapter of the series to the camera and saying 'this is it, and I'm not opening it for obvious reasons.' "Describing the chapter, she says, 'this really wraps everything, it's the epilogue and I basically say what happens to everyone after they leave school, those who survive - because there are deaths, more deaths coming...There's at least one death that's going to be horrible to write.' The rest of the interview can be read at http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2001/1201-guardian-yates.htm The only thing that bothers me is the phrase "after they leave school." Isn't she going to tell us what happens to the grown ups? Surely it won't just be kids who survive! And as I've said before, the last word in the book (read epilogue) is "scar." That would be a pretty odd word to end with if Harry doesn't survive! Carol P.S. Sidenote to people who are having trouble searching the archives (not Geoff, of course!): You might try the Fantastic Posts (accessible from the homepage) and the Recommended Posts that the List Elves have hidden in the Database. It's easier than searching 115,000+ posts. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 01:21:33 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:21:33 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115812 mhbobbin wrote: > > If the male voice is someone other than James, it can't be a > painting or someone in the 2-way mirror, it has to be someone who's > physically there, and could have held off Voldy: > > 'Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off -' > > There can be a painting/mirror/something else witness too, of > course, but the voice has to belong to someone who was there. > > Dungrollin Carol responds: And who but James would say those words? We know that James put up a brave fight and was killed by LV. (Note that if LV cast any spells in that duel other than the AK, they didn't show up in the Priori Incantatem, but that's another thread.) I'm not ruling out a portrait or other nonhuman witness (I lean toward Snape's Dark Mark as a clue, myself), but I agree that the voice was human and it seems likely that it really was James's. (As I said in another post, it couldn't have been Lupin's. He was the suspected spy. The question, for me, is why Sirius didn't go to him instead of running after Peter. But that would have ruined the story.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 01:58:05 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:58:05 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115813 finwitch wrote: > Harry's Mom never prevented Harry from coming to Hogwarts, never > believed any nasty rumours... and they're DEAD. Harry's emotional > response to Mom&Dad is *very* different than response to those who > raised him.. At this situation, Seamus mother comes out like a Dursley. Carol responds: I think that bringing in Harry's parents or the Dursleys rather misses the point here. What Mrs. Finnegan (who has met Harry only once, and briefly) has done is what the WW as a whole has done--take the word of the Daily Prophet on faith. All she has as counterevidence is Seamus's own report (assuming that he gave it to her) of Dumbledore's words at the banquet--Cedric was murdered by Voldemort and Harry brought back Cedric's body at great risk to himself. She has no knowledge of any details (neither does Seamus). Her reaction is little different from that of the people who send Hermione hate mail and howlers in response to Rita Skeeter's report in Witch Weekly. At least Mrs. Finnegan doesn't do *that.* She only tries to take her son out of Hogwarts. And somehow (maybe on the intervention of his Muggle father?) Seamus wins that battle and ends up back at Hogwarts. No one, as far as I can see, is acting like a Dursley here. Everyone is acting on very limited or distorted knowledge and Mrs. F. is merely trying to protect her son. She's no better or worse, IMO, than Mrs. Weasley when she believed that Hermione was double-timing Harry. Actually, she had more excuse than Molly as her exposure to Harry (except as the legendary Boy Who Lived in sensational news articles) was very limited, and her actions didn't affect Harry directly. As for why the knowledge is so limited, it's partly Harry's understandable unwillingness to talk about events in the graveyard before the end of term in GoF and partly DD's own very limited and almost distorted version of events. Technically, Voldemort didn't murder Cedric. Wormtail did. But if either Harry or DD were to reveal that, who would believe them? If, instead of flying off the handle in OoP and insulting Seamus's mother, who rightly or wrongly was not abusing her child but trying to protect him, Harry had confided the truth to Seamus and Dean, wouldn't Seamus have trusted him? Surely it's Harry who's in the wrong here? Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 02:11:08 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:11:08 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115814 > Carolyn wrote: > > This post attempts to put the greasy, wine-stained Agent!Peter theory > through the MAGIC DISHWASHER, using either ESE!Sirius or ESE!Lupin to > remove limescale and provide added sparkle. Neri: First, I'd like to thank Carolyn for enlivening the forum. It's been a long time since we had a response from Pip!squeak :-) . I'd like to humbly point out one problem that I have with all these theories: Sometime in Book 7 (most probably) JKR is going to tell us The Truth about what happened with the secret keeper and in the Shrieking Shack (assuming of course that we don't have The Truth already). When she does that, she will have to do it in a way that the average reader (not to mention the average 13 yrs old reader) will be able to understand and follow. I can testify for myself that I was never able to follow MAGIC DISHWASHER without pen and paper, and frankly ESE!Lupin, ESE!Sirius and Agent!Peter make my head spin, despite Carolyn's explanaions and my best intentions. I suspect that, except for masterminds like Carolyn and the MDDT, many members of this forum don't do much better than myself in this. So until I read a conspiracy theory that I can relate to a friend without consulting my notebook several times, I will have to, well, I guess I'll have to stay silent because I just can't follow the discussion. But I sure do hope that I'll be able to follow Book 7 after waiting several years to read it. Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 02:22:43 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:22:43 -0000 Subject: Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115815 > Neri: > First, I'd like to thank Carolyn for enlivening the forum. It's been a > long time since we had a response from Pip!squeak :-) . Alla: Yes, definitely. It was good to hear from Pip!squeak. I would like to use the occassion and point out one more problem I have with MD. It is based among other premises on Oscarwinning!Snape(love that definition, no matter how strongly I disagree with the substance of such premise). I think that even the possibility of Oscarwinnning! Snape was destroyed after his raving and raging at Harry after occlumency failure, which did lead to a disaster. That is why I am not quite sure why it had been said so many times that OOP strengthened Magic Dishwasher considerably. I felt the opposite - that one of its basic premises was destroyed. Sure, Safe House was strengthened, but Magic Dishwasher? Why? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 02:34:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:34:10 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115816 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > > Right. I wonder, though, how/why things changed so much in the intervening 10-11 years. Why, for instance, he's "Albus" and she's ostensibly sharing a cuppa hot chocolate with him in the evening.... > > Geoff wrote: > > But she's on first name terms from the beginning.... > > > > > > "Lily and James... I can't believe it... I didn't want to believe > > it... Oh, Albus..." > > Dumbledore reached out and patted her on the shoulder.' > > > > Interestingly, she also referred to him rather familiarly as > > just "Dumbledore" in at least four places here. > > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling fok by their title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and informality between them. > > > SSSusan: > Similarly, while she calls him Albus the one time at PD, I don't > think "Dumbledore" indicates much familiarity, and the remainder of > the scene strikes me as markedly different from what we see 10 years > later. Again, she must directly fish for information; she's not in > the know & DD's not automatically volunteering much. Also, he > doesn't give her any tasks to perform or errands to run; he seems to > just kind of tolerate her presence. > > Maybe it really is just me, but their interaction at PD didn't seem > at all like that of close colleagues. Perhaps it can be attributed > to the possibility that she *wasn't* yet Deputy HM at PD, and so > things were more formal between them at that time. Carol responds: To me, the "Oh, Albus!" represents a brief moment when McGonagall loses her dignity or reserve and allows her real feelings to escape her. (BTW, she seems to be almost the only person in the WW who's more concerned with the deaths of the Potters than the victory over Voldemort, which to me speaks well for her unselfishness and humanity.) As for calling DD Dumbledore, surely that's less formal and closer to equal than calling him "Professor Dumbledore," as she would if they were in front of the students. (Note that Snape, in contrast, always addresses him as "Headmaster," though I can think of at least one occasion when he speaks of him in the third person, to Harry, as Dumbledore.) Setting aside how they address each other, I agree that McGonagall appears to be very much on the fringe of things in this scene. I mean, she's surprisingly ignorant of what's happening. Maybe it's all a set-up, exposition for the reader's benefit, and McGonagall had to ask questions in order to provide us with information. After all, SS/PS was intended as a children's book and JKR wasn't expecting it to be subjected to such intense scrutiny. OTOH, she was certainly in some respects laying the groundwork for later books, with references to everything from Godric's Hollow to Dumbledore's watch. Re Geoff's comment about Dumbledore's insistence on using titles, I think that relates to students showing respect for teachers, and particularly Harry showing respect for Snape. He tends to address students and teachers alike by their given names. In fact, even Petunia is called by her first name, as is everyone from Argus Filch to the supposed Alastor Moody. So his use of "Professor McGonagall" on his first appearance is partly for the reader's benefit to introduce the character, and partly, IMO, a rather humorous way to address a cat. Dumbledore, unlike McGonagall, is very much at his ease throughout the whole scene. If he's done any grieving, it was in private and he's put it behind him (safely in the Pensieve?). I think he had a very good idea of what was coming, but McGonagall is thoroughly unprepared. Maybe his calling her "My dear Professor" instead of "Minerva" throughout most of the conversation and "Professor McGonagall" at the beginning and end is intended to help her keep a stiff upper lip? Carol, who thanks SSS for introducing this interesting thread From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 02:45:25 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:45:25 -0000 Subject: Kids and grownups (Was: Just where is JKR getting her info from?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > The only thing that bothers me is the phrase "after they leave > school." Isn't she going to tell us what happens to the grown ups? > Surely it won't just be kids who survive! Let me hijack this thread into something I've been thinking about. Given her recent comments (about how Harry is really the center of all of it), and thinking more in general about past and present, I've come to the once-reluctant conclusion: JKR is really more interested in the kids than the adults. It's the kids' story, much more than the adults. The Trio tops her list of favorite characters. All attempts at drawing neat and clean parallels between the generations have been cheerfully screwed with (I've been around long enough to remember how many 'Is Neville the Peter of his generation?' posts there were), and while what has happened is important, I don't think it's going to be determinative of what's going to happen. I'm fairly convinced that for all his wisdom and what he knows, DD is wrong in his interpretation of the Prophecy, and Harry himself is going to come up with something different, distinctly elegant, and remarkably obvious--in hindsight. History isn't repeating itself, but we're going to get something new, because it's Harry's story, and everyone else just plays a role in it. For me-as-reader, the world expanded greatly with the real introduction of the adult generation in book 3, and I still have a lot of things I want to know about them, but I'm no longer convinced that their backstory is the secret knowledge just out of reach. My impression from reading some of the interviews is that she's often almost nudging us to ask more about the kids, when we get hung up on the adults. So I have, in a sense, shifted some of my expectations, because there's no point in wishing a series to be what it's probably not going to be... Your mileage my vary, I think. -Nora drifts off into dreamland with the sounds of...the radiator From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 18 03:32:16 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:32:16 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115818 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Sometime in Book 7 (most probably) JKR is going to tell us The Truth about what happened with the secret keeper and in the Shrieking Shack (assuming of course that we don't have The Truth already). When she does that, she will have to do it in a way that the average reader (not to mention the average 13 yrs old reader) will be able to understand and follow. < I don't know about the average 13 years old reader, but I had to read the ending of PoA three time before I understood what had happened, what with all the time travel. I needed a chart to figure out where everybody was when Sirius fell through the veil in OOP. Judging by her past examples, when JKR reveals the truth she won't have characters going scene by scene through their past actions revealing all the clues we should have picked up, which is what we conspiracy theorists have to do, and which is what makes everything so complicated. She will pick out just one clue: "Didn't you wonder why he was living so long?" or "Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over..." and leave the rest for us to find. It works because Harry never actually solves the main mystery -- he's always caught off guard, and somebody, either the villain, or Dumbledore, has to fill him in on what really happened. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 03:37:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:37:50 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" > wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > > > > Bearing in mind Dumbledore's insistence on calling folk by their > > > title, this seems to imply a measure of familiarity and > > > informality > > > between them. > > > > Finwitch: > > > > I don't know what you mean by that? I seem to recall several times > > he asks people (who are not students) to call him Albus? He also > > tends to address people by their first names. That's how we find > > Moody's first name, BTW. > > > Geoff: > I seem to recall that most of the staff use his "Professor title". > Can you quote a specific instance of him /asking/ someone to call him > Albus? > > > > Seriously Snapey Susan: > > Similarly, while she calls him Albus the one time at PD, I don't > > think "Dumbledore" indicates much familiarity, and the remainder of > > the scene strikes me as markedly different from what we see 10 years > > later. > > > Geoff: > Speaking as a teacher who taught during the period in which this is > set, I do believe that it indicates familiarity. > > In my situation, the Head would either call us by "Mr. So-and-so" > or "Miss So-and-so" if the relationship was no more than professional > or by our Christian name if we knew each other better but it was > quite normal to refer to the head as "Mr.......". Very few people > would use his first name and it would be considered impolite to use > his surname without the "Mr." unless there was a very close > friendship. > Carol responds: What's interesting to me is the use of a last name alone by a woman to address a man. If we look at the boys and men, first names seem to be used primarily to indicate friendship or at least a close acquaintance, last names to designate greater distance or even enmity. Harry calls his fellow Gryffindors by their first names but Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle by their last names, for example. And compare Lupin's friendly "Severus" with Snape's more distant "Lupin." But first names can also be used by men to indicate their superiority to a person who is younger or socially inferior. I think Tom Riddle addresses Hagrid as Rubeus in this way; poor Hagrid thinks he's being friendly and addresses Riddle as "Tom" in return. And Dumbledore addresses almost everybody, male or female, by their first names, possibly to gently remind them of his authority but often out of a rather paternal affection as well. We see this particularly with McGonagall and Snape, but I think he addresses most of the other teachers and staff members, with the exception of Hagrid, in the same way: Poppy, Argus, etc. But what about women and girls addressing men and boys by their last names? Hermione uses Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle because her two best friends, both boys, use those names. And McGonagall, at least in this first chapter, calls Dumbledore "Dumbledore." But are there any other examples, and isn't this usage rather unusual? It reminds me of nineteenth-century women Englishwomen, both real and fictional, who called their husbands by their last names. Mary Shelley addressing Percy Shelley as "Shelley" comes to mind. I can't imagine my mother addressing my father by his last name, yet in the case of the Shelleys, there was no question of formality and, given the times, very little inequality. I don't think that DD and McGonagall are on anything like the intimate terms between a husband and wife, but her use of "Dumbledore" may be some sort of compromise between "Professor Dumbledore" and "Albus." I would, OTOH, be quite surprised if *he* addressed *her* by her last name. Carol, who, not being British, needs to look up "sherbet lemon" (which I don't think means "lemon drop") before returning to the list From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 04:01:17 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:01:17 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115820 First off I would like to compliment you, Carolyn, on your excellent post of conjoined information over the suspects at GH. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115794 I have no qualms or answers to any of the questions you submit but you did make me think of a new scenario to be considered. What if the GH events were set up as a means to flush out the spy that they knew existed instead of what we have been conditioned to think? Snape came to Dumbledore with what was evidently valuable information about what Voldemort knew from his informer. Snape is adamant that Sirius is the betrayer when he states that James was too arrogant to believe he might be mistaken in Black. Just maybe Dumbledore had talked with James, and James alone, about this knew found information not only concerning the fact that Voldemort might attempt to kill his son but that the spy was said to be Sirius. James and Dumbledore's plan may have been to flush out the spy by appearing to set up the fidelius charm and its secret keeper to find the true culprit. So we have Peter that we are told was the spy, Sirius who was accused of being the spy, and Lupin who was suspected to be the spy by James and Sirius. All suspects! All guilty or all innocent, who's to blame? Then there is Dumbledore who appears pleased at the escape of Peter to ultimately resurrect Voldemort. Dumbledore allows, whether or not he believes Sirius to be guilty is unknown by his statement to the authorities, Sirius to spend twelve years in prison without so much as a howdy-do while he was in there. Dumbledore employs Lupin the werewolf to teach even though Snape, whom Dumbledore evidently trusts with his life, is highly objectionable to the appointment of this character he doesn't trust and believes to be in cahoots with Black. Dumbledore definatly has his suspicions. If you want to know how to judge a man just look at the way he treats his inferiors. If you want to know what Dumbledore thinks just look at the way he remains calm in what we, as readers, are to believe to be a crisis. The only time you get a rise out of Dumbledore is where it directly concerns Harry. Just, who was involved in the fidelius charm, secret-keeper, Godric's Hollow expedition the whole kitten caboodle! Why has it been so difficult to pinpoint the spy because all involved felt as guilty as Sirius representing himself to Harry as the guilty party when he first met face-to-face with Harry in the shrieking shack. All of the suspects appear to be guilty in one way or another to make the reader uneasy over the obvious straightforward explanation. They all have guilt but to what extent are each guilty towards the escapade at GH? The missing portions or unanswered questions hold the further theorizing key. Some of what we don't know that holds that key: (1) Exactly what does Voldemort know from his spy and did the spy actually receive this information himself or from another source who lost something in translation? (2) What did Snape tell Dumbledore that was so valuable that Dumbledore would now trust a known death-eater with his life? (3) Did James really trust Sirius after hearing from Dumbledore that Sirius may have been the spy? (Dumbledore didn't necessarily divulge his source) (4) Was the voice Harry heard, that he assumed was his dad, really his dad and if not where was his dad? The last question is the biggest for me. This is the most supportive of my proposed theory that GH may have been a set-up to flush out the spy. James couldn't believe that his best friend, his brother, could possibly be a traitor but his wife and his son's life are endanger if they could just catch the culprit they would have the upper hand and James could once again be assured of his devoted friends loyalty. Where could James have been and ultimately killed if he were not at home telling Lily to run for it? Snow From lexical74 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 04:36:14 2004 From: lexical74 at yahoo.com (lexical74) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:36:14 -0000 Subject: forms of address Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115821 JKR is systematic enough in her application of forms of address to make them an interesting discussion topic. As noted in previous posts, McGonagall has varying ways to refer to DD. Discussions of McGonagall's interactions with DD range from those that merely attempt to ascertain her status within school or perhaps even the WW to those that seek evidence for a DD/McG SHIP. As far as SHIPs go, a DD/McG one is fun to talk about because it conforms to several cultural presuppositions (though they differ from country to country). Here in the U.S., it seems to be a cultural standby that, if the two top administrators in a school (or even bosses in a company) happen to be male and female, then there must be a romantic relationship. The possibility of such occuring at Hogwarts is even more tantalizing due to the way in which JKR creates DD and McG. All evidence, both textual and extra-textual seems to support the notion that JKR holds both characters in high esteem. Furthermore, McG's stolidity contrasts nicely with DD's whimsy. One caveat, though, is that we American readers sometimes overestimate the emotional content of British English because of unfamiliar conventions, such as beginning a sentence with "My dear so-and-so." McG's addresses to DD include forms--first name and last name only-- that suggest familiarity in any context. Here in the US, companies and school districts are adopting the idea that first names are desirable between superiors and subordinates. The general idea is to create an environment of friendliness. As most of you have noticed, however, titles are important in the Potterverse. McG has the privilege of calling DD "Albus." She seems to revert to "Dumbledore," a form of address with its own semantic import, when she is questioning his judgment. In my view, it's almost as if she is admonishing him like she would a student! JKR's representation of her character makes this a possibility. Example (a time of emotional tenderness): Right after DD confirms the Potters' deaths... "Lily and James...I can't believe it...I didn't want to believe it...Oh, Albus..." (SS 12). Example (a time of reproof): "It's the best place for him," said Dumbledore firmly. "His aunt and uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older. I've written them a letter." "A letter?" repeated Professor McGonagall faintly, sitting back down on the wall. "Really, Dumbledore, you think you can explain all this in a letter?" (SS 13). The thread that binds both quotations is one of collegiality and familiarity. The degree of intimacy in the familiarity remains unknown, but the familiarity per se is evident in the easy exchange between non-formal forms of address. Now, does DD notice the difference between being called "Professor" and "a barmy old codger"? His characterization suggests that he does. In fact, he seems to be aware of all fine distinctions, a trait that must reassure ole Severus since he bemoans Harry's deficit in this department. IMO, DD knows he is "the" "Professor Dumbledore," but he also knows he is a person. Let me know what you think! Cheers, Brian From lexical74 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 04:56:25 2004 From: lexical74 at yahoo.com (lexical74) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:56:25 -0000 Subject: Forms of address II Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115822 Of course, JKR's handling of forms of address is precise and worthy of discussion on its own. Here are the conventions as I see them: No student calls any teacher by his/her first name. Though this is occasionally done in the US (though teachers are discouraged from encouraging it), I can't speak for UK practices. Students overwhelmingly prefer to use last-name address with each other, e.g., "Potter," "Malfoy." Teachers seem to use last name address toward students and other teachers. Teachers retain the right to use first name address with either party. It is inappropriate for a student to refer to a teacher by last name only. "Support staff" are addressed by title + last name (e.g., Madam Pince, Mr. Filch) Hagrid is referred to by last name only, which can be seen as both a term of endearment and a sign of disrespect. No one besides Umbridge (who has no respect for him) calls him "Professor." Furthermore, he isn't even granted the honorific given to "Mr." Filch. There is one use of the title "Dr."--"Dr. Filibuster's fireworks." Neither the books nor the interviews discuss the possibility of doctoral education in the WW. Dr. Filibuster is perhaps a nickname borrowed from the MW, evidence of a wizard with a muggle doctorate, evidence of doctoral education in the WW, or an example of JKR not anticipating this kind of discussion! St. Mungo's Hospital brings the MW idea of "sainthood" into the WW. Any theories? Just a few more thoughts... Brian From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 18 05:06:45 2004 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:06:45 -0000 Subject: replies to: 1500-some posts, scroll for your name or topic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115823 I've been away from this beloved list for a while, due to my annoying job requiring night and weekend overtime work lately (and I'm in a pay grade that doesn't get paid by the hour). I last was on list September 20, post number 113448. This weekend I have read up to 114810 of 115822 from October 4. So my comments are made without having yet seen the latest thousand posts. It seems to me that there has lately been a tremendous number of posts which did not snip the unnecessary parts of the quoted material. Phoenixgod2000 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114025: << I agree that Rowling was using a fairy-tale trope with the Philosopher's stone but as the books became more realistic, Harry's relatives stopped being the evil step-parents and started being abusive. To me that makes Dumbledore look bad. I don't see how his leaving Harry with the Dursleys could have possibly, *realistically*, be seen as anything other than a terrible act. It stretches credulity, but I'm still not sure how to justify it in my mind. >> Some people have already replied to that Phoenixgod's post, but I believe that that question was best answered by Pippin in post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/96244 . KJ wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGro wnups/message/114035 : << 4. Suppose the wording of the prophecy was changed to read "neither can live *if* the other survives". Not much difference but it changes the whole meaning. >> I was expecting a prophecy, but I expected it to say "neither can *die* while the other survives", thus explaining Dumbledore's reluctance to let Harry know about it. Bex wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/114040 : << This is a VACATION for Arthur and the boys and Ginny! But Molly has to stay at home, tending the house, shopping for school, and enjoying the peace. She doesn't even get a real break, just a break in the chaos. >> Molly's vacation comes AFTER September 1, when the young-uns have been packed off to school and the older ones have gone back to work. By now everyone has forgotten this thread, but I felt sorry for EVERYONE in the dress robes conversation (Ron faced with such horrible robes, Molly embarrassed by her poverty, AND Harry embarrassed by overhearing it), and I don't understand why Molly can't sew when she can knit, but apparently she can't. Caesian wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114043 : <> Another prominent underground locale is Gringotts bank's vault, said to be miles under Muggle London. Kim wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/114091 : << Has anyone wondered though why Harry is such a well-adjusted child despite all the emotional abuse from the Dursleys from (it seems) the time he was only one yr. old? I mean, the poor kid doesn't have a friend in the world, not even a dog or cat, til he goes to Hogwarts.>> Yes. And I have a theory. I think I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring adult ("example of goodness" in previous paragraph) said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious abuse... I kind of think Lily used her last magic to put this image in his head intentionally, instead of using her last magic in one last attempt to escape Voldemort. That is the heroic self-sacrifce that canon credits her, accepting her own death because it was more important to her to give this protection (from abusive Dursleys) of her love. I don't know why she would do that if she really believed that he would be dead seconds after she was, so I am left sympathetic to the theories that Harry survived AK because of some magic that had been done on him (presumably by Lily) or that he had been born with. When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and still has free will. In addition, so far we've always seen Harry wondering and trying to find out about his father, and not about his mother. Some say that's a plot device because JKR is saving some big surprise about Lily, and some say it's normal because Harry is 11 to 15 so far, puberty and adolescence, and much more concerned about a male image to identify with. But *I* say that he doesn't search so much for Lily because, unknown to himself, he already has her with him. Demetra wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114141 : << But is Winky really innocent and harmless? She aided and abetted her master in committing an Unforgivable crime against his own son (who also happens to be part of Winky's "family") for over a decade. We have seen that HE's can sneakily disobey their master's orders. But Winky chooses blind devotion to Mr. Crouch, and there is nothing noble in that action. >> I read Winky as blindly loyal to both old Master Barty and young Master Barty. The reason Old Master cast on Unforgiveable on Young Master was to keep him alive and out of Azkaban, a project that Winky agreed with for Young Master's sake. Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114166 : << There are clues there, jumbled as in any dream - but if they can be teased out it might (should!) give us a guide to what has happened and what might yet happen. I find Draco melding into Snape particularly intriguing - especially because at this point in the story Harry has not met Snape, he's only seen him from a distance || A tight turban insisting that he must transfer to Slytherin - Malfoy - Snape - and a green light. >> I read much of that dream as memories of that night of his parents' death. The green flash and the high-pitched laughter are familiar from his Dementor-induced memories. The presence of Draco and Snape is a Clue that Lucius and Snape were present at the murder party. Presumably Lucius was brought by LV and Snape may have been brought by LV or come on his own to try to rescue Lily and/or Harry. Salit wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114192 : << Incidentally I always wondered about the fact that some of the people in the Mirror had Harry's eyes but they were referred to as "the Potters" in the book >> That's what I thought, but then someone on this list explained to me that "the Potters" who smiled and waved meant James and Lily, not the whole crowd. << That said, could muggles actually see anything or show in the Mirror? My guess is no, just like they can't ride a broom, use a wand or see the Leaky Cauldron. >> I don't know that Muggles can't ride a broom, altho' I believe they can't brew a potion even if given the ingredients. However, oneself not being able to see anything in the Mirror of Erised doesn't mean that an image of oneself wouldn't appear in the Mirror ... the image comes not from oneself but from the viewer whose "heart's desire" is shown. Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114251 : << "And how do you propose to keep my daughter in the manner to which she's accustomed?" "Well, I've got this underground vault that's guarded by goblins and their pet dragon..." Yerrsss. Not quite the same as a savings account with the Halifax, is it? >> Parents who are thrilled that their daughter is a witch might also be thrilled with a well-stuffed vault at Gringotts. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 05:09:13 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:09:13 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115824 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scoutmom21113" wrote: > > Bookworm: > I'd like to agree with you and think that Salazar's > reputation has been distorted over the years. But that doesn't > explain *why* he built the Chamber in the first place, hid it from > his supposed-friends, and wait for an heir to come along and > "purge the school". That would have taken much more > planning and effort than a quick revenge spell cast as he stormed > out of the school after an argument. > > Ravenclaw Bookworm bboyminn: Well, even if S.Slytherin wasn't a psychotic evil overlord, he still had a strong justifiable bias against Muggle, perhaps even a hate of muggle, but that hate was not based on who they were but what they had done. At that time of pursecution of magic people, muggles were very cruel, and given that they killed more of their friends and neighbors than true magic folk, one could even look at THOSE muggles as evil and something to be aggressively fought against. So, it's possible with the other three founders letting muggle-borns and mixed-bloods into the school, Slytherin was a little paranoid and worried. If he feared what in his mind was the great likelihood of a betrayal, he may have built the Chamber for the time when the anti-magic muggles came kicking down the door of Hogwarts. That would give him a safe haven inside the school, and a secure base to fight from. Also, with Hogwarts lacking it's own army, Slytherin might have thought a one-creature-killing-machine like the Basilisk, which he could control, might make a nice equalizer. In addition, the Chamber may have given S.Slytherin a place where he could teach his own personal phylosophy of life to special students, hold rallies, and conduct private research. Again, I'm not implying that Slytherin was a saint. He may have had his own warped philosophy, and may have been actively rallying against muggles. In a sense, muggles had declared war on magical people and Slytherin may have felt the wizard world should do more to fight back. BUT none of that adds up to the person we see Tom Riddle describing when he talks about Slytherin. Hating muggle for pursecution, is far different than purely hating muggles, and a eagerness to defend the wizard world against muggle attacks again is a blow against muggle /actions/, not against muggles for the sake of muggles. Voldemort seems to think it is OK to torture and kill muggles for sport. That's much much different than Slytherin (speculative) wanting to defend himself against muggle pursecution. So, Slytherin's position could have been pretty radical and agressive without being irrational or racist. In addition, Slytherin's position, if it was as I speculate, as you can see, could very easily be twisted to suit people like Voldemort and the purebloods. If you catch my drift. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Mon Oct 18 05:44:51 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:44:51 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: <000a01c4b442$b33e1cd0$3f8f3f44@Dude> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115825 > Kathi wrote: > There is a thin line between envy and jealousy, but I always seem to get > them mixed up. On one hand, one of the emotions is basically wanting what > someone else has, but not necessarily begrudging them for having it - you > just want it too (whatever "it" may be). On the other hand,however, you want > what the other has, you don't want them to have it at all, and you think > they didn't deserve to have it in the first place, but *you* do.... > > Can anyone clear it up for me? Maybe we are more specific about the > difference between the two it will help us define the character's better. Dear Kathi hello. Below you will find the definitions of jealousy and envy: 1 Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has when they think that another person is trying to take a lover or friend, or a possession, away from them. 2 Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has when they wish that they could have the qualities or possessions that another person has. 1 Envy is the feeling you have when you wish you could have the same thing or quality that someone else has. 2 If you envy someone, you wish that you had the same things or qualities that they have. >From the above is quite clear that in GOF and in general Ron is rather jealous than envious as a person. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 05:51:30 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:51:30 -0000 Subject: The forbidden forest as a 'dumping ground' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115826 cunning spirit wrote: > I've wondered a lot about Fluffy and his possible "true' identity. > What if he is indeed really Cerberus, the warden of the underworld in Greco/Roman mythology? Carol responds: I think we have a hint to that effect when Hagrid says that he bought Fluffy "off a Greek chappie"--although I've been informed offlist that the Greek translation turns the "Greek chappie" into an Arab! Don't know what to think of that or whether JKR would approve, but the medium we don't name turned him into an Irishman, so maybe it's not important after all. Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 05:59:50 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 05:59:50 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115827 > Pippin wrote: > > I don't know about the average 13 years old reader, but I had to > read the ending of PoA three time before I understood what had > happened, what with all the time travel. Neri: I can speak only for myself, of course, but I didn't find the PoA time travel that complicated at all, once you accept the assumption that traveling to the past is possible. It is this basic idea where some readers get stuck, not the plot. I find it instructive that the-medium-that-must-not-be-named told the time-travel part in full, and in fact made it MORE complicated than it is in the book, and still it was, IMHO, quite easy to understand. BTW, the same medium discarded much of the animagi and prank backstory. Of course, sometimes you have to read things several times over to get everything just right, but once you did it you can easily hold it all together in your mind. But no matter how many times I read MD and the other conspiracy theories, they just seem too complicated to hold everything in your mind at the same time. > Pippin: > I needed a chart to figure > out where everybody was when Sirius fell through the veil in > OOP. > Neri: Sure. We also need a chart to figure out the floor plan of Hogwarts: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/Hogwarts.html Which is why mastering it isn't likely to be a key for the Book 7 climax. Mastering the location of everybody when Sirius fell through the veil is a key to ESE!Lupin. I hope it won't be a key to Book 7. > Pippin: > Judging by her past examples, when JKR reveals the truth she > won't have characters going scene by scene through their past > actions revealing all the clues we should have picked up, which > is what we conspiracy theorists have to do, and which is what > makes everything so complicated. > > She will pick out just one clue: "Didn't you wonder why he was > living so long?" or "Your friend Miss Granger accidentally > knocked me over..." and leave the rest for us to find. It works > because Harry never actually solves the main mystery -- he's > always caught off guard, and somebody, either the villain, or > Dumbledore, has to fill him in on what really happened. > Neri: Quirrell explains to us more than just "Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over". Actually he explains almost every clue in the way, and DD fills most of the rest later. Some small clues are left out for the reader to pick in second reading, such as Harry feeling pain in his scar during the sorting because he was looking at Snape "past Quirrell's turban", but these clues are the exceptions. In the Shrieking Shack almost all the animagi clues are explained (the rest are explained in Sirius' letter in the end of PoA). As it is, the Shrieking Shack scene is the most complicated and problematic scene in the five books BECAUSE of the need to explain a lot of complicated backstory in the middle of the dramatic climax. But the conspiracy theories are so much more complicated than the canon version of the Shrieking Shack that I shudder to think how JKR is going to explain them in the middle of Book 7 dramatic climax. I expect ESE!Lupin will have to hold Harry at wand point and then take three chapters to explain to him how it is possible that he's ESE, including drawing that chart of the DoM positions. And we can't even count on DD filling the rest of the details later because he might not be alive by then. I really hope the resolution of Book 7 will be simpler than that. Neri From chrissilein at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 06:18:18 2004 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:18:18 -0000 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115828 Hi, personally I have no idea if it means something or not. But maybe you can imagine how astonished I was when I read it for first time. I don?t want to speculate about it, but it?s, well, interesting. Greetings --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tookishgirl_111" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "onnanokata" > wrote: > > > > LadyOfThePensieve wrote: > > > The 3 saints Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus. > > > > They all died in 309 AD in Egypt as martyrians. > > Well. Does these names sound familiar to you? > > > > > Dharma replies: > > > > Thanks for posting this information! My first thought is the > > obvious, given this context. Lucius, Peter and Snape are going to > > all be dead at the hands Death Eaters or Voldemort by the time book > > 7 comes to an end. Much wild speculation comes to mind in thinking > > about how they might die!! > > > > > Tooks: > That is a fastinating thought...one I could see occuring. The only > one I doubt is Lucius being named after Saint Leucius, he really > doesn't come across as a saint or one to redeem. It's more likely, > IMHO, that he was named after the character of the same name in > William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus - a throughly nasty man who > attempts to bring about the destruction of King Titus by hurting > and/or causing the deaths of all those close to the king. (Pardon me > for not going into the plot, I haven't read the play, just heard of > the Lucius character.) - I know JKR named Hermione after a character > from A Winter's Tale by Shakespeare, so it's possible she did it more > than once. > > Tooks - Lucius fan, who prefers him evil (ever so evil) From ramyamicro at yahoo.com Sun Oct 17 23:02:05 2004 From: ramyamicro at yahoo.com (Ramya Rajagopalan) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:02:05 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115829 Alla wrote: "Although, I admit, I find Pippin's point about Wormtail's calmly killing Cedric to be quite intriguing. JKR certainly uses doubles throughout the book. I think that second traitor is a likely possibility. I just don't think that his name is Remus Lupin. :o)" Rams(myself): Also, we do not 'know' that Peter calmly killed Cedric. We only know that he was effective. And as for Wormtail shivering while performing the ancient magic to bring Voldy back to life, he was terrified because he was going to 1. perform a horrible ritual and also cut off his own arm 2. bring the terrifying Lord Voldemort back to life (or form or whatever). And I agree that I don't think Remus Lupin is a traitor either! Neither do I think that Lupin was 'taken in' by Sirius and believed him to be innocent. He is not dumb! "Scholastic.com February 2000 Online Chat If you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your child, who would it be and why? A. It would be Professor Lupin, because he is kind, clever, and gives very interesting lessons. " I do not think she would want her daughter to be tutored by a traitor. Also, JKR is making a point against prejudice in the WW. She will be proving the anti-werewolf legion right by making Lupin ESE! :) Rams From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 06:46:42 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:46:42 -0000 Subject: Sherbet lemons (was Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol, who, not being British, needs to look up "sherbet lemon" (which > I don't think means "lemon drop") before returning to the list Geoff: It is not unlike a fruit drop in that it has an outer hard boiled shell, lemon flavoured but the hollow inner section is filled with sherbet powder. If, like me, you are an impatient sweet eater, then you scrunch it to get at the middle rather than meditatively suck it until you reach the centre!I suspect Dumbledore will be the latter type so he will not use one while holding a conversation. I must stop. I'm salivating..... :-)) From gabrielfey at superluminal.com Mon Oct 18 01:34:43 2004 From: gabrielfey at superluminal.com (Gabriel Fey) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:34:43 -0400 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41731DB3.30606@superluminal.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115832 > Tooks: > That is a fascinating thought...one I could see occuring. The only > one I doubt is Lucius being named after Saint Leucius, he really > doesn't come across as a saint or one to redeem. It's more likely, > IMHO, that he was named after the character of the same name in > William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus - a thoroughly nasty man who > attempts to bring about the destruction of King Titus by hurting > and/or causing the deaths of all those close to the king. > - I know JKR named Hermione after a character from A Winter's Tale > by Shakespeare, so it's possible she did it more than once. *smiley* I read this post and, having read the play a while ago, immediately went to lug out my Complete Shakespeare to check who Lucius was. Actually, the Lucius of _Titus Andronicus_ wasn't that bad. He was the son of Titus, and had a son of his own, young Lucius. (Lucius Jr. ^_^) Lucius' main role in _Titus Andronicus_ was to go meet with an army outside of Rome. I think he's also one of the few characters who *doesn't* die in that play. (I've heard _Titus Andronicus_ described as part of Shakespeare's Quentin Tarantino phase. -_-) If JKR named Lucius Malfoy after Shakespeare's Lucius, then perhaps there's hope for him. Young Lucius has very little part in _Titus Andronicus_, other than to get chased by Titus' daughter Lavinia as she's trying to tell him something. I got the impression that he was only about eleven. So far, as my internet connection's inhabited by demons, I haven't been able to get through to the website about the saints, but there's probably a book around my house somewhere that I can look them up in. Hope this helps! - Gabriel Fey, quite firmly a Ravenclaw. Smart is sexy! From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 01:46:44 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:46:44 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115833 Nora: > Or, perhaps, is the problem that we're thinking of the glimpse of 15- > year old Peter that we got, and just cleanly extrapolating it to 21- > year old Peter? There's the eminent possibility that some things > changed quite a bit from one situation to the other. Not really > enough information to tell, perhaps. > > One could address the issue of the last sentence a number of ways; > Peter hiding cunning, the others being trusting and not noticing > changes, OscarWinning!Peter (a nice change of pace from OscarWinning! > Snape)...not enough information. Just wanted to toss out the > possible influence of the passing of time, though. > Tammy: mmm... good point. Another aspect of Peter changing and the others not noticing it could be that they just didn't see him much. I know that in school Peter tagged around the other three, but most (if not all) of the spying and LV junk would have happened after school. We know that Lupin was shut out (at least to a certain extent, as he wasn't at the wedding or at Harry's christening/baptism/naming ceremony thingy), who's to say that the other three saw Peter enough to notice a change? -Tammy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 06:53:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 06:53:06 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115834 I (Carol) wrote: > > I don't see Snape as at all superfluous or "leftover from another time." He'll be all of forty when the series is over, hardly a senior citizen even by Muggle standards and quite a young man within the WW. Moreover, he's highly intelligent and gifted. I would love to see his gifts acknowledged--maybe a position with the MoM as a reward for his services to the Order. He'd make a hell of an auror, IMO. > > Jen responded: > My thought is, does Snape really want his gifts acknowledged by the > WW? The only information we have about this is in POA, when > Dumbledore interprets that Snape is reeling from the loss of the > Order of Merlin. That seem legitimate, but once again it's > Dumbledore's interpretation. Maybe Snape is actually reeling from > the fact that Sirius "got away" with something again. Or that three > school children made him unconcious in the Shrieking Shack. > > Snape appears to be a loner with low regard for societal > approbation. He doesn't seem the type to need outside monetary > reward or intangibles. And there's always that question of whether > the WW at large will ever *really* forget he was once a DE. I'm all > for him finding another job, though ;). > > Jen, thinking this is yet another unanswerable Snape question > because of all the details held back for plot purposes. Carol again: You're right, of course, but that doesn't keep us from speculating! My thought is that Snape joined the DEs in the first place in the hope of using his talents in a way that would earn him the recognition he seems not to have received at Hogwarts. We know he wasn't Head Boy; he seems not to have been a Prefect, either, or he would have docked points from James and Sirius or given them detention rather than fighting back. I think that Lucius Malfoy convinced him that Voldemort would appreciate a young man of his talents and provide a chance to make great discoveries in the Dark Arts. I'm sure there was an element of revenge as well, and he let himself be talked into what he knew was wrong. And then something happened that was more than he could tolerate and he had no one to go to but Dumbledore, who offered him trust and responsibility and forgiveness--a second chance, as Crouch!Moody put it. But still I think that need or craving for approval or appreciation was not fully satisfied--and won't be until he earns the DADA position. He certainly cares about Dumbledore's approval, as his words to Crouch!Moody indicate: "Dumbledore trusts me!" I agree that he doesn't seem to value money very much (as long as he has decent dress robes for banquets and nice green ones for special Quidditch matches), but I do think that he would have valued that Order of Merlin for trying to save the Potter boy and his friends from a werewolf and a murderer (his view of the situation as indicated by his words to Fudge in PoA chapter 21). A reward like that might help make up for being bit on the leg by a three-headed dog and for all the various indignities and frustrations he's endured trying to keep Harry out of trouble, not to mention the dangers he's encountered working for the Order. (I'm trying to present this from Snape's viewpoint, as I think he sees himself rather than as the reader sees him. To him, Harry is a boy who breaks the rules and he's trying to treat him as any other student would be treated, PoA Am. ed. 387). Of course there's a lot more to it than that, and not all of his motives are as noble as they appear from this post, which again reflects what I think is his own perspective. Anyway, there's no question that he's resourceful, intelligent, and gifted in both potions and DADA, whatever his faults as a teacher, and I also think that DD is right to trust him. So if he lives, and if he comes through for the good side as I hope he will, I hope he gets his reward at last, if not the DADA post then a position as an auror. Carol From krussell98 at comcast.net Sun Oct 17 23:15:28 2004 From: krussell98 at comcast.net (Kathi Russell) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:15:28 -0400 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? References: <000a01c4b442$b33e1cd0$3f8f3f44@Dude> <001301c4b488$a3651840$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <00d501c4b49f$3140b320$3f8f3f44@Dude> No: HPFGUIDX 115835 charme: > How interesting that "envy" should also be in Webster's definition for > "jealousy." I guess by "degrees," envy is less negative than "jealousy." > I believe Hermoine describes Ron's behavior in GoF as "jealous." > Envy - > A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with > desire for the possessions or qualities of another. > > Jealousy - > Fearful or wary of being supplanted; apprehensive of losing affection or > position. Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success > of others. Inclined to suspect rivalry. Having to do with or arising from > feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts. Vigilant > in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name. Intolerant of > disloyalty or infidelity; autocratic: a jealous God. So we could say that envy is "generally" directed at another's belongings or personality traits, whereas jealousy is more a fear of being replaced by someone/something that is perceived as being better or more desirable. Jealousy is more personal, it would seem to me. Hmmm - I'm going to have to give this some thought. I can see where a case can be made for either definition that would apply to Ron and Harry. I can also see where Harry might feel envious of Ron. Ron has a loving family, Harry does not. Harry definitely feels discontentment with his situation and resents the fact that he is without a family. Although I wouldn't necessarily say that he feels resentful towards Ron in particular for his family - just that he feels resentful towards the whole universe for taking away his family..... Hmmm - I simply ADORE playing semantics - don't you??? LOL Thanks for looking those up. Why didn't *I* think of that!!! Kathi From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 08:18:57 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:18:57 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115836 > Carol responds: > As for why the knowledge is so limited, it's partly Harry's > understandable unwillingness to talk about events in the graveyard > before the end of term in GoF and partly DD's own very limited and > almost distorted version of events. Technically, Voldemort didn't > murder Cedric. Wormtail did. But if either Harry or DD were to reveal > that, who would believe them? > > If, instead of flying off the handle in OoP and insulting Seamus's > mother, who rightly or wrongly was not abusing her child but trying to > protect him, Harry had confided the truth to Seamus and Dean, wouldn't > Seamus have trusted him? Surely it's Harry who's in the wrong here? Finwitch: I think it's simply a misunderstanding between Harry&Seamus. And mind you, while Hermione told him that 'papers have discredited him' and that's all Harry knows about it, and it's just as much headlines as Dumbledore's 'Voldemort murdered Cedric Diggory'. Also, I'm not saying that Mrs F is like a Dursley, just that I find that Harry subconciously interprets her 'believing nasty lies about Harry' and 'preventing a young wizard from coming to Hogwarts' as very Dursley-like. (And they're not sending bubotuber pus to anyone either). Actually, it's rather: do you believe that Voldemort's back&killed Diggory or that Harry's a liar&killed Diggory? Further, that Harry's required to 'prove his innosence' by giving out the details is, in itself, against basic human rights. Sure, it makes it easier for people to believe him, but... Anyway, I find it understandable that Harry gets angry & now he's letting it out instead of holding it back till he explodes. He's also very sensitive about people rejecting/discrediting him - particularly if it's between him and a family member. As much with Seamus&his mother as Ron&Percy. Also, considering how the only memory Harry has of his parents is how they *died*, and even that comes up only in the presence of a Dementor (or a boggart who pretends to be a Dementor), and the rest of his personal experience is Dursleys. There is only Sirius for Harry. (And just as with Harry at this point, WW thinks of him as a killer/murderer, so he can't do all he'd want to do...) Let's see about Harry being told by a loving family member that someone's dangerous: Sirius doubted Karkaroff, and as extension tells Harry to stay away from Krum. Harry, who finds this doubtful, acts as if Sirius never told him anything about them at all. So, since Seamus *tells* Dean about that, Harry (mis)interprets that Seamus believes her, or is, possibly, so much at odds with her that he wouldn't mind someone offending her... In short, Harry doesn't see how anyone would tell people that sort of thing if they didn't believe it. Until Ron got that letter from Percy and tore it apart, such an idea would never occur to Harry. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 08:42:53 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:42:53 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat - Slytherin Truth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115837 Steve wrote: So, Slytherin's position could have been pretty radical and agressive > without being irrational or racist. In addition, Slytherin's position, > if it was as I speculate, as you can see, could very easily be twisted > to suit people like Voldemort and the purebloods. > > If you catch my drift. > Finwitch: Brilliant post! I agree - Slytherin surely could have done that. And many Slytherin-raised wizards, being wizard-born with no knowledge of Muggles today, might *still* share that view. Anyway, I'd say that wizards then had a good idea to hide. That way, Muggles who stopped believing in magic, developed (from memories about the magic?) technology & electricity - (or were those made by some undercover-wizards?) - and quite possibly, via entertainment books etc. come to the conclusion that magic in itself is not a bad thing to be rid of by killing anyone different... However, even if all Muggles (most today, I think, but we know all too well about some fanatics who don't) would be ready to find out about wizards and accept it without attempting to burn everyone - the trouble is in getting the wizards agree! (Slytherin most likely thought NEVER - while the others disagreed, and kept contact via Muggle-borns, who had MORE to fear than the wizards...) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 09:57:43 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:57:43 -0000 Subject: Forms of address II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115838 Brian: > Of course, JKR's handling of forms of address is precise and worthy > of discussion on its own. Finwitch: And I'm happy it's here as I sometimes find insistence on titles difficult to understand as it is... Brian: -- > Students overwhelmingly prefer to use last-name address with each > other, e.g., "Potter," "Malfoy." However, only Gryffindor student that I recall being addressed so by another Gryffindor student, is Oliver Wood. Then again, he was the Quidditch captain since book one, when Harry was a first year. Even so, the older students in the team at least occasionally call him Oliver. (In team with Oliver Wood when Charlie was captain?) but for students in different house/unfriendly terms, I suppose so. Brian: > Teachers seem to use last name address toward students and other > teachers. Finwitch: Snape keeps saying Potter! (And Harry, likewise, calls him Snape most of the time) but I seem to recall other teachers using Mr/Miss - unless, of course, they're *listing* names. Either way, it must create big confusion with all the Weasleys, twins in particular. I mean, just imagine it... Teacher - say, McGonagall: -Weasley. Fred: I think she's talking to you, George. George: Are you sure she's not talking to you, Fred? Fred: No, I'm positive she means you, George. George: Why, I'm certain she means you, Fred. etc. Nothing to get hold of, really, but it *does* get annoying after a while. And those two most definately would take most of it! Brian: > Teachers retain the right to use first name address with either party. Finwitch: And they do - Remus Lupin, at least, uses Neville - mainly to calm Neville down, I suppose. Brian: > It is inappropriate for a student to refer to a teacher by last name > only. At least Dumbledore keeps telling Harry to use the 'professor' for Snape. Harry doesn't. (except when talking to Lockhart about something Snape *taught* them...) Somehow I think that's just another way of Dumbledore's to attempt distraction - don't wish to speak of a subject: suggest different type of address/offer a sherbet lemon. And students don't appear to use titles when speaking of their professors within themselves. Brian: > "Support staff" are addressed by title + last name (e.g., Madam > Pince, Mr. Filch) > > Hagrid is referred to by last name only, which can be seen as both a > term of endearment and a sign of disrespect. No one besides Umbridge > (who has no respect for him) calls him "Professor." Furthermore, he > isn't even granted the honorific given to "Mr." Filch. Finwitch: Oh, indeed... still, Hagrid's more of a friend than staffmember to Harry&co. And I doubt Hagrid likes the use of his title, anyway. Mind you, even Filch's *cat* is referred to as Mrs.! Curious indeed. Brian: > There is one use of the title "Dr."--"Dr. Filibuster's fireworks." > Neither the books nor the interviews discuss the possibility of > doctoral education in the WW. Dr. Filibuster is perhaps a nickname > borrowed from the MW, evidence of a wizard with a muggle doctorate, > evidence of doctoral education in the WW, or an example of JKR not > anticipating this kind of discussion! Finwitch: It might not be Dr. for Doctor at all. Maybe it's short for Drusilla who has a sibling named Dween or something? Or maybe it's just advert- stuff, like Dr. Pepper? Brian: > St. Mungo's Hospital brings the MW idea of "sainthood" into the WW. > Any theories? I seem to recall that being just that JKR identifies St. with any name of a hospital! Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 18 10:00:38 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:00:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115839 potioncat wrote: > 9. Do you think Black and Lupin really listened to Harry? Did they > just dismiss his worries? This scene troubles me. And, I apologise in advance, but I have a million questions, and not one single, lonely idea. There's that comment of Sirius' that seems (to me) so out of place: `...and James ? whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry ? always hated the Dark Arts.' Harry isn't worried that his father was into the Dark Arts, that hasn't crossed his mind. He's worried that his father was an arrogant bullying toe rag. Perhaps this was Sirius being honest, perhaps James *did* have a real bee in his bonnet about the Dark Arts, which is why he was always so rotten to Snape. But the more I look at Sirius and Lupin's explanation of James' behaviour in the pensieve scene, the more I think that information is being deliberately hidden. DD made Lupin (presumably the calm, sensible, nice one) prefect in an attempt to restrain Sirius and James, the unruly rule-breaking bullies. In the pensieve, we see James and Sirius being nasty little bastards, and Lupin the prefect not taking part, but not exactly restraining them, either, and evidently not having the guts to tell them that their behaviour was out of order. Fast-forward to many years later, we come to the shrieking shack, and it's Sirius and *Lupin* who are quite cheerfully going to murder an unarmed Pettigrew in cold blood. Afterwards, DD says `I knew your father at Hogwarts and afterwards. He would have saved Pettigrew too.' Hang on... James, the vehement Dark Arts-hater, would have saved a snivelling traitor like Pettigrew, while *Lupin* (the nice guy) would have committed murder without a second thought? The pantsing was during O.W.L.s, at the end of the 5th year, and Sirius says that Lily started going out with James in the seventh year (by which time he'd reformed enough to make Head Boy, too). So what was it that happened in the sixth year to deflate James' head, and turn him into Mr. Morality? Could it be that one of the times James and Lily defied Voldy was while they were at school, which was what changed Lily's mind about him? Could it be that Snape got his revenge for the prank and the pantsing? ? If so, then the shrieking shack is not just cunning misdirection, it's a real con! There's that sideways look of Lupin's at Sirius, when Sirius says `I'm not proud of it'. Is Lupin surprised at Sirius saying this, as he'd never heard him express regret about the marauders' behaviour towards Snape before? Or does Lupin think it's an understatement of how Sirius really feels? Or is Lupin aware of exactly what Sirius isn't saying, and checking the expression on Sirius' face to make sure that he doesn't give something away? Or, perhaps, Lupin is fully aware that Sirius is, actually, *extremely* proud of that moment, and re-tells the story in excruciating detail at every opportunity? Are Lupin and Sirius aware of exactly what point in the memory Snape dragged Harry out of the pensieve? Did they perhaps think that he saw more than he actually did? Did they assume that he also saw Snape getting his revenge, Lily changing her mind about helping Snape, and hexing James, or Hagrid turning up to break up the party at the last moment? Does anyone have a clue, a theorem or an idea? Dungrollin, In favour of something bangy that deflated James' head, but unfortunately lacking ideas. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 18 12:04:36 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 12:04:36 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > Oh, come now. You've admitted yourself how much this situation makes > no sense at present, and how we don't really know what's going on. > WHEN we find out what happened, all my complaints about this point > potentially end in eating crow--but not until then. > Kneasy: I admit no such thing and never have done. I do admit that we have incomplete information and that any theory posted is quite likely to end up in the bin along with Phlogiston, Aether and astrology. But that's what makes the game so much fun. I'll read any theory presented, and for my taste the BANGier the better, at least it shows that the fan is thinking about plot, character, causes and outcomes. The fans I really don't understand are those few that accept that what is written on the page is as immutable, unchanging and as closed to re-interpretation and re-assessment as a "One Way" traffic sign. 'Cos it ain't. There're clues, red herrings, deliberate deception and all that good stuff scattered throughout the books. Supinely waiting to be told who's good, who's bad and why defeats the object of the site. Similarly, accepting *any* character at face value risks the delivery (express) of a custard pie to the physiognomy. Mind you, so does the alternative, but at least one presents a moving target and a bit of nifty footwork can sometimes work wonders. I keep on pointing out (but apparently nobody reads that part), that being wrong *doesn't matter*, not from this computer desk anyway. It's much more interesting reading opinions and seeing how they're derived from canon - mind you, some of the posts would be a godsend to someone writing a thesis on psychiatric pathology, but IMO it's all part of life's rich tapestry. > > The one that breaks limbs? > > And then tries his best to make some apology for it, with the owl? > > > The one that revels in bullying? > Nora: > Are you going to equally condemn all characters who revel in > bullying? Do you consider it a worse character flaw to do it as a > schoolboy, rather than an adult? > Kneasy: Aren't we supposed to? Snape is the Boo!Hiss baddy schoolmaster, Vernon's a bully, so's Dudders and he'll end up just like his dad. Sirius was a bully as a teenageer and he is still at GP in OoP. Anyone who contradicts him is brow-beaten or insulted. > > Kneasy: > > The one named Black? (JKR's predilection for tying surname to > > character is pretty pointed.) > > The one that's also named after the brightest star in the sky? The > shining point of light from the Black family? The black sheep of the > Black family? (You have to be complete, Kneasy--first and last name.) Kneasy: Well, Sirius is named from the Greek 'seirios' hot; scorching. Though it might be as well to remember that Sirius has a hidden companion - Sirius B. Strange tales associated with it, too. > Nora: > I'm in this case trying to flesh out your wildly incomplete picture > of canon, I think. Just as you'd rightly probably object to > something that says "Snape is only a nasty teacher and has no other > depths", or "Oh, Dumbledore--wise and good and no mistakes", you're > being reductionist, too. You're purposefully omitting all of the > good aspects of the character, while harping on the bad. Kneasy: Now play the game. When I theorise I'm being fanciful or indulging in character mutilation. When I list canon I'm into reductionism. Could it be, could it possibly be that you're having trouble finding sufficiently strong canon refutation and are reduced to debating tactics? I hope not. What are the good parts of Sirius's character? So far as I can see there's just one - he loves, or says he loves James and Harry. And that's it, is it? That makes up for everything else? Not in my book. Loving one person and trying to kill another in revenge (or worse) does not a good person make IMO. Besides, I'm not so sure about him loving Harry as Harry - as JKR says he's transferred his love from James to Harry, but does he recognise the difference? Could be he loves the 'image', the concept of James and that's been transferred along with his love. In OoP he does say that Harry may be less like his father than he thought. Let's face it - Sirius *needed* Harry. Without his ties to Harry he was nothing - without Harry he has no credibility and no influence; nobody would cross the road to spit at him. And he plays on it for all he's worth; he wants the final say in what Harry knows, in what Harry does. I can't think of a surer recipe for disaster. From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Mon Oct 18 13:30:35 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:30:35 +0200 Subject: Conspiracy theories compared (note on Peter's name) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > WHAT'S IN A NAME? > > Scabbers: from English slang `scab', meaning strike-breaker, a person > who doesn't show solidarity with work colleagues but sides with the > management in a dispute? > > Carolyn Now Olivier: Now this news came as a shock to me. I am french and have a very incomplete knowledge of English, so I never even asked myself if "Scabbers" was anything more than a pet-name. The thing is, Peter Pettigrew is the name a covert-agent used in a famous union-breaking action in the 80s. The agent joined the union under this false identity and then encouraged his colleagues to commit illegal actions during strikes so as to justify the layoff of employees. His true identity was eventually discovered and he showed in his trial the letters ordering him to engage in his strike-breaking activity. When I first learned about this story (one can find everything about it in the Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales n? 138), I thought it was a nice coincidence. Now I must say I wonder if JKR had heard about it and chose the name of her traitor accordingly. Olivier From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 13:36:46 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:36:46 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: >> >> Oh, come now. You've admitted yourself how much this situation >> makes no sense at present, and how we don't really know what's >> going on. WHEN we find out what happened, all my complaints about >> this point potentially end in eating crow--but not until then. >> > > Kneasy: > I admit no such thing and never have done. I was talking about the so-called Prank, which is what I, oddly enough, read you as referring to. I really can't find the post where you said "None of this scenario makes sense", but I do remember it. Had this great dialogue in it between Snape and Black. > There're clues, red herrings, deliberate deception and all that > good stuff scattered throughout the books. Supinely waiting to be > told who's good, who's bad and why defeats the object of the site. > Similarly, accepting *any* character at face value risks the > delivery (express) of a custard pie to the physiognomy. Mind you, > so does the alternative, but at least one presents a moving target > and a bit of nifty footwork can sometimes work wonders. True, but not all clues are clues, and not everything is meaningful. It's the game of knowing when to take things at face value, and when not to...or, rather, even the idea of 'face value' is complicated. > Kneasy: > Well, Sirius is named from the Greek 'seirios' hot; scorching. > Though it might be as well to remember that Sirius has a hidden > companion - Sirius B. Strange tales associated with it, too. It's named that in part because of the Mediterranean climate at the time of year that it rises. I think, so far as it goes, JKR is playing on two things with it: Dog Star, and brightest in the sky. The first is far more of the Big Hint in PoA. > Kneasy: > Now play the game. > When I theorise I'm being fanciful or indulging in character > mutilation. When I list canon I'm into reductionism. > Could it be, could it possibly be that you're having trouble finding > sufficiently strong canon refutation and are reduced to debating > tactics? I hope not. No, but I think your character analysis was using a debating tactic-- just omit everything else from the 'pro' side of the column. I quibbled with some canonical points but not with others, because, well, they *are* true. But as you listed them, they were also being taken in isolation, which then does not provide a close-to-canon, solidly backed, interpretation. Even if you don't like it, you can't leave it out. > What are the good parts of Sirius's character? > So far as I can see there's just one - he loves, or says he loves > James and Harry. And that's it, is it? That makes up for everything > else? Not in my book. Loving one person and trying to kill another > in revenge (or worse) does not a good person make IMO. Besides, I'm > not so sure about him loving Harry as Harry - as JKR says he's > transferred his love from James to Harry, but does he recognise > the difference? Could be he loves the 'image', the concept of James > and that's been transferred along with his love. In OoP he does say > that Harry may be less like his father than he thought. I think you underestimate the importance of Love to JKR, and its very high place in her cosmology (you bitter old cynic, you :). It *is* the most likely candidate for the big scary power behind the door. The worst thing one can say of a character in the Potterverse is that he lacks love--Voldemort has never loved anyone, and he's certainly the most evil thing going. Loving one person deeply, trying to atone for past mistakes, fighting on the side against the black hats even though not being allowed to do much--I don't think the balance comes out negative. At least I saw OotP as a book where yes, there was re-examination and reconsideration of this--but that really went on for everyone. It's probably not too contentous to argue that almost every character in the books showed some of their worst behavior in OotP, and I think that's thematic. One can consider those revelations permanently damning, or one can consider the possibility of seeing people work through them. > Let's face it - Sirius *needed* Harry. Without his ties to Harry he > was nothing - without Harry he has no credibility and no influence; > nobody would cross the road to spit at him. And he plays on it for > all he's worth; he wants the final say in what Harry knows, in what > Harry does. I can't think of a surer recipe for disaster. Well, he's also somewhat vindicated re the knowledge thing at the end of the book--if they'd listened to him and actually TOLD Harry some things, a lot of what went down in OotP probably wouldn't have happened. Harry peeks in the Pensieve out of a desire to know something about what is going on; if Harry had been given some explicit information about the links, or about *what* those dreams were actually of, I don't think the denoument would have happened as it did. But that's a complex point. -Nora skitters off to the library to study some madrigals From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Oct 18 13:46:22 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:46:22 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115843 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Let's face it - Sirius *needed* Harry. Without his ties to Harry he was nothing - without Harry he has no credibility and no influence; nobody would cross the road to spit at him. And he plays on it for all he's worth; he wants the final say in what Harry knows, in what >Harry does. I can't think of a surer recipe for disaster. Sirius and Lupin are old and close friends. Sirius was a member of the order probably before Harry was born. As such, he was one of the few in DD's nearest circle. For 12 years he was considered traitor, but now that DD and Lupin accept that he is innocent, he is returned to whatever "credibility and influence" he had before. As for the "final say in what Harry knows" - he wanted for Harry to know more, that DD will be more liberal with information. (Turns out, he was right - but that's not really the point.) He wanted more freedom for Harry, that he be treated more as an adult. How is that wanting to control Harry (which is implied in what you say)? It's true that he needed Harry, but not for the reasons you mention. After losing everybody else, Harry was the only one left to him to love. Which is what made his attitude to him a little over intensive and demanding. Hardly surprising and certainly not to his discredit. Naama Naama From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 14:25:02 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:25:02 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115844 Carol: > And as I've said before, the last word in the book (read epilogue) is > "scar." That would be a pretty odd word to end with if Harry doesn't > survive! > > Carol Finwitch: Well, depends on a sentence! It could be, for instance, in a funeral where someone kisses Harry's scar as a final 'good-bye'. It could be a pub named to Harry's honour after an after-school-class meeting (owned by Ron Weasley), making the end sentence: ... and Ronald Weasley, a successful pubowner after inheriting Harry Potter, closed Harry's scar. Then again, it could be: ... and the only thing left of Lord Voldemort was Harry's scar. Or, possibly, '..there was nothing left to remind them of Lord Voldemort, not even Harry's scar.' Or something else *I* can't think of. Never the less, Harry MUST survive Book6. Oh, and the opening chapter of book 6, originally intended for Philosopher's stone, Prisoner of Azkaban AND Order of the Phoenix. What's common in all three? Harry uses magic unintentional&unaware, unintentional&aware, unintentionally when Vernon tries to strangle him (or was it some protection magic placed on Harry?) I do think Harry's emotions get the better of him, again. Then he leaves - going to F&G, perhaps? Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 18 14:25:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:25:45 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115845 > Tooks: > well, I'm not so sure about that either, I thinks it really depends > on the individual. Some Slytherins may find it refreshing to be with > someone of another house, but not all. Potioncat: All three posts have been interesting, if only to see how differently we readers see the "standard issue House member" from each of the Houses. It would make a very funny scene in the next book to see girls reading over an article in the Quibbler, "Is he right for you? Choosing your mate by your Houses." I think it's interesting that the couples we've seen so far, have been from the same house. The Malfoys and LeStranges each from Slytherin. The J.Potters and Weasleys each from Gryffindor. From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Mon Oct 18 14:47:53 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:47:53 -0500 Subject: Conspiracy theory Message-ID: <2D7CA07E071FDE43A5A8EB8D8BBC0183040EF0@pbswmu00024.corp.pep.pvt> No: HPFGUIDX 115846 Wow, Carolyn, now that's a Fantastic Post! You have truly outdone yourself this time. Thanks from all us mortal listees. Personally, I continue to be torn on these questions. While my heart longs for the beguiling excitement of Agent!Peter or any of the various ESE!'s, my head tells me that JKR has done little to set up her readers for many role-reversals within the Marauders. A simple reading doesn't force one to ruminate on who is truly ESE or whether Peter might be a double for DD. It is entirely possible that in a non-MD world, everything is just as it seems: Lupin and Sirius were somewhat damaged characters who tried but failed to do the right thing at times; Peter was a weak-willed tag-along friend who fell into a bad situation and chose a dark path that he might well regret, but is now trapped in; DD is a well-meaning wizard who knows lots but not all and who tries to beat LV and save OOP'ers, but sometimes fails. And in the next two (just two!) books, can JKR really illuminate enough of these back-stories to make any about-faces by the characters believable? I would have expected some of that in OoP, but there was little of substance to support MD or any other conspiracy theory. Further, she has been more open in her recent interviews yet has said little to imply that her characters are not what they appear. In fact, she has positively bristled at questions regarding ESE motives of her characters, particularly those close to Harry. Combined with her continuing statements that DD always tells the truth, these factors make for a difficult road for the conspiracy theorists. IMHO, the best arguments for the conspiracy theories are 1) simply the existence of the Marauders in the story in the first place; JKR has built a world that may be too rich in secondary characters for them all to be the simple plot devices that they have served up 'til now. I mean, did we really need 4 Marauders, 4 founders, Neville and the rest? And 2) how can the final events take place in such a way that LV dies meaningfully (i.e. with some type of moral resonance) unless either Harry has walked through a Job-like end-game or LV is betrayed by his own most "faithful servant." Here's another question: if the plot leaves us capable of filling in so many possible theories on each character, then how good has JKR's writing been, really? And I think the answer comes down to, what kind of books are these really, mysteries or tales of morality like most children's books? If they are mysteries, then JKR's spare writing style with its minimalist character descriptions and ever-present ambiguity is simply *perfect*. Of course, there'll be no bangy ending to the series if they're just mysteries. However, if these are also a giant morality tale then she is hurtling her readers toward an ending that truly has meaning, but how can she hope to build much of a crescendo when all of her instruments/characters are so imperfect/amorphous? It'd be like trying to make a new Disney version of Snow White where the dwarves were all back-stabbers and Snow White's prince a conniving git: too much noise. Perhaps she wrote the characters a bit more ambiguous than she intended; perhaps we are all supposed to *know* by now that DD is playing at MD and that Peter is a doubloe-agent. Let's hope not! Now, I love the books (obviously) and I'll absolutely continue to describe JKR as a wonderful author whose prose is a joy to read. But I remain concerned that the final chapters of this story could be a let-down for many. Poor Jo, she has set herself an enormous task if she is to meet any of our expectations in the final two books! boyd hoping I'm wrong on all counts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 15:01:56 2004 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:01:56 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Tooks: > > well, I'm not so sure about that either, I thinks it really > depends > > on the individual. Some Slytherins may find it refreshing to be > with > > someone of another house, but not all. > > Potioncat: > ((snip)) > I think it's interesting that the couples we've seen so far, have > been from the same house. The Malfoys and LeStranges each from > Slytherin. The J.Potters and Weasleys each from Gryffindor. You did forget one couple, Percy Weasley and Penelope Clearwater. Wasn't Penelope in Ravenclaw? Also, Ginny "dates" people from other houses(not that the relationships have worked out). There was also Harry and Cho. As time goes on, I think we'll see more interhouse friendships/relationships...perhaps even from Slytherin--after all, not all purebloods are placed into Slytherin it would stand to reason that not all pureblood matches over the centuries have been between Slytherin/Slytherin or Gryffindor/Griffindor especially since we know from cannon that all pureblood families seem to be interrelated to one another even if it's by marriage through a second cousin. Doddiemoemoe, From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 18 15:29:04 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:29:04 -0000 Subject: Black and Lupin was CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115848 >Dungrollin: snip > There's that sideways look of Lupin's at Sirius, when Sirius > says `I'm not proud of it'. Is Lupin surprised at Sirius > saying this, as he'd never heard him express regret about the > marauders' behaviour towards Snape before? Or does Lupin think > it's an understatement of how Sirius really feels? Or is Lupin > aware of exactly what Sirius isn't saying, and checking the > expression on Sirius' face to make sure that he doesn't give > something away? Or, perhaps, Lupin is fully aware that Sirius is, > actually, *extremely* proud of that moment, and re-tells the story > in excruciating detail at every opportunity? snip Potioncat: Yes, there seems to be something left out. And the way you asked the questions makes me think of the scene in PoA when Lupin and Snape have the conversation about the map. They know what they are really saying but we don't. And some of us needed a guide to lead us through that conversation even after reading the book several times. But I do get the feeling when Harry is talking to Black and Lupin about his father, that Lupin is looking to Serius either for guidence or to evaluate what he will say. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 18 15:45:39 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:45:39 -0000 Subject: Whoops! Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115849 > > > 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what > broke the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? > > Alla: When I first read this one, I for some reason thought that we are still talking about the jar with cockroaches. Don't ask me, why. :O) > > Yes, I definitely think that Snape broke it. I think that was his > petty attempt of revenge for Harry's looking into his pensieve. Do > you think that it fallen down by itself? I reread the paragraph and > could not see any indication of it. > > What gets to me the most is Snape reaction, of course "His potion > sample lay in pieces on the floor and Snape was watching him with > the look of gloating pleasure" -OOP, p.661, paperback. > > Tell me, does he have to enjoy Harry's humiliation THAT MUCH? This > is definitely one of my "Need to slap Snape, NOW" moments. :o) Potioncat: Well, as much wicked pleasure as readers have gotten from "Whoops!", something doesn't fit here. It doesn't seem in character for Snape to break a vial in front of the entire class unless he was making a point. He might snarl about the potion and tell Potter not to bother, but purposely breaking it seems odd. Draco might have, and Snape wouldn't punish him. Or it might have fallen. But you've given me a whole new idea!!!!!! Someone (sorry, I don't recall who. Was it you, Alla?) suggested that the jar of cockroaches wasn't thrown, but exploded much like Aunt Marge's glass. What if the same thing happened to the vial? Snape, still angry, is ignoring Harry. Harry brings a nice looking sample to the desk and Snape's anger gets the better of him when he sees it. He's still seething and Harry has the nerve to do better than ever in Potions. Bang! Whoops! It just seems that JKR had a reason for us to not know what happened. Potioncat From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 17:22:25 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041018172225.43811.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115850 --- finwitch wrote: > Further, that Harry's required to 'prove his innosence' by giving > out the details is, in itself, against basic human rights. Sure, it > makes it easier for people to believe him, but... > > Finwitch "Against basic human rights" - which ones? And how exactly is providing evidence against basic human rights? Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 18 17:56:24 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:56:24 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115851 Pippin: > I speculate: After the disaster at GH, Peter tipped off Fudge that > Sirius had betrayed the Potters and ran for it, knowing that the > betrayer would have to come after him and silence him. He > faked his death in front of all those Muggle witnesses, expecting > that the DMLE would find Sirius guilty of his death. But the real > spy was hunting too, and he's the one who killed the Muggles, > though whether he was aiming at Peter or Sirius I can't say. > Maybe, like Wormtongue in LOTR, his aim was poor because he > couldn't decide which he hated more. SSSusan: I'm (obviously) quite far behind here, but I didn't see that anyone address the two things I'm going to bring up here, at least not in the thread links at the end of Pippin's post. Since presumably a good, strong theory should have not just possible actions in it but also explained motivations, could you tell me WHY Lupin would hate Sirius & Peter? I don't see a motive for hatred in the slightest. Pippin: > So Wormtail is either the most dissociated personality since Dr. > J and Mr. H, or, just possibly, there are two people called > Wormtail in the story. We know there are two Tom Riddles and > two Barty Crouches, and we have evidence of two Professor R.J. > Lupins. Since Lupin never worked as a professor, the briefcase > with that name and title in peeling letters can't orginally have > been his. SSSusan: I don't understand how we KNOW that Lupin never taught elsewhere? Isn't this a supposition? I mean, I've seen others postulating that Lupin might have taught at Durmstrang, for instance. No canon to *know*, but unless I missed something recently, I don't think there's canon that he did *not* teach elsewhere previously either. As to the peeling letters, I also think it's a bit strong to say this means the briefcase "can't" have originally belonged to Remus. First, if he *did* teach somewhere else, beginning shortly after leaving Hogwarts, the letters might have begun to peel by now. Second, even if it that round of teaching wasn't all that long ago, given the type of quality apparel Lupin tends to wear, perhaps he could only afford a cheap briefcase, whose lettering doesn't wear as well as more expensive models. If the peeling lettering is the only evidence we have of two Professor R.J. Lupins, I think it's not all that strong a piece of evidence. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 15:53:35 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: LV Inmortality (plus Predicting the future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041018155335.79082.qmail@web54106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115852 mhbobbin wrote: > Now, why didn't DD try to kill LV in his duel with him in the MoM --(not obviously when Harry was possessed by LV) if he thought that LV might now be slightly mortal? Does DD really put that much faith in a prophecy that indicates Harry must be the Vanquisher? Hasn't DD worked to that point to convince Harry (and us) that predicting the future is at best an inexact skill?<< Carol replied: >For one thing, he has powers that he's "too noble to use," as McGonagall informs us at the very beginning of the series. That would include the Unforgiveable Curses. (And, no, it wouldn't be noble to avoid using an AK so Harry could use the same spell later. There must be another, less evil way, to destroy Voldemort that only Harry can use).<< Kim: I've been wondering whether having Harry's blood running through his veins now makes Voldemort more mortal or actually more *immortal*. More human, surely. But more mortal, it's not so sure, since it was Harry's special "blood" that made him unkillable (at least at Voldemort's hands) when he was a mere baby. Maybe LV shares some of that kind of immortality now. Horrible to imagine, but possible. Which also brings up another question: how can LV bear to have Harry's blood in him if he can hardly bear to be in the same body as Harry (i.e. possession) as he demonstrated at the MoM battle in OotP? Also I've been wondering if a time-turner, whose powers DD is obviously well-versed in, would have allowed him to go forward in time, not just backward as in PoA. Maybe DD has been to the future and knows "first-hand" what will happen, so he's not just trusting in the future as predicted by the prophecy... unless I missed something when time turners were first mentioned that said they allowed travel to the past only? I think Carol makes a good point, that since DD won't use an Unforgiveable curse himself, he'd hardly expect Harry to use one, even to vanquish the Dark Lord. I think JKR definitely has something else up her sleeve as to how LV will meet his end. Kim From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 16:24:26 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: LV Inmortality In-Reply-To: <000a01c4b487$e3d79e80$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <20041018162427.80872.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115853 Charme wrote: ... to wonder if in fact LV wasn't "dead" in a sense prior to the incident at GH, hence why he couldn't "die" then. I concur with the thought above about DD suspecting or knowing only Harry can "kill" LV because of LV using Harry's blood, but I have the sneaking suspicion it's much more complicated than that. I wonder as well about the "half life" Firenze referred to in PS/SS and how that plays into this mix: how do you "kill" something which may be less than alive but may not truly be able to experience death? I suspect (only a suspicion) LV used many methods to try to achieve immortality: snake venom, potions (Snape), unicorn blood (that's after GH, but may count toward LV's current state), and perhaps dragon blood (check his appearance description in GoF as he's lowered into the cauldron.) Kim chimes in: Interesting ideas! I tossed out a similar theory a few weeks ago that was either new or a rehash of previous theories, but it didn't generate any responses (none that I recall reading anyway). It had occurred to me that LV didn't die because he was already the "undead", i.e. that he might have consorted with the undead (vampires) when he'd gone east years ago, even before he'd ever heard the prophesy, and had learned some tricks of the trade, so to speak. He was clearly obsessed with immortality long before he ever knew that one such as Harry Potter would be coming along to challenge his power. Besides, his physical description after he comes back to "life" in GoF reminded me an awful lot of the creepy vampire in the old movie Nosferatu, barring LV's snake-like face (which could be accounted for by his dependence on snake venom to survive), which I don't think would apply to the Nosferatu vampire. And Bram Stoker's Count Dracula was definitely "immortal" as long as he never saw sunshine or chanced to get a stake through the heart... Not that I'm saying LV is a vampire, just that he may have learned things from them. I think you're also on to something as to Snape helping LV survive with potions in the past. What was Snape's relationship to LV when he was still a Death Eater? Wasn't there a "stopper in death" thread for a while that discussed that aspect too? Maybe it's time to "revive" that thread... ;-) Cheers, Kim From lindydivaus at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 11:55:22 2004 From: lindydivaus at yahoo.com (Eileen Forster Keck) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Use of surnames in personal address In-Reply-To: <1098078706.5099.21737.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041018115522.87452.qmail@web50810.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115854 Carol: > McGonagall, at least in this first chapter, calls Dumbledore "Dumbledore." But are there any other examples, and isn't this usage rather unusual? It reminds me of nineteenth-century women Englishwomen, both real and fictional, who called their husbands by their last names. Mary Shelley addressing Percy Shelley as "Shelley" comes to mind. Eileen: Speaking on my own experience (and I'm neither 19th c. nor a Brit. :-) ), that practice is still in use. In fact, I frequently addressed my ex-husband by his last name, and do the same with a number of my other male friends. Also, in McG's case, surely "Dumbledore" is more appropriate than "Albus" between colleagues, whatever an off-campus relationship might be--though I do think they are merely very comfortably friendly acquaintances. Carol: > Carol, who, not being British, needs to look up "sherbet lemon" (which I don't think means "lemon drop") before returning to the list. Eileen: No...lemon drops are "acid drops" in England. :-D Eileen (first post, hope I've complied with the List Elves' Roberts Rules of Order here!) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 18 18:44:54 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:44:54 +0100 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115855 Good post, Carolyn. A comparison of theories could be very useful indeed, and it has already caused some stirrings in my perverse and convoluted alter ego, though in this one I am going off at a tangent and addressing a very narrow point. Traitors. Such emotive words, treason and betrayal. Lots of interesting historical quotes about betrayal and I love a good quote, so I'll throw one in. It's up to you to decide if, or who, it's apposite to. "To betray, you must first belong." (Kim Philby.) The dynamics of all-male groups has been a fertile field for anthropologists (this is ignoring the possibility of 'slash' relationships). It's supposedly a genetic trait, probably an imperative way back in the far distant days of the pre-historic hunting bands. Today of course, this function has been supplanted by team games, so if you can't get your feller out of the bar and away from his team-mates after the match, blame genetics. And young males also have this need for association; in historical times they would have formed the next hunting group. Four (the Marauders) is about minimum - usually they're a bit bigger, 5 - 11 being the usual range still seen in primitive societies. (Harry is an oddity; there's him and Ron, with perhaps Neville. But Harry is an outsider already. So is Hermione; females are accepted on sufferance only.) Being a member meant that you worked with those you trusted and they trusted you; exclusion from the group meant social death unless you could join another group. It was (is) important for social status and for self-worth. Imagine being ousted from the group... In regard to Peter the Philby quote could be relevent. He's supposedly attracted to the powerful, the charismatic - hence his sucking up to James and to a lesser extent the other Marauders. But does he *belong*? Is he accepted? Or is he taken for granted? "Oh, it's only Wormtail; any scuzzy work and he can do it." Why did they work so hard for Peter to master the animagus stuff? Why was a second-rater like Peter tolerated by the 'in-crowd'? In the Pensieve scene Lupin ignores him, James uses him as an excuse to show off and Sirius seemingly despises him. Why do they need or want Peter? They might not of course, and they may have told him so. In which case it might be Peter who feels betrayed, rejected by his heroes - and one good turn deserves another..... Sirius sees James as a friend; it doesn't occur to him that Peter might not. In that case, would it be treason or a satisfying and from Peter's point of view, justifiable revenge after years of denigration? Lupin might not belong either. A werewolf in a wizard society. Bitter? Feels that life is unfair? Particularly as Sirius sees their jaunts at the full moon as an occasion for fun, for entertainment - and it can't come soon enough for him. Lupin thinks differently; it's painful, it's a loss of humanity, of intellect; it's to be feared. Yet here are his 'friends' James and Sirius, from old wizarding families, one at least a pureblood, with life handed to them on a platter. And one of them is incredibly, criminally stupid, puts everything at risk by indulging in petty spite. Would you feel resentful? Does Sirius belong? He thinks so, but then of course James's attention is grabbed by Lily. Interesting that Sirius talks a lot about James, how often does he talk about Lily? Does each see the other as a competitor? If that's the case then Sirius loses, becomes excluded from the inner circle. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened in history. Oh, there's consolation prizes, Best Man, Godfather, but he'll still be second division. Alienated from his family he moved in at the Potters; James became his surrogate family. When James moved on how did Sirius feel? Bereft, betrayed? Extrapolating this further (with absolutely no evidence) is he the type to try and do something about it? Perhaps his shock at GH was seeing James's body - perhaps James wasn't supposed to be there - just that interferring little tart. Jealousy can be so ugly. All three of the favoured suspects may have reason to feel excluded. Enough to harbour thoughts of betrayal? Not normally, no. But did whoever-did-it think in terms of betrayal? Unlikely. It'd be fear of death, or getting even, or eliminating the intruder that would occupy their thoughts. Something much more personal than the larger scheme of things that we see. Most things are personal in the end. Kneasy From Lynx412 at AOL.com Mon Oct 18 20:06:51 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:06:51 EDT Subject: The Rat at GH Message-ID: <19b.2ae89643.2ea57c5b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115856 All this debate on the relationships between DD and MWPP and the events at GH have solidified a theory of my own. I do believe that: 1. PP/Wormtail was the traitor 2. The other person had to be the SK, Peter. Going from what we've seen of the way DD reveals the location of the Order's HQ a written note would have sufficed. Still, I can't see LV accepting that. He'd have insisted that Wormtail be there, so as to deal with him if the SK stuff was a trick. I doubt that he ever completely trusted PP, especially if PP went to a bit of effort to not betray the Potters during his stint. DD's comment about knowing that the spy was 'someone close to the Potters' applies if the info being passed was stuff they might have known, but they themselves were never betrayed. DD's abilities would have assured him that James and Lily were not the traitors and faced with the Prophesy, he had to hide them. Thus his volunteering as SK. However, James and Lily *trusted* their friends, and most importantly, trusted Sirius. That their suspicions fell on Lupin is a commentary on the WW society. They could see why Lupin might be drawn to LV, even as a half-blood [as JKR has described him]. What they couldn't see is a reason for any of their other friends to betray them. So, why would and of the Marauders betray the rest? I think the answer lies in the photo of the original order. Look at where PP is sitting. BETWEEN James and Lily. Much has been made of PP's character and motivations, but I think the simplest has been missed. I think that PP was in love with Lily. Thus, prior to this, the Potters were never betrayed, because that would endanger Lily. Then she got pregnant and had a child. And the CHILD placed her in even greater danger because of the Prophesy! With the Prophesy, the pressure on PP to betray the Potters increased. Then came Sirius' stroke of genius. And PP had the perfect opportunity. He could reveal the location to LV, in exchange for LV's sparing Lily. He could send Sirius a note revealing the Potter's location, possibly saying that James wanted to see him. he probably contacted Lupin, too. LV would kill James, stun Lily, kill the child and he, Peter, could comfort her and finally win her, while the other two were blamed for what happened. Lupin and Black were, after all, the obvious suspects. No one could prove that James hadn't asked Peter to contact them. But, of course, things went horribly wrong. LV didn't stun Lily, he killed her. Then LV was stopped cold by the child! Trapped, Peter covered his tracks as best he could. The house at GH blew up because Peter blew it up after retrieving LV's wand. Then he performed his little stunt with Sirius, again using an explosion spell. He then went into hiding, with a wizarding family and waited. Wy do I think he also contacted Lupin? Lupin's 'You heard James?' I suspect that Lupin contacted James to warn him that they were in danger, and believed that James had gone to visit the SK's house. Peter could very well have gone to Lupin with a folded sheet of paper supposedly signed by Sirius, and read it to him, thereby revealing the Potter's location without betraying the fact that he, Peter, was the SK, not Sirius. Comments, anyone? The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 20:09:54 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:09:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115857 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" CHAPTER QUESTIONS: > > 1. Fred and George wouldn't act like that unless they loathed > someone . Lily looked like she loathed James. JKR tells us > Sirius > loathed Severus and the feeling was mutual. What is it with all > this loathing? Meri: To me it is just a great English word that we Americans don't use often enough. Loathe...it sounds so much more dignified than "hate" doesn't it? ;) > 2. Harry lets everyone think his bad mood is due to the upcoming > O.W.L.s. But Ginny sees that it is something else. She advises > immediately that he talk to Cho. But when he tells her the real > problem she quickly comes up with a solution for that. What does > this say about Ginny? Meri: That she's got brains and moxie. Ginny really gets developed in this book, and though some people find it out of character I couldn't disagree more. She's grown up a bit, gotten over the self-confidence problem that she had around Harry, still perhaps harbors an unrequetted crush on him, but is ready to live her own life, too. She fought so well in the DoM, she really proved herself as better than just "Ron's little sister". Ginny is an untapped resource and, besides Ron, the only Weasley left at Hogwarts. Now if Harry's ever seperated from Ron and Hermione, he's still got allies he can trust. snip > 4. McGonagall schedules Harry's Career Advice during Divination. > What does that say about her opinion of Divination? Meri: That she thinks it's BS. Or maybe she assumed that DU would be auditing Divination so that DU couldn't interfere with Harry's interview. But then again, maybe the appointments were in alpahbetical order or something. For example, I just got my senior portrait taken and my sitting was scehduled in the middle on one of my classes, so sometimes these things are just random. I know there is a prevailing theory that anytime JKR interupts something it turns out to be important, but I don't see what that could be here. snip > 6. Ron wasn't interested in Healer, but notice, the courses > McGonagall offers for Auror are almost identical to Healer. What do > you think Ron will take? Meri: Assuming that he lives? Auror. After the spattergroit comment from the portrait at St. Mungo's I can't really see him wanting to work there.;) snip > 8. McGonagall ignores Umbridge, and pretends to think Umbridge has a > sore throat. Then she is scornful of Umbridge's note and quotes > Lupin as a better judge of DADA knowledge. What do you think of > McGonagall in this situation? Meri: Other people have said this, and far better than me, but I think she's rebelling the only way she can. She's still the Deputy Head and can't go outright against Umbridge, but she got her barbs in, too, which is something we all wanted to see. How funny was she in that scene? I happen to love this part of the book and was glad to see someone other than Ron, Hermione or the Weasleys back up Harry unquestionably. Plus how is it possible not to be scornful of DU's DADA knowledge. We readers know more about the subject than she does! (On a side note, MM's competent teacher line must have really stung since MM was refering to Lupin the Filthy Half-Breed!) > 9. Do you think Black and Lupin really listened to Harry? Did they > just dismiss his worries? Meri: I don't think so. After all, there really wasn't all that much time for Harry to talk to them, and a conversation about the good and bad qualities of one's late father isn't the kind of conversation that you have in that kind of situation (On your knees with your head in your evil teacher's fireplace). But they were right: you can't judge a person, or shouldn't anyway, by just one little snippet from their lives. snip > 11. The twins leave Hogwarts as heroes. Do you think we'll see > these two playing a big role again? Meri: Please, please, please can we? I hope so. As Harry says at the end of GoF, we're gonna need some laughs soon! > 12. Your own question here. Meri: Just two. 1) If Umbridge's fire is the only one at Hogwarts that isn't being monitored by the Floo Regulation Panel that means no one else knows who she's talking to. So, who is she talking to that she doesn't want anyone to know about? Anyone on the Floo Panel will also be loyal to the Ministry or Fudge, so what's she hiding? And 2) How freaking awesome was Fred and George's escape? Was that not the single coolest scene ever? Was anyone else cheering and jumping up and down when that happened? [Awkward silence...] Okay, just me then! Meri From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 18 20:12:10 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:12:10 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Neri: > > First, I'd like to thank Carolyn for enlivening the forum. It's > been a > > long time since we had a response from Pip!squeak :-) . > > > > Alla: > > Yes, definitely. It was good to hear from Pip!squeak. Thank you both! :-) Alla: > I would like to use the occassion and point out one more problem I > have with MD. > It is based among other premises on Oscarwinning!Snape(love that > definition, no matter how strongly I disagree with the substance of > such premise). I think that even the possibility of Oscarwinnning! > Snape was destroyed after his raving and raging at Harry after > occlumency failure, which did lead to a disaster. > Uh, now *I'm* confused. Why does Snape being in a genuine fury for once destroy the possibility of Oscarwinning!Snape? One of the things that becomes canon in OOP is that Snape *is* a good actor. He's a good actor in front of Umbridge, in Chapter 32, for example. Umbridge has no suspicion that Snape's connected with Dumbledore-in-hiding, even when Harry's just been nominated for the Oscar For Most Obvious Secret Warning [grin], and Snape has just successfully stonewalled her over the Veritaserum. He's so convincingly unconcerned, that Umbridge actually orders him out of the office to send messages to whomever he likes [grin]. Also, I've missed the raving bit when the Occlumency lessons finish. OK, he is in a rage [grin]. He's white with rage. His lips are shaking. He shouts, telling Harry to get out. He's barely in control - shown by the fact that he grabbed Harry so hard he bruised Harry's arm. He's not (interestingly) doing the same kind of screaming as in the 'Those Darn Kids' Hospital scene of PoA. There are no screams IN CAPITALS in OOP. There's no spit flying from his mouth in OOP. His face isn't twisted up. And, conversely, in PoA, Ch.22, there's no description of being 'white with rage'. So, strangely enough, the one time we see Snape in a rage that we can be reasonably sure *is* genuine - he doesn't spit or dribble, and doesn't shriek. In fact, he 'bellows', which is the general description of a deep pitched roar, the exact opposite of the high pitched 'shriek'. It is odd, isn't it? That a genuinely angry Snape sounds, uh, different to the Shrieking Snape of PoA. Alla: > That is why I am not quite sure why it had been said so many times > that OOP strengthened Magic Dishwasher considerably. I felt the > opposite - that one of its basic premises was destroyed. > > Sure, Safe House was strengthened, but Magic Dishwasher? Why? It may be that you're making a common assumption - that 'Snape is acting' means 'Snape likes Harry'. It doesn't. It could well mean 'Snape is exaggerating and intensifying a natural inclination to dislike James Potter's son'. Snape as excellent actor also doesn't necessarily mean Snape's capable of controlling every emotion he has, *all* the time. I know many professional actors, and believe me - they can't do that. However good you are, there's invariably something that can make you lose control, jump out of character, stop the play for a moment. That Snape chose to remove that particular memory before the lessons is quite suggestive. Dumbledore's comment about the Occlumency failure? - 'some wounds run too deep for the healing.' [OOP Ch. 37]. I think one of the themes of the series may be Harry moving in understanding from the Book 1 child's black and white view of the world (Dumbledore good, Snape bad, Dursley's all bad) to a more complex, adult view in Book 7 (Dumbledore *employs* the bullying Snape, and knows he's a bully. Dudley is as much a victim as Harry is. Petunia simultaneously hates and protects Harry.) [One possibility from the end of OOP is that we'll discover that the only bribe Petunia received to take Harry into her home was the knowledge that *not* taking him in would probably kill him. In such a view, Harry might discover that his Aunt doesn't like him,doesn't love him, but won't abandon him to his death (Vernon would, quite cheerfully). ] MD and the other 'subversive' theories are an attempt to try and get behind the surface. I think they're actually a compliment to JKR - because when we do try and go beyond the surface, we find out that we can. Her books are more than just a shiny surface. Pip!Squeak From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 20:21:03 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:21:03 -0000 Subject: Just where is JKR getting her info from?/Book 6 progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115859 > Carol: > > > And as I've said before, the last word in the book (read epilogue) > is > > "scar." That would be a pretty odd word to end with if Harry doesn't > > survive! > > > > Carol > > Finwitch: > > Well, depends on a sentence! It could be, for instance, in a funeral > where someone kisses Harry's scar as a final 'good-bye'. > > It could be a pub named to Harry's honour after an after-school-class > meeting (owned by Ron Weasley), making the end sentence: ... and > Ronald Weasley, a successful pubowner after inheriting Harry Potter, > closed Harry's scar. > > Then again, it could be: ... and the only thing left of Lord > Voldemort was Harry's scar. > > Or, possibly, '..there was nothing left to remind them of Lord > Voldemort, not even Harry's scar.' > > Or something else *I* can't think of. > > Never the less, Harry MUST survive Book6. > Antosha: Other possibilities: * In the final showdown, Harry martyrs himself by protecting someone near him, thereby destroying LV but giving that person (Ron, Hermione, DD, Draco, Ginny, Ginny and Harry's love child, etc, etc) a scar--"the only living reminder of Harry's sacrifice was XXX's scar." * The final scene is, we've been told, going to let us know what happens to everyone. So perhaps it happens years after the showdown, and Someone (see above list) is wistfully thinking of Harry--"remembering a lovely boy with green eyes, black hair, and a sinuous, lightening-shaped scar." * She's been playing with us, and the scar is utterly unrelated to Harry--"Fred and Angelina knelt down to kiss their daughter's skinned knee, hoping it wouldn't develop a scar" or "Dumbledore rode the escalator down into Trafalgar Square Underground station. Surreptitiously, trying to get his bearings, he lifted his trouser leg to examine his maplike scar." * If he survives, it could be something equally innocuous--"With a contented sigh, Hermione/Ginny/Luna/Susan/Pansy/She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed slipped into her husband's lap, kissing him on the forehead where, once upon a time, as a young man, he had born a faint, lightening bolt scar." I think the fact of the matter is that we WON'T know whether or not Harry survives, and who (if anyone) survives with him until we all read the final book. JKR has put us on notice that People Will Die and we have to believe it's going to be people we don't WANT to die. (I, in fact, will be utterly shocked if DD survives all seven books. And there are a number of characters I'd be HAPPY to see snuff it, not all of them Death Eaters. But that's just me.) I will be devastated if Harry dies--even if it is a willing passage, like Frodo's at the end of LotR. The kid has been through so much, I just sort of hope that he gets to enjoy a drama- less, joyous adulthood, surrounded by people who love him. But only one person knows whether that's what's going to happen or not..... (And if you're reading, Joanne, and he IS going to buy it, could you at least give the kid a little happiness before he goes?) From kethryn at wulfkub.com Mon Oct 18 14:44:14 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:44:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin Relationships References: Message-ID: <002f01c4b520$f4998820$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115860 >>Potioncat: All three posts have been interesting, if only to see how differently we readers see the "standard issue House member" from each of the Houses. It would make a very funny scene in the next book to see girls reading over an article in the Quibbler, "Is he right for you? Choosing your mate by your Houses." I think it's interesting that the couples we've seen so far, have been from the same house. The Malfoys and LeStranges each from >>Slytherin. The J.Potters and Weasleys each from Gryffindor. Kethryn now - I might be wrong but I thought Percy's girlfriend was in Ravenclaw? And, of course, I'm at school without my HP books so I can't just look it up. Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irishwynch at aol.com Mon Oct 18 18:04:16 2004 From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:04:16 EDT Subject: Another Dumbledore motive? Message-ID: <1e3.2c2faf20.2ea55fa0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115861 Patrick writes: > In the same way, do you suppose DD kept Trelawney around in the same way? As a sort of "psychic antenna"? Sure, she's mostly a fraud, but apperently a bit of her g-g-gma Cassandra has stuck around because she made 2 important prophecies. Did DD expect her to work again and therefore "kept her in arms reach" or do you suppose it was just a happy accident? <<< I've always felt that DD keeps Trelawney at Hogwarts for both her and Harry's protection from Voldemort. Especially since she is so oblivious to the real predictions she makes. Marla From distaiyi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 18:29:29 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:29:29 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality (plus Predicting the future) In-Reply-To: <20041018155335.79082.qmail@web54106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds wrote: > > Kim: > I think Carol makes a good point, that since DD won't use an Unforgiveable curse himself, he'd hardly expect Harry to use one, even to vanquish the Dark Lord. I think JKR definitely has something else up her sleeve as to how LV will meet his end. < Distaiyi ... I think this is an excellent point and I just want to point out that the countrary has been use as a literary device a number of other times. For Example, in "Ender's Game" Ender is taught to not attach planets but it is exactly the act that the Adults in charge hope for. They know they could never live with destroying a planet, but a child would recover, which Ender eventually does. Now in Hogwarts they teach not to use the unforgiveable (sp?, sorry tired) curses. But if a child, even a well trained child were to use one, well eventually they would get over it. Maybe getting Harry to the point where he can cast AK is exactly what Dumbledore wants? From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 20:45:27 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:45:27 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lexical74" wrote: Brian: > JKR is systematic enough in her application of forms of address to > make them an interesting discussion topic. Geoff: I have been following the discussions on forms of address with interest and thought, as a UK observer, I would add some information to the mix. I hope this will not be too long a treatise and that its relevance to Harry's world will be clear. I am looking at inter-pupil relations, those between pupils and teachers and interaction between staff in terms of a UK scenario. First, it needs to be remembered that addressing other folk in the UK, especially in a formal situation, is an organic thing; it is changing with the years. There are no rules fixed in stone since the date of the inception of Hogwarts which necessarily apply. My input will be from several angles: as a pupil in a boys' grammar school as a teenager, working in an office for a year before going to college, as teacher for 32 years in a South London secondary school and finally working with a church in a mixed group and a boys' club ? an environment with which I am still involved. As a pupil in a grammar school, I was in a day environment but with a number of routines which were similar to a public residential school. Between small groups of friends, Christian names might be common, mixed with nicknames and diminutives of surnames, i.e. "Jones" becoming "Jonesy", "Smith" becoming "Smithy" and "Morrison" becoming "Mole" as examples. Nicknames could be culled form a variety of sources. I had at least three. I had come from the North of England two years before going to this school and still spoke with a strong Lancashire accent. To the poor Cockneys of my area, they were unable to distinguish the accent so, for some years I became "Scot"!! With the advent of the Goon Show, I inevitably became "Min" or "Minnie" but after the breaking of the 4 minute mile barrier in 1954, I was known for the remainder of my school career as "Roger". Pupils who were not known or slightly familiar to us were known by their surnames. Staff would invariably be addressed as "Mr. X" of "Miss Y" ? regardless of marital status and if you were speaking to them without using their name, "Mr." or "Miss" would be the norm. Informally among ourselves, staff might be referred to by surname/nickname/first name (If known). There has never been any tradition in the UK of a pupil using a staff member's first name in such a situation. Working in an office as a junior clerk, the situation certainly in this organisation was fairly informal. Most staff used each other's Christian names. The exception was the office boss who was "Mr.Farley" to everyone except a couple of the staff who were contemporary with him and who had worked with him over many years who were on first name terms. There was also one clerk, near to retirement, who was only known either as "Mr.Woolston" or "Wooley". The only time a surname-only situation happened was if someone was referring to a third party of lower rank, e.g. "I will ask Johnson to do this for me" as a sample. In my teaching days, there was a tendency for us to refer to older staff by their surnames until we had had our feet under the table for a year or so when we joined in the usual set up of using everybody's first names in private and the "Mr./Miss" convention with pupils. My school was an all-boys school for 8 years and then became mixed. Initially, we used only surnames, unless a Christian name was needed to distinguish a pupil; we had 13 Smiths in my first year(!!) so we had to have Ralph Smith, Peter Smith etc. After the girls arrived, using both names became the norm for several years but, by the end of my teaching there, I personally tended to use first names only as far as possible. Likewise, in my church connections, my wife and I, as leaders, encourage an all-first name environment. Looking through my notes above, I hope this will highlight why I find it odd that Professor McGonagall addresses Dumbledore just by his surname. It smacks of the office set-up of a senior speaking to a junior and certainly not of two colleagues of approximately equal standing. I would have been quite offended had any of my teaching colleagues spoken to me as "Bannister" and that would have included the Headmaster. I hope this lengthy ramble makes sense and adds a little more to the image of UK residents as eccentric! Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 20:46:30 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Rat at GH In-Reply-To: <19b.2ae89643.2ea57c5b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20041018204630.80108.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115864 --- Lynx412 at AOL.com wrote: > I think the answer lies in the photo of the original order. > Look at where PP is sitting. BETWEEN James and Lily. Much has been > made of PP's character and motivations, but I think the simplest > has been missed. I think that PP was in love with Lily. > Comments, anyone? > > The Other Cheryl Interesting theory, TOC. PP sitting between Lily and James in the Order photo was for me one of the creepiest, most skin-crawling moments in OOTP, and helped me formulate my theory about Peter Pettigrew. Namely that there is no level of personal abasement so deep that he will not descend to it as long as it reinforces his image of being totally devoted to James. A friend of mine almost broke up with a new boyfriend because his dog was so jealous of her presence that it would try to "cut" her out of the guy's presence, like a border collie will cut out a sheep or calf from the herd. And when she tried to sit beside the guy on the couch, the dog would try to insert itself between them. (Guy finally gave the dog to his brother who had three kids; friend and guy have been married happily - and doglessly - for six years.) Peter's act reminds me of that dog - except that the dog was sincere. I think Peter spent a lot of time acting like a total suck-up and completely allayed everyone's suspicions. ("Is Peter devoted to James, Sirius?" "Are you kidding? Think anyone would act like THAT if they weren't completely true-blue to Prongs?") If Peter was trying to send any kind of a message with his seating arrangement, it was "look how loyal I am! look how nothing will separate me from my pal, my buddy, my chum!" If anything, the impression would be left that he was actually jealous of Lily. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 18 20:46:48 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:46:48 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: <002f01c4b520$f4998820$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115866 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > > > >>Potioncat: > All three posts have been interesting, if only to see how > differently we readers see the "standard issue House member" from > each of the Houses. It would make a very funny scene in the next > book to see girls reading over an article in the Quibbler, "Is he > right for you? Choosing your mate by your Houses." > I think it's interesting that the couples we've seen so far, have > been from the same house. The Malfoys and LeStranges each from > >>Slytherin. The J.Potters and Weasleys each from Gryffindor. > > > Kethryn now - > > I might be wrong but I thought Percy's girlfriend was in Ravenclaw? And, of course, I'm at school without my HP books so I can't just look it up. > Potioncat: Oops. I meant married couples. We've seen students dating from other Houses. > > From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 18 21:06:22 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:06:22 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115867 Rams: > "Scholastic.com February 2000 Online Chat > > If you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your > child, who would it be and why? > > A. It would be Professor Lupin, because he is kind, clever, and > gives very interesting lessons. " > > I do not think she would want her daughter to be tutored by a traitor. Also, JKR is making a point against prejudice in the WW. She will be proving the anti-werewolf legion right by making Lupin ESE! :)< Pippin: She's also said that that he's damaged, both literally and metaphorically, (The Scotsman, Nov 2002),that's he a metaphor for the way people react to illness and disability, (*not* for illness and disability themselves) and many, many times that she loves all her characters even the bad guys. She's said she would like to meet Lupin, and I believe her. I think she'd like to take him by the shoulders and shout, "STOP!!" I don't think ESE!Lupin theory undermines what JKR's trying to say about prejudice. We understand that it's wrong for the WW to be prejudiced against halfbloods even though Voldemort is one. But AFAWK, Voldemort was already loveless and ruthless even as a child, and never wanted to be anything else. It took more than prejudice to make him what he became. He could have had any position the wizarding world had to offer when he left school. But Lupin was a Gryffindor, who, IMO, ended up on Voldemort's side only because he began to feel that outside Hogwarts there was no useful place for him in the light. Lupin is a kind, clever person who gives good lessons, and if only he had always been allowed to work as a teacher, JKR might be saying, he could never have been tempted to choose the Dark Side. Hagrid was willing to wait, willing to accept status less than a full wizard and take a servant's job in order to stay at Hogwarts until he could become a teacher. Lupin wasn't. He says straight out that those tempted by the rights and freedoms his kind have been denied for centuries may join Voldemort. On the single, narrow but to him all important issue of non-human rights, ESE!Lupin felt Voldemort was right and Dumbledore was wrong. On that basis he chose Voldemort, and ultimately and to his horror, as symbolized by the prophecy orb which is his boggart, all that Voldemort represents, including the betrayal of his closest friends. Pippin * Voldemort has no doubt convinced his non-human allies that he intends to betray the puristas once he's in power, just as he's convinced the puristas that he means to betray the non-humans. From spaebrun at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 20:41:34 2004 From: spaebrun at yahoo.com (spaebrun) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:41:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115868 Hi, this is Reed, emerging from lurkdom the first time in several months to match her wit with the true Potter experts :-) Dungrollin wrote: > There's that comment of Sirius' that seems (to me) so out of > place: `...and James ? whatever else he may have appeared to > you, Harry ? always hated the Dark Arts.' Harry isn't > worried that his father was into the Dark Arts, that hasn't > crossed his mind. He's worried that his father was an arrogant > bullying toe rag. Could Sirius perhaps thought that Harry *is* indeed worried about his father being "dark"? The reasoning goes like this: James acted mean. Mean people are just the type who'd be drawn to Voldemort (see: Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle). Voldemort is practically synonymous to Dark Arts. We know that Harry didn't think this way, and I even doubt Sirius *really* thought he would, but he wanted to establish firmly that James, despite his behavior, didn't belong to the 'wrong sort' (Malfoy type). > Fast-forward to many years later, we come to the shrieking shack, > and it's Sirius and *Lupin* who are quite cheerfully going to > murder an unarmed Pettigrew in cold blood. Afterwards, DD says > `I knew your father at Hogwarts and afterwards. He would have > saved Pettigrew too.' > Hang on... James, the vehement Dark Arts-hater, would have saved a > snivelling traitor like Pettigrew, while *Lupin* (the nice guy) > would have committed murder without a second thought? I think what is important here is that James was the victim of Pettigrew's betrayal. Sirius and Lupin want to take revenge *for their friend*. They seem to consider this as their duty as friends and for them to neglect this duty would mean that they didn't value James's memory. James, however, as the one who it's all about, could have stepped in and stopped them, just like Harry did, thus renouncing his *personal* revenge. I believe the Lupin wouldn't have killed Pettigrew cold-blooded if it had been *him* (Lupin) who had been betrayed. Nor would Sirius - judging from how little he emphasized what Pettigrew had done to him personally (landing him in Azkaban). > The pantsing was during O.W.L.s, at the end of the 5th year, and > Sirius says that Lily started going out with James in the seventh > year (by which time he'd reformed enough to make Head Boy, too). > So what was it that happened in the sixth year to deflate James' > head, and turn him into Mr. Morality? Could it be the famous 'prank'? It happened when Sirius was 16, so probably in their 6th year. I imagine that this could have been the moment where James realised that they were overstepping the line of 'practical jokes' and the experience could have changed his general behaviour quite a bit. Reed From sunnylove0 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 21:51:35 2004 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:51:35 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Voice in Little Harry's Head was replies to: 1500-some posts Message-ID: <149.35ec8eaf.2ea594e7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115869 In a message dated 10/17/2004 11:07:42 PM Mountain Standard Time, catlady at wicca.net writes: > < despite all the emotional abuse from the Dursleys from (it seems) the > time he was only one yr. old? I mean, the poor kid doesn't have a > friend in the world, not even a dog or cat, til he goes to Hogwarts.>> > > Yes. And I have a theory. I think I think Lily was able, with her > magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be > like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would > cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve > Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being > that one caring adult ("example of goodness" in previous paragraph) > said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious > abuse... Hmmm......the sweet version. What about..... "And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half-forgotten. But this was absurd. He'd never had friends before Hogwarts, Dudley had made sure of that." COS, American edition, Chapter 13, pp 233-234 Is this simply an extension of the " trust me, help me, I'm trapped in this diary and I want to be your friend" bit Riddle uses to ensnare Ginny? Or is this somehow true? I believe someone (I think it was Kneasy in one of his What Really Happened at Godric's Hollow posts ...dang Yahoomort) posited the theory that Voldemort did not try to AK Harry (one flash of green light in Harry's vision, not two) but instead tried to possess him, activating Lily's protection but leaving behind the extra powers like parseltongue but also Tom Riddle's soul. ( saying that the pain in Harry's scar comes from TMR's soul trying to reunite with the rest of Voldemort, which certainly makes the prophecy more sinister, but I digress) What I'm trying to say is, what if the voice in Harry's head is Tom Riddle? It wouldn't be hard for him, even the part that is evil, to say that kids, especially magical kids, don't deserve treatment like this from muggles, Tom must have said it to himself 300 times at the orphanage. Just a thought. (albeit a disturbing one, and now I sound like Steve.) Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 22:18:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:18:55 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115870 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: snip. I think the > situation itself in the Shack was enough to send him over the edge. > He was thinking in intensely personal terms in that situation, and > that's what Lupin's rather nasty yet cool rebuke is about. Alla: Yep, Lupin certainly has an edge, does not he? You know, Nora, there was a time not so far ago, when I used to think that Remus is a boring character, that is partially why I was ready to lean towards Pippin's theory. But I recently reread POA and read Elkin's essays about Lupin and I have to say, Remus is not boring at all. He can certainly put Snape in his place much more effectively than Sirius ever could. :o) I am again keeping my fingers crossed that having an "edge" does not mean ESE!Remus, because to me it would cross out message about tolerance and help to the victims of prejudice. It would mean that you cannot survive in the tough conditions without turning to evil, but it is just my opinion. I have to reread whether Snape's rage is really THAT different in POA than in OOP, but regardless I think that Snape lost it in the Shack and lost it badly. Could it be just a surface? Definitely, but I happen to think that such surface is more IC for Snape than MD. Again, Just my opinion, of course Nora: > (On a side note--isn't it interesting how Snape's 'cover story' for > the kids actually ends up hurting their cause, in the long run? > Snape makes sure the kids stay shut up and look ridiculous in the > hospital wing in PoA--Fudge then refers to all the crazy things Harry > was saying then, at the end of GoF. But then, given some of the > comments and such made in OotP, I also now lean towards Snape being > genuinely disappointed at the loss of the Order of Merlin in PoA; he > really does seem to want that recognition and glory.) > Alla: Oh, yes. I think Snape craves glory and recognition and partially resents Harry for that. No matter that poor child would give up that glory and recognition in a second to be a normal child with alive parents. I think that Alan Rickman's comments which Eloise reposted recently are very true to Snape's character. Nora: My large problem with the DISHWASHER is how many > reversals it demands and the sheer level of puppeteering going on. > Should it come true, I will bow gracefully and concede to your > ingenuity. My own suspicion is that it's long odds. > Alla: Agreed. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 18 22:48:53 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:48:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > I'm going to lean mostly with Alla on this one, despite that very > interesting analysis of the way the rage is described > differently. I'm not *sure* that's meaningful, but it could be. > There's another thing that makes me want to link these two > incidents together as actual genuine fury... > > They're both intensely personal. Snape does seem to be a > reasonably good actor, as pointed out with Umbridge--but she's not > hitting him where it counts by any means, which is what happens in > both the Occulmency blowup and the Shrieking Shack. We know, post- > OotP, that there's a lot of bad feeling (to put it mildly--and > JKR's told us that we'll learn more about it later) between Snape > and Black. We'vealso been told, as you noted below, about 'scars that don't heal'. > Doesn't that make a fairly good explanation for Snape bugging out > in the Shrieking Shack? Given that Snape is, often, barely > controlling his temper--how we see him tense and glaring, stalking > around and snapping at people (poor students, hiding in the > bushes), I think thesituation itself in the Shack was enough to send him over the edge. > He was thinking in intensely personal terms in that situation, and > that's what Lupin's rather nasty yet cool rebuke is about. I think my *big* suspicion is simply - a spy (which we know Snape was in Voldemort War One - see GoF) who is often barely controlling his temper would probably have the survival rating of a puffskein in the Weasley household. The DE's would use him for bludger practice. But Snape survived. Further, he describes a person who practices occlumancy as being 'able to shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie'. Snape's supposed to be good at that. So he can shut down feelings and memories in a situation where he's likely to be tortured to death if he gets it wrong. On a literary note, JKR uses 'appearance' descriptions an awful lot with Snape. He gets modified verbs. He is 'looking' deranged. He 'seemed' beyond reason. Then he's 'looking' madder than ever. Black and Lupin don't get those modifiers. This is fairly constant throughout the books - in the OOP Occlumency chapter, Snape's actions are modified by 'apparently', 'sounding', 'looked' and 'sounded'. And there's that blasted riddle in GoF, of course. 'First think of the person who lives in disguise/ who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies.'[GoF Ch. 31]. The two revealed spies in GoF are Crouch Jr and Severus Snape. We know Crouch Jr spends GoF living in disguise, and lying all the time. Why does JKR also choose to reveal Snape as spy in *that* novel? The difference between the occlumency scene and the Shack? Firstly, time. In the occlumancy scene, Snape has come into the office, gone into the pensieve to fetch Harry, and found out what scene it is. He tells Harry to get out of his office within eight lines of this discovery. In the Shrieking Shack, otoh, he hangs around under the invisibility cloak for four pages. Which doesn't exactly sound like bugging out with rage. Secondly, the physical force used. For one thing, Snape doesn't kill Black when he's given the perfect excuse and could easily get away with it. 'With a roar of rage, Black started towards Snape'. [PoA Ch. 19] We are talking about an escaped convict, from Azkaban, believed to have killed at least thirteen people, who is attacking Snape in front of witnesses. I believe that if Sirius Black had tried that on an armed man in many countries he'd now be full of bullet holes [grin]. But Sirius doesn't get killed, attacked, tied up safely, *anything*! Just a threat from Snape which is actually a warning - 'Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will'. Harry in the Occlumency scene in OOP [Ch. 28] is held so hard he's bruised, shaken and thrown onto the ground - all good physical stuff. Lupin and Sirius in the Shrieking Shack get 'minimum force'. Lupin the werewolf-on-the-night-of-the-full-moon is tied up, Sirius gets a wand aimed at him. Any 'violence' is very strictly verbal. > Nora: > (On a side note--isn't it interesting how Snape's 'cover story' > for the kids actually ends up hurting their cause, in the long > run? Yup. It's also interesting how Harry's successful rescue of Sirius in PoA actually ends up hurting his own cause, as Voldemort uses Sirius to trap Harry in OOP. Some things don't work out in the long run. [grin] In the short term, after two solid novels of announcing he wants Harry expelled, Snape is seen backpedalling furiously when the kids are bang to rights with an expulsion offense, and possibly a criminal offense of helping an escaped convict. This does rather backfire a year later - but while in my MD mode I think Dumbledore is pretty perceptive, I don't think he's endowed with the power of prophecy. :-) Pip!Squeak From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 18 23:23:43 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:23:43 -0000 Subject: Kids and grownups (Was: Just where is JKR getting her info from?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > JKR is really more interested in the kids than the adults. History isn't repeating itself, but we're going to get something new, because it's Harry's story, and everyone else just plays a role in it. > > For me-as-reader, the world expanded greatly with the real introduction of the adult generation in book 3, and I still have a lot of things I want to know about them, but I'm no longer convinced that their backstory is the secret knowledge just out of reach. My impression from reading some of the interviews is that she's often almost nudging us to ask more about the kids, when we get hung up on the adults. < I think this is true, especially for us hardcore readers. We're so fascinated by the adults that we want them to be the heroes. But the Trio are the heroes, and to some extent that means that the adults are all failures, or at least, less than they might have been. The adults, even those on the good side, are there to be surpassed. I think this really gets the goat of some readers, especially those who think it's the job of a children's book to present adult role models, especially in the case of McGonagall and Molly, who are fine women in their way but not great heroines. Then readers want Lupin to be the poster boy for overcoming prejudice without falling into evil, forgetting that Hermione and many other are in this category too. I think it's instructive that when in conversations with hardcore readers, like members of this group, about the ESE!Lupin theory, they worry about the anti-prejudice message, or say, "But he's so nice!" More casual fans, on the other hand, the sort of people who ask me when the next book is due, generally counter "Lupin? Which one's he?" Pippin From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 23:45:47 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:45:47 -0000 Subject: The Rat at GH In-Reply-To: <20041018204630.80108.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > --- Lynx412 at A... wrote: > > > I think the answer lies in the photo of the original order. > > Look at where PP is sitting. BETWEEN James and Lily. Much has been > > made of PP's character and motivations, but I think the simplest > > has been missed. I think that PP was in love with Lily. > > Comments, anyone? > > > > The Other Cheryl > > Magda: > PP sitting between Lily and James in the Order photo was for me one > of the creepiest, most skin-crawling moments in OOTP, and helped me > formulate my theory about Peter Pettigrew. Namely that there is no > level of personal abasement so deep that he will not descend to it as > long as it reinforces his image of being totally devoted to James. > If Peter was trying to send any kind of a message with his seating > arrangement, it was "look how loyal I am! look how nothing will > separate me from my pal, my buddy, my chum!" If anything, the > impression would be left that he was actually jealous of Lily. Annemehr: Yes, that detail of the photo pricks like a splinter, doesn't it? Like Magda, I also thought it was very creepy, and I'm still wondering why *Harry* doesn't seem to have thought about it beyond merely noticing. I'm not sure about Pettigrew's feelings for Lily and James individually; Cheryl and Magda both have very good scenarios. Pettigrew creeps me out more than he ever did in PoA and GoF, now. I do believe he was at Godric's Hollow. I think Voldemort had him completely debased, so that whatever he had felt for Lily or James, or Harry, was completely trumped by his desire to save his own skin and his fear of Voldemort. I don't think he has any concern at all for Harry now. I don't think Pettigrew will be redeemed. For me to believe it might require an entire novel in itself to explain the change. If he is any help to Harry, I think it will be unwittingly, or else an action based purely on hatred for his master. Annemehr who finally found a character to hate From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 23:54:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:54:02 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115874 Dungrollin wrote: > > Erm... About Aberforth being DADA teacher... Doesn't DD say he's > not sure that Aberforth can read? How's he going to mark homework? > And if he can't read, how did he get through Hogwarts? > > Is DD so desperate to fill the post that he'll employ an illiterate > and totally unqualified bar-keeper with a record for doing odd > things to goats? > > If that happens, I'll buy a hat so I can eat it. Carol responds: I don't think you're going to have to eat a hat, but I don't quite agree with your assessment of Aberforth. Surely, as Albus's brother and a member of the Order, he *can* read? Even Crabbe and Goyle, stupid as they are, can read, or they'd never have been able to enter Hogwarts. And Aberforth, withe his ability to practice "inappropriate spells on goats" (and, no, I don't want to speculate about about what that might mean, though it's a kids' book and their minds won't jump to adult conclusions, I hope) must at least have passed an OWL or two to have a wand and be able to perform (apparently) complex magic. (Note that the spells were not so inappropriate that his wand was taken away, and he's clearly not a Squib.) I think DD is engaging in a bit of humor at his (absent) brother's expense, not making a straightforward statement about him to be taken at face value. As to whether Aberforth might be the new DADA teacher, I think not simply because he breaks the pattern of a previously unintroduced character in that post. We'll hear and maybe see more of him, I'm sure, in connection with the Prophecy if nothing else. (Surely it was Aberforth who threw out the eavesdropper who overheard the first part?) I think he's part of DD's network of "useful spies," and both his slovenliness and his apparent mental slowness are part of his cover, tricking people into thinking it's safe to talk in his hearing. The eccentricity, though, I feel sure is real, as it seems to run in the family. (As an aside, I think Dumbledore may have hidden in one of those upper rooms in the Hog's Head when he was deposed by Fudge and Umbridge in OoP.) I'm not at all sure that Aberforth is "totally unqualified" to teach DADA (I think there's more to him than meets the eye), but I do think he has an established role in the Order that relates to what he overhears in his not so respectable bar, frequented as it is by an "interesting clientele" including various disreputable types and spies from both sides. He's far more useful where he is. Carol, betting that the lionlike man is the new DADA instructor and hoping he's a good one for a change P.S. My apologies if this posts twice! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Oct 18 23:57:16 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:57:16 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared/why theorise? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115875 In response to my post 115794 Neri wrote(115814): >>I can testify for myself that I was never able to follow MAGIC DISHWASHER without pen and paper, and frankly ESE!Lupin, ESE!Sirius and Agent!Peter make my head spin, despite Carolyn's explanaions and my best intentions. Neri (115827): >>[Re POA film] I find it instructive that the-medium-that-must-not- be-named told the time-travel part in full, and in fact made it MORE complicated than it is in the book, and still it was, IMHO, quite easy to understand. BTW, the same medium discarded much of the animagi and prank backstory. (snip) >>But the conspiracy theories are so much more complicated than the canon version of the Shrieking Shack that I shudder to think how JKR is going to explain them in the middle of Book 7 dramatic climax.<<< Carolyn: Hmm..Neri, I think you may be being just a little disingenuous. Not so long ago you enthusiastically put up 106729 (Three Black Sisters), 105599 (Bertha, Florence etc), and more recently a very extended analysis of the The Snape-Malfoy Connection (sorry, don't have HP number handy) that you were so irritated not to get discussed properly here that you took it to HH. None of these were simple theories, they certainly had conspiracy ramifications if true, and I found them fascinating. Methinks you are as addicted as the rest of us . You will remember that Kneasy wrote a fine defence of theorising back in the summer. I was going to quote from it, but on re-reading, find it would be a shame to snip any part of it. Here it is again: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/111642 However I will quote from your response [111845], since you used your reply, in part, to not only respond to Kneasy, but to give a lengthy answer to an offlist question of mine, which I should have responded to before. You said: 'I don't condemn theorising at all, not even conspiracy theorising. It's fun. The question I ask, however, is which kind of theories is likely to be prove right.' The criteria for being right you suggested were (a) that they conformed to JKR's style; and (b) they should simplify rather than complicate. I think this misses the point somewhat. Firstly, things only look complicated when you don't have the full picture. How many detective stories have you not been able to figure out, yet all the pieces fall into place in the final chapter - it is all so obvious in hindsight? She's fooled us repeatedly, and often through introducing quite un- guessable plot developments. For instance, ok we were introduced to the concept of Polyjuice in CoS, but then we were supposed to guess that this *dear friend of Dumbledore's*, this *friend and TRUSTED teacher of Harry's* was going to have been using it for a year and turn out to be as thoroughly killer ESE! as any fevered Lupin or Sirius theory ?? Well, I didn't guess, and I bet you didn't, and anyway it is a bit clunky as a solution, isn't it? Bit like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.. I really don't see much difference between her doing that and producing ESE!Lupin - Harry is not that close to him, and the character profile she has built is extremely ambiguous. I don't particularly buy ESE!Sirius myself, but I am increasingly converted to the idea of his moral cowardice and stupidity the more I think over the whole SK incident, and consider Peter's character, and his relationship with the rest of the marauders, Lily and Dumbledore. This kind of subtle let down is totally her style, IMO. On MD, well, it's not *that* complicated is it? Well, ok, it needs concentration, but anyway what's wrong with having to take a lot of notes and work out what MDDT are saying? JKR spent five years working out this plot, and has got umpteen boxes of stuff filled with background to these books, and in-depth characterisations for every key player. MDDT are just returning the compliment and trying to figure out her reasoning. OOP largely proved MD was correct, in the sense that Dumbledore was revealed to have had a plan, and be the leader of a spy network, all with complex missions which we are only given hints about. Snape's role as a loyal right-hand man (up to a point!) is also largely confirmed, as is MD's assessment of Voldie's planning style. I note that you ended post 111845 on this note: 'I'm not saying, however, that all this should prevent us from making the wildest speculations and theories. It's a lot of fun, and it's the kind of fun that doesn't last forever...*I'm* going to make the most of it while I still can.' Somehow, this sounds *exactly* like what Kneasy is saying...and is a POV, I can endorse with enthusiasm. Boyd [115846]: >>>Personally, I continue to be torn on these questions. While my heart longs for the beguiling excitement of Agent!Peter or any of the various ESE!'s, my head tells me that JKR has done little to set up her readers for many role-reversals within the Marauders. A simple reading doesn't force one to ruminate on who is truly ESE or whether Peter might be a double for DD. It is entirely possible that in a non- MD world, everything is just as it seems: >>>Here's another question: if the plot leaves us capable of filling in so many possible theories on each character, then how good has JKR's writing been, really? And I think the answer comes down to, what kind of books are these really, mysteries or tales of morality like most children's books? If they are mysteries, then JKR's spare writing style with its minimalist character descriptions and ever- present ambiguity is simply *perfect*. Of course, there'll be no bangy ending to the series if they're just mysteries. >>However, if these are also a giant morality tale then she is hurtling her readers toward an ending that truly has meaning, but how can she hope to build much of a crescendo when all of her instruments/characters are so imperfect/amorphous? (snip)Perhaps she wrote the characters a bit more ambiguous than she intended; perhaps we are all supposed to *know* by now that DD is playing at MD and that Peter is a double-agent. Let's hope not!<<< Carolyn: Oh Boyd, this is much more tragic .. this from the man who so recently offered us on another list the DAMN, CRAZED TOME theory of how Dumbledore is really trying to eliminate magic from the world (which I realised when writing the recent post might run quite well with the MD's most recent incarnation [81010] incidentally!). Why can't mysteries have bangy endings BTW? Whatever, your point is well made about whether she intended to be so ambiguous. Another aspect is whether, 10-15 years into the project her views have changed somewhat on how she intended the books and characters to be interpreted. It's all very well for her to say she is going to write the story that she always intended, but it is a fact that she really can't be quite the same person as she was on that fateful train journey from Manchester. Fame, fan response, re- marriage, more children, money, a massively changed global political climate; she wouldn't be human if it hadn't given her pause for thought on some issues. As a British PM, Harold Macmillan famously said when asked what could drive a government off-course - 'events, dear boy, events.' I think it's an interesting question whether any of this might cause her to make the books more emphatically a children's morality tale than perhaps she'd imagined when she first devised the plot. She could keep all the elements of the story as planned, but fine tune its telling in many different ways. Carolyn From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Oct 19 00:07:51 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:07:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00a501c4b56f$ae303a10$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 115876 Pippin said But Lupin was a Gryffindor, who, IMO, ended up on Voldemort's side only because he began to feel that outside Hogwarts there was no useful place for him in the light. Lupin is a kind, clever person who gives good lessons, and if only he had always been allowed to work as a teacher, JKR might be saying, he could never have been tempted to choose the Dark Side. Hagrid was willing to wait, willing to accept status less than a full wizard and take a servant's job in order to stay at Hogwarts until he could become a teacher. Lupin wasn't. He says straight out that those tempted by the rights and freedoms his kind have been denied for centuries may join Voldemort. On the single, narrow but to him all important issue of non-human rights, ESE!Lupin felt Voldemort was right and Dumbledore was wrong. On that basis he chose Voldemort, and ultimately and to his horror, as symbolized by the prophecy orb which is his boggart, all that Voldemort represents, including the betrayal of his closest friends. Pippin Sherry now Pippin, you build a compelling case for ESE Lupin. I hope you are wrong. I admit this is a very personal bias on my part. As a disabled person, I can't tell you how many times I've been told, that if I had enough faith I'd be healed, or that I or my parents must have done some terrible thing for me to be blind. i've had people tell me that till they got to know me, they thought I was developmentally disabled, though they did not use such a clean politically correct term. People talk to me as if I'm a child, or as if I am also deaf and mute. People think I am incompetent, though I have worked successfully for many years. People either think I am super human or only part human, the other part some freak of nature or God. Over the generations, disabled people have been looked at with suspicion and fear, especially people who are developmentally disabled. Now, I'm not saying that disabled people are all wonderful either; I've known some pretty scummy disabled people and some down right criminals. But to me, to have Lupin bee truly ESE, would be confirming all the stereotypes the WW has about his kind. I see Lupin as the representative almost disabled person in the cast, and I'd really hate to have the WW opinion of him proved correct. It would feel like a confirmation of many, many people's beliefs about all people with disabilities. So, as I say, I realize my feeling on the subject is based on very personal bias, and your thoughts on ESE Lupin are very intriguing. I just hope you are wrong. Sherry G From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 00:48:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:48:12 -0000 Subject: Truly International Secrets?(was Re: African Prince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115877 Dharma wrote: > > Obviously I did not clarify my question significantly. My question > goes to how global the "International Statute" really is. An > agreement between 10 countries would be international, but not > inclusive of all Wizarding communities. > > There are places in the world where magic is part of the > cultural/social/political leadership. Are these cultures/states > included? Is there any evidence that all Wizarding communities > adhere to the Statute of Secrecy? Is there evidence that there are > communities wherein Wizards and Muggles live together? Carol responds: I don't know how extensive the International Statute of Secrecy is, but the answer to your last question is yes. If Hogsmeade is theonly all-wizarding village in Britain, there must be many such communities. Even Godric's Hollow, which I take to be the name of a village and not the house itself (even though English country houses sometimes have names, or used to, a house would not be called a "hollow"), is at least partly a Muggle community. And 12 Grimmauld Place, IIRC, is in a *London* neighborhood wedged between two Muggle houses. And have you noticed the ads in JKR's Rumours section for an alarm to warn against interruptions by Muggle neighbors? I don't think the ad is wholly tongue in cheek. Carol From khinterberg at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:12:53 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:12:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115879 > > Carol said: Does anyone besides me think that the jar of cockroaches exploded as a > result of Snape's fury, not because he threw it? Was it involuntary, > wandless magic like Harry's blowing up of Aunt Marge? If so, the anger > wasn't an act (but did not remain at white heat, either). > > Carol, who really hates typos, especially her own Sorry for me to beat a dead horse (or cockroaches), but I went back and reread this portion of the book. I was struck by this quote at the very end of the chapter: "What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being shouted at or *having jars thrown at him*--it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers..." (p 650, OotP US paperback) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:17:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:17:31 -0000 Subject: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115880 "legobaty29" wrote: > I agree with > Lisa Marie that Snape's first chance was used up when he joined the > Death Eaters. I know that Dumbledore trusts him, but I wonder whether > he will ever be tempted to re-join Voldemort? It has been suggested > that he won't (I think he touched on the subject during a conversation > with Karkaroff?) but the mark on his arm becomes stronger when Voldemort is around, and I am thinking a) once you've been a Death Eater you can never get rid of the mark or b) Snape has never got rid of the mark because there's a thin chance he still has an allegiance there. Carol responds: Crouch!Moody tells Snape (very cruelly) that "some marks never come off" (quoting from memory--sorry). The Dark Marks do, however, fade or darken as Voldemort loses or regains strength, as we see with Karkaroff as well as Snape. That fading (perhaps accompanied by some kind of pain) must be how the DEs knew that Voldemort had fallen but wasn't quite dead. (Snape could have conveyed this information to Dumbledore, which could be how DD learned about Godric's Hollow. Bellatrix and her cronies must have based their attack on the Longbottoms on the same source of information. How else would they know that LV wasn't dead?) Snape's Dark Mark *burns* when the loyal Death Eater Crouch!Moody refers to it: note that Snape clutches his arm convulsively but lets go when he realizes what he's doing, and he absent-mindedly rubs it as if it's hurting him when Harry speaks Voldemort's name during the first Occlumency lesson. To me, Snape's pain in these instances indicates that, far from still having any allegiance to Voldemort, he hates the Dark Lord, and the mark somehow senses that disloyalty and punishes him. I very much doubt that Snape would have courageously shown his Dark Mark to Fudge as proof that LV had indeed come back if he still had any loyalty to LV. I also think Snape's mark will fade permanently when Voldemort is finally destroyed (assuming that he doesn't die defending Harry and the Cause). Carol, who trusts Dumbledore's judgment regarding Snape and hopes he'll be rewarded with the DADA position at last From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:19:35 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:19:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "khinterberg" wrote: snip. >> Sorry for me to beat a dead horse (or cockroaches), but I went back > and reread this portion of the book. I was struck by this quote at > the very end of the chapter: > > "What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being > shouted at or *having jars thrown at him*--it was that he knew how it > felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers..." (p > 650, OotP US paperback) Alla: Oh, don't worry. Elves don't mind for two chapter discussions to be running together as long as there is an interest, or at least I've been told so. :o) I love that quote . Harry empasized with Snape right away and if only Snape gave him a chance to apologise... I think it is possible that jar exploded due to wandless magic, but Snape throwing it still seems more likely From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:30:15 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:30:15 -0000 Subject: Kids and grownups (Was: Just where is JKR getting her info from?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> I think this is true, especially for us hardcore readers. We're so > fascinated by the adults that we want them to be the heroes. But > the Trio are the heroes, and to some extent that means that the > adults are all failures, or at least, less than they might have > been. The adults, even those on the good side, are there to be > surpassed. Alla: Oy, Pippin. I do hope that you are wrong. Not in the sense that JKR is more interested in kids, unfortunately, I think it is true. I mean I love Harry dearly and want further and further exploration of his character, but except him I am much more interested in the adults and would much prefer... let's say further development of Lupin even if it would mean killing off ... Ron and Hermione. :o) No, I don't really want them to die. :) Pippin: > I think this really gets the goat of some readers, especially those > who think it's the job of a children's book to present adult role > models, especially in the case of McGonagall and Molly, who are > fine women in their way but not great heroines. Alla: I think that books will suffer significantly if the adults will not play at least somehow significant role in it. It is not realistic for children to figure out EVERYTHING by themselves. Am I being confusing? I do realise limitations of the genre and understand the fact that children will be main heroes, but I also hope that adult figure or figures will fight together witht hem in the final batle and yes, I do think that Lupin will be on the right side of it. :) Pippin: snip. More casual > fans, on the other hand, the sort of people who ask me when the > next book is due, generally counter "Lupin? Which one's he?" > Alla: You and me had very different experiences when talking to "casual" fans, Pippin. :o) I have a couple of friends who liked the books well enough, but who most certainly not obsessive as I am. :) They do not belong to the discussion groups, don't reread the books often, etc. They have no problem remembering and liking Remus. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:41:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:41:26 -0000 Subject: Whoops! Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Well, as much wicked pleasure as readers have gotten from "Whoops!", > something doesn't fit here. It doesn't seem in character for Snape > to break a vial in front of the entire class unless he was making a > point. He might snarl about the potion and tell Potter not to > bother, but purposely breaking it seems odd. Draco might have, and > Snape wouldn't punish him. Or it might have fallen. Alla: Hmmm, wicked pleasure. I don't know. I think Snape certainly got a lot of wicked pleasure out of it, as for me, I am not so sure. :) I am curious, why do you think it was out of character for Snape to break a vial in front of entire class? The purpose is humiliation and Snape certainly had no problme huimiliating Harry in front of entire class over and over again. Why breaking his vial was so different? Potioncat: > But you've given me a whole new idea!!!!!! Someone (sorry, I don't > recall who. Was it you, Alla?) suggested that the jar of cockroaches > wasn't thrown, but exploded much like Aunt Marge's glass. What if > the same thing happened to the vial? Alla: I think Carol suggested it. It is a strong possibility. Potioncat. > It just seems that JKR had a reason for us to not know what happened. Alla: But we do know what happened. The vial is on Snape's desk, so how Draco could smash it? I guess falling by itself is a possibility too, but Draco's involvement... I doubt it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:41:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:41:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115884 Annemehr wrote: > Before OoP came out, I used to think, what good did Hagrid expect a > crossbow to be against wizards with wands? But we saw when Umbridge > tried to have him arrested that Stunners just bounce off him. So in > Hagrid's hands, a crossbow might be an effective weapon against a > wizard, as long as he didn't lose it to a disarming spell. Carol responds: Your answer raises another question for me. Apparently wizards can't be killed in a car crash or from being splinched, and baby Harry didn't die when a house fell on him, so they're more resistant than Muggles to violent death. Could a wizard die if an arrow from Hagrid's crossbow struck his heart? Nearly Headless Nick died from a botched beheading, which makes me think that Walden Macnair's axe could possibly be used to execute more than hippogriffs. Do we know of anyone besides NHN who died in a Muggle sort of way, not from old age but from a fatal injury from some sort of weapon? The reason I'm asking is that maybe Alastor Moody (the auror, not the imposter) killed the few DEs he couldn't subdue using something other than the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra) despite the fact that Barty Sr. had okayed the use of Unforgiveable Curses by the aurors. (Young wizards have been killed during past Triwizard Tournaments. Surely they weren't AK'd by their opponents.) How, then, can witches and wizards be killed other than by an AK? Anybody have any ideas on this? Carol From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Oct 19 02:03:22 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:03:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) Message-ID: <141.3643cbf3.2ea5cfea@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115885 In a message dated 10/18/2004 6:42:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: Your answer raises another question for me. Apparently wizards can't be killed in a car crash or from being splinched, and baby Harry didn't die when a house fell on him, so they're more resistant than Muggles to violent death. How, then, can witches and wizards be killed other than by an AK? Anybody have any ideas on this? Carol I don't really think that Hagrid said this meaning that it wasn't possible to be killed in a car crash, but only that he was appaled at the thought that Harry had been lied to about his parents. And by doing so insulting their memory. Harry's survival from GH is still very secretive. He may have been there with some one who saved him from being crushed in the house. IMHO its very hard to say anything definate about the happenings at GH until JKR desides to spill the beans, but speculating sure does help pass some time! Also I do believe it is VERY posible for wizards to die in other ways than the AK. One thing that stands out for me is Dementors of course! But I would assume that wizards could be killed by other things as well. Harry would have been dead in CoS if not for Fawks, and Author Weasley in OotP when biten by Nagini if not for St. Mungo's so I would assume animal bites. Also in PS/SS if I remember corectly aren't two of Snapes potions (used to guard the stone) in the logic riddle Hermione solves poison. And I can't recall hearing any Wizards dieing in car crashes or things like that, but I believe it is possible. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 02:23:06 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:23:06 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115886 > Alla: > > Oh, don't worry. Elves don't mind for two chapter discussions to be > running together as long as there is an interest, or at least I've > been told so. :o) > > I love that quote . Harry empasized with Snape right away and if > only Snape gave him a chance to apologise... > > I think it is possible that jar exploded due to wandless magic, but > Snape throwing it still seems more likely Potioncat: Oh, two discussions can run at the same time! Absolutely. I really like the wandless, uncontrolled magic idea, but I think that last quote killed it. BTW, I think the "you'll think it was foreshadowed" quote from JKR about the most recent you-know-what in the Medium that Must Not be Mentioned refers to the "You filthy little cockroach!" scene. I'm sure we'll see more cockroaches. Yech! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 02:26:34 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:26:34 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115887 Finwitch wrote: > Also, if Aberforth was Muggleborn (and therefore, his brother Albus is > too), and not just Muggle, but also of a social class that was > generally illiterate those days. More so, a literate of that class > would have been burned at the stake or something due to all those > witch-hunts. > > So even if Aberforth (like Albus?) learned how to read, he certainly > would have *pretended* he didn't know how. Carol responds: While I think that DD's interest in Muggles is interesting and significant, is it likely that a Muggle child would be named Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore? And surely Albus and Aberforth would be members of the same social class, so if one needed to pretend to be illiterate, so would the other. And literacy was not taken as a sign of witchcraft when Aberforth was born (ca. 1845) regardless of social class. (I'm guessing that since his hair is grey rather than white, he's slightly younger than his brother). Nor were there any systematic witch hunts in Victorian England. To my knowledge, very few people were killed as witches in England after 1700. Neither Aberforth nor Albus would have been in any more danger than the Muggleborns of Harry's time or James's time. In any case,I don't think that DD is a Muggleborn. He seems extraordinarily well-suited to and at home in the WW. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he were a half-blood like Tom Riddle aka Voldemort. That might account for his reading Muggle newspapers and his fondness for sherbet lemons (which I think are hard on the outside like lemon drops but fizzy on the inside)? Carol, throwing in that last bit for the benefit of those of us whose editions say "lemon drops" in hopes that the Brits on the list will correct me if I'm in error From tinainfay at msn.com Tue Oct 19 02:30:39 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:30:39 -0000 Subject: What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: <141.3643cbf3.2ea5cfea@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > In a message dated 10/18/2004 6:42:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, > justcarol67 at y... writes: > Your answer raises another question for me. Apparently wizards can't > be killed in a car crash or from being splinched, and baby Harry > didn't die when a house fell on him, so they're more resistant than > Muggles to violent death. How, then, can witches and > wizards be killed other than by an AK? > > Anybody have any ideas on this? > > Carol (snip) > Harry's survival from GH is still very secretive. He may have been there > with some one who saved him from being crushed in the house. IMHO its very hard > to say anything definate about the happenings at GH until JKR desides to spill > the beans, but speculating sure does help pass some time! So true! (snip) > Also I do believe it is VERY posible for wizards to die in other ways than > the AK. But I would > assume that wizards could be killed by other things as well. And I can't recall hearing any > Wizards dieing in car crashes or things like that, but I believe it is possible. > > Chancie > Tina here: Another example that has often puzzled me is Tom Riddle's mother. She died in childbirth! How did a witch die during childbirth? Who's care was she under or was she alone? Well, someone was there to record the name... More questions, not a lot of answers - sorry! ~tina From hautbois1 at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 02:36:15 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:36:15 -0000 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115889 Carol wrote: How, then, can witches and wizards be killed other than by an AK? > > Anybody have any ideas on this? Just a thought... We saw in OotP a few instances of rather violent magic with possible nasty outcomes (or incarnations) The first that comes to mind is the curse YoungSnape uses on James out near the lake. He swipes his wand and a cut appears on James' face. Perhaps this can be used in more violent NHN-like ways? Also, the curse used against Hermione in the DoM could be another method of magical death... My guess is that these are just the tip of a "Magical Pyramid of Death"... Happy thoughts, everyone... Patrick From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 02:56:44 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:56:44 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts job, was, Dumbledore's motive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115890 Ten'ou wrote: > Or - and here's one of Ten'ou's inspirations that is either genius > or complete insanity... The position attracts evil. Like when you > have a ley line that's turned dark, it attracts dark things to it... > (like attracting like) This even explains Lupin, who has the > tendency to gnaw on people during a full moon unless he takes his > medicine like a good doggie. I for one think that is just a little > bit evil. > But, as evil has to be vanquished, the DADA professor has to be > offed - or in Lupin's case knows he is a danger to those around him > and resigns. And that's why a DADA professor doesn't stick around > for more than a year. > Ok, I think this theory needs a little more... time. > > Beatnik replied: > Ooh, I really like this theory, and think it leans more toward > genius than insantiy (of course, that could be because i'm somewhat > insane myself:)) It goes along with a pet theory I've had, which > relates back to something that a Weasley once said (sorry, can't > recall which book), something to the tune of "Some people reckon > that the DADA position is cursed." I think that these people might > reckon correctly. Is it possible to curse a teaching post? If so, > who's doing the cursing? Snape, so that he might get the job > someday or working on LV's orders? Some other evil person at > Hogwarts, who has not revealed their evilness yet? Or, DD, for > various motives that are being discussed in another thread. Anyway, > not much canon to support it, except the offhand Weasley comment, > but I think it's a possiblity. Carol notes: The Weasley who made the remark was Percy in SS/PS, citing a rumor rather than a known fact. I don't know what to think of the jinx idea except that Snape (whom we don't know to be evil and who probably isn't given DD's trust of him) would hardly be jinxing a position he applies for every year. (That was also a rumor until Snape confirmed its truth to Umbridge in OoP.) It's interesting that the position was considered jinxed even before Quirrell died, though he seems to be coming back to it after a year's absence doing practical research in Albania. He must have taught for at least a year before leaving. (Constance Vigilance, if she's reading this, will have some ideas on the subject.) If something as abstract and insubstantial as a teaching position can be jinxed, which seems unlikely, it would make sense that the person doing the jinxing would be a DE, someone like, say, Lucius Malfoy, who doesn't want the students to learn *defense* against the Dark Arts. In fact, if he hadn't given in to Narcissa, he have sent Draco to Durmstrang to learn the Dark Srts themselves rather than defense against them. Snape, on the other hand, studied very hard for his DADA OWL and evidently knew the subject in great detail even as a fifth-year. It seems most unlikely that he would put a jinx on a subject he cares so much about--or agree to substitute for Lupin, as he must have done every month though we only see the one lesson, if he thought the position was jinxed. Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 19 03:18:52 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:18:52 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115891 Neri: . But the conspiracy theories are so much more complicated than the canon version of the Shrieking Shack that I shudder to think how JKR is going to explain them in the middle of Book 7 dramatic climax. I expect ESE!Lupin will have to hold Harry at wand point and then take three chapters to explain to him how it is possible that he's ESE, including drawing that chart of the DoM positions. And we can't even count on DD filling the rest of the details later because he might not be alive by then. > > I really hope the resolution of Book 7 will be simpler than that. Pippin: I don't think it's *that* complicated. Most of the ESE!Lupin theory covers things that we've already been promised: more about the prank, more about the diary plot, more about the events at Godric's Hollow and immediately afterward, the resolution of the Peter Pettigrew plot thread etc. Once the reader accepts that Voldemort had a secret accomplice, the rest will fall into place.That plot development goes hand and hand with the search for a traitor within the present Order. That is almost a given, considering what we've been told. Both Hagrid and Sirius say that the horrible thing about Voldemort's reign of terror was not knowing whom they could trust. They lay more emphasis on that than on deaths and disappearances. The clues that relate specifically to Lupin: his difficulties with the boggart spell, and his possible co-operation in Peter's escape, are not that complex--and *he* doesn't have to present a chart of where everyone was in the Death Chamber in order to confess to killing Sirius. Harry only has to say "It was YOU" and Lupin can say that it was a desperate thing, but he was fortunate that no one saw him. It will be left as an exercise for the reader to go back and figure out why. We don't need an in depth exposition of Lupin's frustration about the way he was treated either...we got that in OOP, where the attitude of the wizarding world toward Harry was very much what Lupin must have experienced once he left Hogwarts. Harry was regarded as unbalanced and possibly dangerous, persecuted by Umbridge, jerked around by the ministry, had no one to turn to except his friends who were sympathetic but couldn't help much, and was banned from doing the one thing that he seemed born to do. Sound familiar? Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 19 04:06:28 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:06:28 -0000 Subject: What JKR finds important (Was Re: Kids and grownups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > I think this is true, especially for us hardcore readers. We're so > fascinated by the adults that we want them to be the heroes. But > the Trio are the heroes, and to some extent that means that the > adults are all failures, or at least, less than they might have > been. The adults, even those on the good side, are there to be > surpassed. > > I think this really gets the goat of some readers, especially those > who think it's the job of a children's book to present adult role > models, especially in the case of McGonagall and Molly, who are > fine women in their way but not great heroines. > I think this hits on a very important point. JKR has said time and again that this is *Harry's* story. In fact, she has gone so far as to say that Harry appeared, more or less full blown, in her imagination and she proceeded to wrap the story around him. This means that any other character, child or adult, is only important in so far as they touch on Harry. I sometimes think that were JKR not such a polite person, she would dissolve in torrents of laughter at many of the theories so hotly disputed and deeply held among long-time readers, myself included. Is Snape and his redemption the key to everything? Chuckle, titter, laugh! Does the prophecy actually refer to Neville? Guffaw! Is the basis and answer for everything to be found in the MWPP generation? Oh please cease and desist while I catch my breath! I think that the thing that ultimately "gets the readers' goat," to use pippin's expression, is that JKR really and truly doesn't care about many of the things we care about. What is the deep truth of Severus Snape and what will be the end of his story arc? I don't think she really cares except in so far as those things touch on Harry. Why does Albus let Snape do the things he does and what is the truth of the Albus/Snape relationship? If that is important to Harry and his story, we'll find out. If it isn't, she doesn't care very much. What were the deep structures of the relationships in the MMWP era? Once again, I don't think she cares except if it has something to do with *Harry.* Another way of putting it, at the risk of seeming flip, is that whereas all God's children may be equally important, all JKR's children simply aren't. We probably won't find out as much about Neville as some people would like because Neville just isn't as important as some people want him to be. Is the Snape/Harry dynamic important for the story? Of course. Is it the central and ultimate key to the story that many people regard it as being? Probably not. Is Ron's development as a character important? Certainly. Is it as important and as central as some fans would have it to be? Probably not. Ultimately the story just is not about Snape or Ron or Dumbledore or Neville or Hermione or Petunia or McGonagall or Molly or Remus or ANYBODY but Harry. Does that preclude development of these characters? No. Does that preclude these characters growing and changing? No. Does that preclude these characters moving to center stage? Absolutely and definitely. I predict (and I admit I'm terrible at predictions) that in the end, when we have all read book VII and are starting to wonder *Now what am I going to obsess about?* there are going to be an awful lot of disappointed people in the world. Because in the end I predict the story is not going to be about the themes and characters WE find fascinating, but about Harry, which is the character that JKR finds fascinating. Many of the stories WE want to be told aren't going to be revealed because they just aren't important, and many of the solutions that ARE revealed are going to strike us as simplistic in that they are SO Harry-centric. You mean that Snape really was just a nasty man who was in the story to provide conflict with Harry? You mean that MWPP was just there to provide some backdrop for Harry's life and family? You mean Albus really was telling the truth all along and he was just doing whatever he thought he had to do to keep Harry alive, victorious, and as happy as possible? You mean Ron, Hermione, and Neville in the end really are just supporting cast, albeit with important things to do? You mean that Molly really is just a mother who lets her instincts get in the way sometimes, and McGonagall really is a teacher with a heart of gold whose stern nature tends to cause problems? You mean Lupin really is just a werewolf who happens to be a nice guy? You mean Percy really was just an ambitious boy wanting out from under his family's shadow? You mean Draco really was just a conceited little junior Death Eater? You mean Slytherin House really was there mainly to provide a home for the school villains? You mean JKR really does think that courage is a higher virtue than ambition? You mean Hermione really was so smart so that JKR could drop needed info into the plot? You mean it all really was about a child wizard growing up to defeat an evil menace? To which JKR may very well reply, if she is so inclined, "Err, yes." Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 04:20:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:20:52 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115893 Sigune wrote: > I agree that Snape appears a loner etc, but I don't think that precludes a certain craving for recognition. I also have a problem with the assumption that the WW at large knows that Snape was a DE. If that is so, certainly a number of his students would know so, too ("My dad says Snape's a nasty piece of work, he used to be a Death Eater, you know; Papa doesn't want me to take Potions with him, he's sent Dumbledore several owls already"), and it wouldn't have been much of a discovery in GoF. This I agree with. Clearly the parents *don't* know that Snape was a DE or three/quarters of the parents would withdraw their children and send them to Beauxbatons. > > Sigune quotes Syroun: > < Does canon actually provide any proof that it was common knowledge > that Snape was a DE? In fact, canon shows that Snape himself has to > physically prove to Crouch Sr. that he was a DE by showing Crouch > his dark mark to convince him, albeit unsuccessfuly of LV's return. > It seemed to be quite a shock to Crouch.> > > Sigune pointed out an error: > He shows the Mark to *Fudge*. By that time, Crouch Sr is dead. Crouch Sr, by the way, KNEW about Snape's former DE allegiances: he had been the prosecutor in the DE trials, and though we aren't shown Snapes, we are shown Karkaroff's 'information session' in which Crouch hears DD mention, yet again, that Snape has switched sides. > In fact, the point I was arguing in the paragraph you quote was that > NO, the public did not know about Snape's DE activities. > > Seyroun asked: > > So, how could we conclude that a person like Crouch who travels in > many circles, would not know about Snape's DE past, if it really had > been common knowledge?> > > Sigune answered: > As I said, Crouch Sr DOES know. Carol adds: Right. Crouch Sr. knows. He presided at the hearing at which Snape was cleared and again at the hearing where Karkaroff testifies against Snape and Dumbledore states that Snape is "now no more a Death Eater than I am." But as I think Seyroun meant to say, *Fudge* apparently doesn't know. And if Fudge (who also "travels in many circles") doesn't know, it can't be common knowledge. That first hearing in which Snape was cleared of charges must have been very secret, involving only Snape, Crouch Sr., Dumbledore, possibly Alastor Moody, and perhaps an entity we haven't seen yet, a WW lawyer. The problem is not with that unpublicized hearing but with Karkaroff's testimony and DD's response, which must have been witnessed by about 200 people (probably not including Fudge, who at that time was a very junior MoM minister). Granted, Karkaroff's hearing was not open to the public (no Rita Skeeter reporting her biased record of events for the Daily Prophet's readers), but wouldn't those 200 people have spread the word somehow? How is it that Sirius Black (admittedly not in touch with Snape at that point but still a member of the Order) and the parents of Snape's students and Fudge and just about everyone in the WW does not seem to know about Snape's past? Would the witnesses, including the real Alastor Moody, have kept their mouths shut to protect Snape, Dumbledore's unlikely protege, because he would be in great danger from unjailed DEs if the word got out that he had spied for Dumbledore? That seems unlikely in the extreme, and yet clearly they have *not* spread the word. Why hasn't Alastor Moody, who was at Karkaroff's hearing and dislikes Snape, spoken out? Snape is not surprised that Crouch!Moody, whom he thinks is the real Moody, knows his DE past (and rubs it in), and the real Moody is very suspicious of Snape's loyalties during Karkaroff's hearing. Quite possibly it was Moody who arrested Snape and brought him to trial. So how was Moody silenced? How were all those other 200 people silenced? Was there, as Pippin suggests, a mass memory charm that erased the knowledge of Snape's past from all their minds (even, possibly, Alastor Moody's)? Were they sworn to secrecy before the hearing, not to protect Snape (whose name no one knew would come up) but to protect Karkaroff, the MoM's witness, with some sort of binding magical contract? That seems possible but again unlikely. All I can think of is that Severus Snape was little more than a boy at the time of the hearing, a young unknown of 22, and his name may have gone in one ear and out the other for those among the 200 witnesses who, unlike Moody, didn't know Snape. He was not a well-known figure like the rich and socially prominent Lucius Malfoy, whose name was actually reported in the papers as a victim of the Imperius Curse cleared by the Courts. Snape's name clearly was not on that list or Fudge would have known about it. So I think it must have been his youth and anonymity that protected Snape. The few people present who were parents of children at Hogwarts must have trusted Dumbledore's judgment in hiring Snape as a Potions Master and believed him that the young man was reformed. And the rest of the WW didn't know about his past because the mention of his name was just an obscure detail in a hearing that revealed the well-known and well-regarded Augustus Rookwood to be a Death Eater. They remembered Rookwood and forgot they'd ever heard of Snape. Does that make any sense? Is it more plausible than a mass memory charm or a magically binding pledge of silence? I know of no evidence that anyone besides Dumbledore, Karkaroff, HRH, a few Order members (including Moody, Lupin, and the now-dead Sirius Black) knows about Snape's DE past, though it's a safe bet that Lucius Malfoy, the Lestranges, and the rest of the inner circle DEs know. Can anyone provide evidence that someone outside these two small groups is aware of it? Does anyone have a better explanation (short of a Flint) as to why they don't? I'm not saying, BTW, that I think Snape was unimportant as a DE. He must have been a member of the inner circle, as Karkaroff also was, given Karkaroff's deference to the much younger Snape at Hogwarts (not to mention the probablility that Snape is "the one who has left forever" in the graveyard scene). I'm only trying to account for the apparent fact that his DE past is not well-known within the WW, even to people like Fudge who are fairly well-acquainted with him. Carol, who thinks that Sanpe's boggart is the specter of his DE past and that he'll have to face it in Book 7 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 04:36:38 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:36:38 -0000 Subject: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115894 I (Carol) wrote: > > Del is right, based on Snape's own remarks. But Occlumency is a rare skill and Snape is not only a "superb Occlumens," he is the only one available. If Lupin or McGonagall could have done it, Dumbledore would have asked them to. (The werewolf business would have made it difficult for Lupin to teach Harry, but arrangements could have been made--the Shrieking Shack, for example.) But Snape was the only available candidate. > > Vekkel responded: > I can think of one person who could have probably done a much better > job than Snape. He has a long white beard and was a former teacher, > headmaster as well, would even probably work better with Harry than > Snape, and I'm sure has much more experience. > > Carol again: Except that DD *couldn't* teach Harry and could not even look at him without Snake!Voldemort surfacing in Harry's eyes. He had to choose someone else, or thought he did, and the only available candidate was Snape. Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 04:59:49 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:59:49 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared/why theorise? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115895 > Carolyn: > Hmm..Neri, I think you may be being just a little disingenuous. Not > so long ago you enthusiastically put up 106729 (Three Black Sisters), > 105599 (Bertha, Florence etc), and more recently a very extended > analysis of the The Snape-Malfoy Connection (sorry, don't have HP > number handy) that you were so irritated not to get discussed > properly here that you took it to HH. None of these were simple > theories, they certainly had conspiracy ramifications if true, and I > found them fascinating. Methinks you are as addicted as the rest of > us . Neri: If it wasn't obvious until now, I hereby declare that I'm addicted to HP theories and conspiracy as much as any member of this list! I never claimed otherwise, and I would have looked rather ridiculous if I tried :-) > Carolyn: > However I will quote from your response [111845], since you used your > reply, in part, to not only respond to Kneasy, but to give a lengthy > answer to an offlist question of mine, which I should have responded > to before. You said: 'I don't condemn theorising at all, not even > conspiracy theorising. It's fun. The question I ask, however, is > which kind of theories is likely to be prove right.' The criteria for > being right you suggested were (a) that they conformed to JKR's > style; and (b) they should simplify rather than complicate. > Neri: We probably have a semantic misunderstanding here. I indeed have no problem with conspiracy and had theorized about it myself (as you've noticed). When I used the term "conspiracy theories" upthread I didn't mean "any theory that contains conspiracy". I meant a group of theories that have several common characteristics. One of these characteristics, which is the relevant to our current discussion, is indeed that they tend to complicate the picture a lot. I don't have a problem with this either, I'm only saying that they aren't likely to prove right. Regarding my posts that you mentioned above, I never thought to dignify my "Three Black Sisters" and "Bertha, Florence, etc" posts with the term "theory". They were merely some sloppy timelining and wild speculations. The Snape-Malfoy connection is indeed a theory (if anybody interested it is in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/2772 ) and it indeed aspires to be a simplifying theory: It makes a single assumption (the second paragraph of the post) and all the rest of the long post is just to show that several different and seemingly unrelated mysteries are nicely solved if we accept this single assumption. > Carolyn: > I think this misses the point somewhat. Firstly, things only look > complicated when you don't have the full picture. How many detective > stories have you not been able to figure out, yet all the pieces fall > into place in the final chapter - it is all so obvious in hindsight? Neri: Yes, this is so with GOOD detective stories. What is typical to good detective stories is that they give simple solutions to seemingly complicated situations. We then get this unique feeling that "all the pieces fall into place". If it is a BAD detective story we don't get this feeling even in hindsight. This is because bad detective stories complicate instead of simplify. > Carolyn: > She's fooled us repeatedly, and often through introducing quite un- > guessable plot developments. > > For instance, ok we were introduced to the concept of Polyjuice in > CoS, but then we were supposed to guess that this *dear friend of > Dumbledore's*, this *friend and TRUSTED teacher of Harry's* was going > to have been using it for a year and turn out to be as thoroughly > killer ESE! as any fevered Lupin or Sirius theory ?? Well, I didn't > guess, and I bet you didn't, and anyway it is a bit clunky as a > solution, isn't it? Bit like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.. Neri: Yes, the Crouch!Moody mystery was the greatest mystery we had in HP until now, and as a detective story it wasn't perfect. It certainly had some weak points. Still, it was not bad either, and it took only 9 pages (the veritaserum confession) to be fully explained. MD and the other ESE theories will require much more than that to be explained, and I suspect that many readers (including myself) will still find it difficult to understand them. > Carolyn: > I really don't see much difference between her doing that and > producing ESE!Lupin - Harry is not that close to him, and the > character profile she has built is extremely ambiguous. > Neri: Interestingly, I don't feel Lupin is ambiguous, and I know many other readers who don't feel that way either. JKR also, judging by several interviews, don't consider him ambiguous. I find Snape or even Neville considerably more ambiguous than Lupin. > Carolyn: > I don't particularly buy ESE!Sirius myself, but I am increasingly > converted to the idea of his moral cowardice and stupidity the more I > think over the whole SK incident, and consider Peter's character, and > his relationship with the rest of the marauders, Lily and Dumbledore. > This kind of subtle let down is totally her style, IMO. Neri: I won't get into this discussion because we had it many times in this list, some of it very recently (check Kneasy and Nora's posts), but I read Sirius' character very differently. IMO he is flawed (like most of the other characters) but certainly not stupid or morally coward. In any case, I suspect the characters of Sirius and even more so Peter are too secondary to be that subtle and deep. IMO they mainly serve as plot devices. They were never meant to be dissected that deeply, and this is why they are sometimes inconsistent. > Carolyn: > On MD, well, it's not *that* complicated is it? Well, ok, it > needs concentration, but anyway what's wrong with having to take a > lot of notes and work out what MDDT are saying? JKR spent five years > working out this plot, and has got umpteen boxes of stuff filled with > background to these books, and in-depth characterizations for every > key player. MDDT are just returning the compliment and trying to > figure out her reasoning. Neri: There is nothing wrong with taking notes and I do it A LOT. However, I still believe that the main plot and theme of HP were meant to be accessible to the average reader who doesn't keep several notebooks and files, and doesn't take notes while reading. JKR puts in a lot of work and takes a lot of notes and rewrites many times in order to make the end result as simple and coherent as possible. I try to return this compliment. > Carolyn: > OOP largely proved MD was correct, in the sense that Dumbledore was > revealed to have had a plan, and be the leader of a spy network, all > with complex missions which we are only given hints about. Neri: Yes, the parts I like best in MD is he background assumptions: The spy war (I wouldn't call it spy "games"; it's not James Bond) and DD's political agenda. It is the specific interpretation of Snape and the Marauders' story that is, IMHO, problematic. And this part wasn't prooved correct in OotP. > Carolyn: > I note that you ended post 111845 on this note: 'I'm not saying, > however, that all this should prevent us from making the wildest > speculations and theories. It's a lot of fun, and it's the kind of > fun that doesn't last forever...*I'm* going to make the most of it > while I still can.' > > Somehow, this sounds *exactly* like what Kneasy is saying...and is a > POV, I can endorse with enthusiasm. > Neri: Thanks! It seems to me that you find my opinions inconsistent only because you refuse to believe that I mean exactly what I write (too much conspiracy theorizing perhaps ;-) ) . I can only repeat my position again: I'm not against conspiracy theories and I'm not against wild speculation and I'm not against taking notes and I do all this a lot myself and it's a lot of fun. However, I ask the simple question: which kind of theory is more likely to prove right? My conclusions are that, besides the obvious, two additional properties are needed: The theory should fit with JKR's style, and it should simplify the picture rather than complicate it. MD and the other three theories you discussed don't fit, IMO, with these two criteria, and this is why I believe that none of them will prove right. Again, this doesn't mean that they aren't fun. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 05:16:09 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:16:09 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford/Diggle/Flitwick/Wizards at Large. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115896 bboyminn wrote: > > > First, it is /extremely/ unlikely that the wizard Vernon bumped into > outside Grunnings was Prof. Flitwick. Prof. Flitwick has to stand or > sit on a stack of books when he is behind his desk in order for the > students to be able to see him. The average desk is 30 inches high; > that make Flitwick 30" to 36" inches tall (best guess). > > True the narration which reflects Vernon's perspective describes the > wizard as 'tiny', but again, that's from the perspective of a large > portly rotund man. Also, the tiny wizard hugs Vernon around the > middle. Flitwick would have hugged him around the thighs. > > In addition, Dedalus Diggle is probably not the only short wizard who dresses in purple and wears a top hat. However, I will admit, he is the only one that has been specifically mentioned. > > I did find a place where Dedalus Diggle is referred to as 'tiny'. > > > Since Dedalus is described as tiny and short and he is prone to > wearing violet, then he could have been the 'tiny old man ... that > ...was wearing a voilet cloak'. A few sentences later the wizard in > the 'bumping' incident is described as speaking 'in a squeaky voice > that made passersby stare'. > > So, what is missing to confirm that this is Mr. Diggle, is some > reference to Diggle as being OLD and speaking in a SQUEAKY voice. > Barring these confirmation, we can't conclude that the wizard in > question was Diggle. We can suspect it, but we can't conclude it. > > I do however think that we can conclude that Prof. Flitwick's > appearance is so extreme that it would not have escaped Uncle Vernon's notice or comment. > Carol responds: OoP comes close to what you're looking for: "'We've met before,' squeaked the excitable Diggle, dropping his top hat" (OoP Am. ed. 49) Nothing about being old or or tiny or wearing a violet cloak, but we definitely have the squeaky voice (and the same excitable personality as the wizard who hugged Vernon Dursley on the street). I'd say it's highly unlikely that JKR would introduce two such wizards. It has to be Dedalus Diggle, and I think we'll find that he, like Mrs. Figg, has been keeping an eye on Harry since he first arrived at 4 Privet Drive. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 05:27:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:27:01 -0000 Subject: Aberforth as DADA teacher/Dumbledore Muggleborn? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115897 Ginger signed off with: > Ginger, who thinks that Krum as the next DADA teacher would be > interesting. Carol responds: My apologies for snipping your post but I've already expressed my views on Aberforth. I think poor Viktor would be embarrassed to teach Harry, who defeated him (and was forced to stupefy him) in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. And it would be hard for him to come back knowing that Cedric, whom he Crucio'd under an Imperius Curse, had been murdered soon afterward. I do like Viktor and think we'll see him again in some capacity in Book 7. Maybe he knows where Karkaroff is, or maybe he's determined to fight Voldemort and the DEs because of what Crouch!Moody did to him (and Fleur and Harry and Cedric). I could see him and Snape somehow forming a bond and working together. Will a good former student from Durmstrang count as a substitute good Slytherin? Carol, who will now think of McGonagall as Minnie McG thanks to your filk From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 06:01:18 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:01:18 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115898 Pippin asked: > > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been > Voldemort's spy for a whole year? Carol responds: What he did in the duel with Sirius apparently took brains, didn't it? Blowing off his finger, turning into a rat, and making himself look like a murder victim, whether or not he actually blew up the street and killed the Muggles, which I think he did? (He probably made sure that Sirius had his wand out, though, so it looked like he did it.) But as for spying, all he had to do is report what happened in the Order meetings and reveal names of Order members so the DEs could kill them off one or two at a time. It *must* have been the spy's information that was used to locate the people who were murdered (Marlene Mackinnon, Benjy Fenwick, the Prewitts, etc.), and I see nothing in canon to indicate that Peter could not have given that information directly to LV and quietly returned to his supposed friends. No lying or cleverness involved; just silence and a pretense of horror with each new victim. This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK an innocent boy without a second thought. If he can do something that cold and evil, he can pretend to be loyal to the Order while he was revealing the names of its members to Voldemort. And having betrayed all those others made it that much easier to betray James and Lily and their infant son. Carol, who just wants to know what happened at Godric's Hollow and the confrontation between Sirius and Peter without complicating matters with conspiracy theories From Tenou0 at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 01:36:27 2004 From: Tenou0 at gmail.com (Tenou) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:36:27 -0000 Subject: Forms of address II/Saints in the WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115899 Brian: > > Students overwhelmingly prefer to use last-name address with each > > other, e.g., "Potter," "Malfoy." Being addressed by family name signifies a colleague, familiarity because of ones situation, position, age, etc. however not on friendly terms. ('Potter' and 'Malfoy') Also used to show respect for upper classmates who do not lay claim to a title, being too young for Mr. Also team mates may call each other by family name at all times as a show of elitism. (Malfoy, referring to his 'gang' by family name) This is the way it was at my school, and seems to be the same at Hogwarts. There are a few more nuances... but they are more difficult to explain if you haven't experienced it. Brian: > > Teachers seem to use last name address toward students and other > > teachers. Finwitch: > Snape keeps saying Potter! (And Harry, likewise, calls him Snape most > of the time) but I seem to recall other teachers using Mr/Miss - > unless, of course, they're *listing* names. This may signify the importance of family - both with the teachers, and between the students... Ok, here's another insight, which may or may not be ingenious. Harry refers to all of his friends by first name: Ron, Hermione, Luna, Neville. However, Malfoy introduces himself as Malfoy and refers to his 'friends' by family name. As we all know, Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle are elitists who place more importance on who their family is than on what kind of people they are. This could be a reference to what kind of people Harry associates himself with - those who don't really care that he's The Harry Potter, they care about him. However, Malfoy would not associate with Crabbe and Goyle if their fathers had not been part of the right crowd, if they had not been 'pure blood', had they not been Slytherin. But back to the point at hand, teachers using Mr/Miss most likely is a reference to the rigid structure or formality of the classes, probably most evident in McGonagall's classes. However, using the given name shows that the walls are coming down, a personal connection. Snape and Potter referring to each other by family name... that is most likely to show disrespect for each other. Though that could be reversed to say that they are on friendly terms, past the need for Mr, however, because of the difference in status, the elder (teacher) may refer to the younger by family name only, though the younger will continue to refer to the elder with a title until such a time when they are of an equal status. Finwitch: > Either way, it must create big confusion with all the Weasleys, twins > in particular. I mean, just imagine it... Most of the confusion would be cut down because the Weasley offspring do not share classes with the notable exception of the twins, in which case I'm sure that even if the teacher can tell them apart, most likely s/he is reprimanding both of them. If it were McGonagall speaking to all of Gryffindor house and wanting to single out one of the Weasleys, she would use given and family name if she didn't look directly at the subject in question to get hir attention to let hir know s/he is the one being addressed. Finwitch: >Mind you, even Filch's *cat* is referred to as Mrs.! Curious indeed. Giving a title to an animal ('Mr. Ed', Willow and Tara's 'Miss Kitty') is presumptuous and tries to lend importance to the animal that it does not possess. No matter how you look at it, Mrs. Norris is merely a squibs cat with no power of her own. Brian: >> St. Mungo's Hospital brings the MW idea of "sainthood" into the WW. >> Any theories? Some of the saints of Ireland (some of which were common amongst all Celts) may have originated as ancient Gaulish deities such as Bride/Brigid who was a goddess of Fertility in Ireland and Britain. Very connected to the earth and now in more modern times, paganism. Their is a Scottish saint nicknamed Mungo - his real name starts with something that reminds me of Wolfville - sometime around the 4th - 6th century AD, but I don't remember his origins) move from mythology - Christian mythology included - to the WW. Some other evidence would suggest that not all of JKR's creations are original, Merlin, Grindelwald (which sounds a lot like Grendel) and Hippogriffs are the ones springing to mind at the moment. Ten'ou From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 01:37:04 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:37:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115900 > Dungrollin wrote: > > The pantsing was during O.W.L.s, at the end of the 5th year, and > > Sirius says that Lily started going out with James in the seventh > > year (by which time he'd reformed enough to make Head Boy, too). > > So what was it that happened in the sixth year to deflate James' > > head, and turn him into Mr. Morality? > > Reed wrote: > Could it be the famous 'prank'? It happened when Sirius was 16, so > probably in their 6th year. I imagine that this could have been the > moment where James realised that they were overstepping the line of > 'practical jokes' and the experience could have changed his general > behaviour quite a bit. Tammy: Good point. Presumably all the things that MWPP did to Snape (and others) were humiliating, but harmless stunts. The prank in 6th year would have killed Snape, or turned him into a werewolf, had James not stopped it. It probably crossed the boundary so much that James at the very least changed his behaviour. I read a wonderful fanfiction somewhere at one point that also pointed out that had the prank "suceeded" (by killing Snape) Lupin would have been killed or ended up in Azkaban most likely, so even Lupin would have been pissed off about the incident. -Tammy From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 02:03:35 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:03:35 -0000 Subject: Black and Lupin was CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115901 > >Dungrollin: > snip > > There's that sideways look of Lupin's at Sirius, when Sirius > > says `I'm not proud of it'. Is Lupin surprised at Sirius > > saying this, as he'd never heard him express regret about the > > marauders' behaviour towards Snape before? Or does Lupin think > > it's an understatement of how Sirius really feels? Or is Lupin > > aware of exactly what Sirius isn't saying, and checking the > > expression on Sirius' face to make sure that he doesn't give > > something away? Or, perhaps, Lupin is fully aware that Sirius is, > > actually, *extremely* proud of that moment, and re-tells the story > > in excruciating detail at every opportunity? > snip > > Potioncat: > Yes, there seems to be something left out. And the way you asked > the questions makes me think of the scene in PoA when Lupin and > Snape have the conversation about the map. They know what they are > really saying but we don't. And some of us needed a guide to lead us > through that conversation even after reading the book several times. > > But I do get the feeling when Harry is talking to Black and Lupin > about his father, that Lupin is looking to Serius either for > guidence or to evaluate what he will say. I have that same feeling throughout this part of chapter 29. The thing that sets me off is that Harry, wanting to talk to Sirius about his Dad, gets Lupin instead. And when he explains to Lupin what he wants, Lupin doesn't just send Sirius in, but stays for the discussion. And then seems to be at great pains to defend James for actions which apparently he did not approve of at the time (even if he didn't step in to stop them). And Sirius keeps talking "bracingly" as if he expects Harry to collapse if he discovers that his father was flawed. And another thing that puzzles me. Lupin asks how Snape took it when he discovered Harry's intrusion. (How like him to get to the heart of the real problem so quickly.) Sirius is angry and wants to have it out with Snape. But Lupin quickly insists that if anyone is going to talk to Snape, it should be him. Which reminds me of how, back when Harry was asking questions about the Order, it is Lupin who finally says "that's enough for Harry to know for now," and Sirius yields to that. After arguing the point heatedly with Molly, he is willing to bow to Lupin's opinion, never bringing up "but I'm his Godfather, at James' wishes," which would surely carry some weight with Lupin. Very interesting. Of course, I trust Lupin's judgment far more than Black's in this book. But it seems plain to me that more is going on between those two than meets the eye. Like, Lupin asks eagerly "Was he playing with the snitch?" and gets all reminiscent about it. But in the penseive scene, Lupin was the Marauder least attentive to that annoying little game. And then, when Harry asks if James stopped hexing Snape after his head got deflated and he started dating Lilly, Lupin gets very careful in his explanation. It seems that he doesn't wish to lie, but is trying to put the very best face on the issue that he can. Is he concerned that Harry's admiration for his father is seriously in danger with the full story? Wondering, Andrea From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 02:11:55 2004 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:11:55 -0000 Subject: Another death? (in HBP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115902 > Carol: > Suppose she removes his (adult) support group one person at a > time: first Lupin, then McGonagall, then Dumbledore--and his > support group is reduced to one person, Snape, as it was in OoP, > only this time the others are all dead? Now Kelly: OH NO!!!! I can't even imagine all of them being killed off, but I'm sure some will be. My bet is Arthur, Molly, or Lupin next, simply because they are parental like in Harry's life. Kelly Who may stop reading the series, if Snape is Harry's only ally left. Well, not really, but I won't be happy. ;) From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 02:17:34 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:17:34 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: <20041018172225.43811.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115903 > Finwitch: > > Further, that Harry's required to 'prove his innocence' by giving > > out the details is, in itself, against basic human rights. Sure, > > it makes it easier for people to believe him, but... Magda: > "Against basic human rights" - which ones? And how exactly is > providing evidence against basic human rights? Perhaps the reference is to the familiar judicial principle "innocent until proven guilty." And then there is the Fifth Ammendment to the US Constitution, which ensures that individuals do not have to testify against themselves, lest they somehow incriminate themselves. After all, when one is accused, even just of lying, anything they say may be used against them. (I'm curious, does British law have similar provision?) But that is in law. In personal relations, it seems reasonable that Seamus would want more information. Perhaps even so he could convince his Mom to lay off Harry. I don't think Seamus was trying to catch Harry up, but evidently Harry did. His traumatic experiences since book 4 really impaired his judgment, IMO. Pondering, Andrea From apeiron at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 02:19:53 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:19:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1098152393.1547.52.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 115904 On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 01:41 +0000, Carol wrote: [snippy snip snip] > Could a wizard die if an arrow from Hagrid's crossbow struck his heart? [further snippage] I don't believe that Hagrid's crossbow is a Muggle crossbow. I'm not sure what that implies, but I don't believe that he'd use something "ordinary" if he could employ a wizarding version. The wizarding version would logically be enchanted, and thus able to deal physical damage to a wizard or other magical being. Further, I doubt that a Muggle crossbow would do much good against, say, a Centaur. They've probably long since evolved -- either intrinsically or via magic -- to shrug off the effects of Muggle crossbows. I imagine that many Muggles have tried to hunt / exterminate them with crossbows and other mundane weaponry. It'd be foolish to not develop an easily-maintainable defence against such common implements. > The reason I'm asking is that maybe Alastor Moody (the auror, not the > imposter) killed the few DEs he couldn't subdue using something other > than the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra) despite the fact that Barty Sr. > had okayed the use of Unforgiveable Curses by the aurors. (Young > wizards have been killed during past Triwizard Tournaments. Surely > they weren't AK'd by their opponents.) How, then, can witches and > wizards be killed other than by an AK? Let's set aside non-human magical life forms and their possible aggregate byproducts (potions, powders, etc.) for the moment. I posit that wizarding weapons are embued with magic just like the very people who make them. This magic is necessary, IMO, to harm magical beings, as they're resilient to mundane forms of physical harm. Young Harry, for example, survived his house being destroyed around him (assuming that he wasn't removed from said house before it was destroyed, but then that raises the questions of who did so and how they did so while avoiding the party responsible for destroying the house). And then there's Quidditch: people get whacked in the back of the head but keep on playing. I don't know about you, but I'd have fallen to a very unhappy end if that happened to me. These points lead me to believe that there's something "extra" about wizarding weaponry which enables said weaponry to effect damage upon its targets. Now, let's return to non-human magical life forms and their byproducts. As Chancie noted in another reply to Carol's post, things like Beholders Dementors pose great risk to wizards -- though both are highly magical creatures. And there's dragons, unicorns, blast-ended skrewts, etc. Sure, wizards do seem to be protected from the most mundane forms of physical harm -- but there's also a great deal of other things out there in the Wizarding World which are very capable of causing great harm. If there weren't, the Weasleys' clock wouldn't need spots for "Mortal Peril". I hope that this has answered your question. Best regards, Christopher Nehren -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 06:52:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:52:46 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115905 I (Carol) wrote: > > But I don't think Percy is old for his year. In fact, I think he's young for it. Most wizards learn to apparate at seventeen, when they come of age. Percy makes a big deal of his newfound ability to > > apparate at the beginning of GoF, when he has just left school. This suggests that he has only recently turned seventeen, either at the end of the school year or during the summer. > > Hickengruendler: > > We already know Percy's birthday. It's August 22nd, JKR wished him a > Happy Birthday on her website. Therefore you are right that his > birthday is during the summer. However, since he's four years older > than Harry, and Harry was fourteen at this time, Percy was already > eighteen. Therefore he really waited around a year to make his > apparating-license. Carol responds: Thanks. I missed that. But he's young for his year, despite being late to apparate, so my point (long lost through snipping) still applies: We can't solve the problem of Charlie's age by making Percy old for his year because he isn't. And we've still got the statement in SS/PS books that it's been seven years since Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup. As I said earlier in response to Lawless's detailed post, there's no way that Charlie, the Quidditch captain and champion, would have let his team lose for the last four years of his stay at Hogwarts, and adjusting Percy's age to make him old for his year wouldn't help much even if an August birthdate didn't destroy that argument. In other words, we just have to accept yet another inconsistency because JKR is hopeless at math. Anyway, thanks for the info. I'm glad she wished Percy a happy birthday. It shows there's hope for him after all. Now I just need to wait for Snape's! Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 06:55:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:55:25 -0000 Subject: Saints in the WW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tenou" wrote: Ten'ou: > Their is a Scottish saint nicknamed Mungo - his real name starts with > something that reminds me of Wolfville - sometime around the 4th - > 6th century AD, but I don't remember his origins) move from > mythology - Christian mythology included - to the WW. Some other > evidence would suggest that not all of JKR's creations are original, > Merlin, Grindelwald (which sounds a lot like Grendel) and Hippogriffs > are the ones springing to mind at the moment. Geoff: May I draw your attention to a thread of about 8 or 9 posts entitled "Side Note: St.Mungo's" which starts at message 79361 and gives a little more information. From syroun at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 03:37:05 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:37:05 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape? Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115907 > Sigune: > Crouch does point it out himself as well - sorry, I forgot about > that line:"'Snape has been cleared by this council,' said Crouch > coldly. 'No! shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains which > bound him to the chair. 'I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death > Eater!'" (GoF Ch. 30 The Pensieve, p. 513 British ed.) > That is when DD rises to re-state that he has given evidence on > the matter...What keeps puzzling me - but I have little knowledge > of the workings of law and court - is that Snape is 'cleared'. The > word suggest to me that he is proved not guilty, whereas he > clearly has been a Death Eater. Does anybody know what kind of > status spies have, that is, are they 'cleared' of crimes committed > because they made 'good' use of their experiences in the end? Syroun comments: In the States, it is common to offer persons immunity from prosecution in return for substantial cooperation in terms of testimony or information provided on a one-time basis or as an on- going provision. It could have involved a similar arrangement or a type of plea bargain or even further down the road of speculation....a kind of witness relocation program, in that Snape is under DD protection at Hogwarts in return for apparent abandonment of his DE background. > Even so, I think a verdict of 'not guilty' is a bit rich, but > maybe that's just me. I agree; he was obviously guilty but escaped prosecution and public disgrace for a reason. I still contend that this is further proof that he is/was involved, in an intergal way, with the DE's and will eventually prove to show reason for continued distrust. Syroun From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 02:59:17 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:59:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115908 >Potioncat: snippage > CHAPTER QUESTIONS: > > 2. Harry lets everyone think his bad mood is due to the upcoming > > O.W.L.s. But Ginny sees that it is something else. She advises > > immediately that he talk to Cho. But when he tells her the real > > problem she quickly comes up with a solution for that. What does > > this say about Ginny? > > Meri: That she's got brains and moxie. Ginny really gets developed > in this book, and though some people find it out of character I > couldn't disagree more. She's grown up a bit, gotten over the self- > confidence problem that she had around Harry, still perhaps harbors > an unrequetted crush on him, but is ready to live her own life, too. > She fought so well in the DoM, she really proved herself as better > than just "Ron's little sister". I agree wholeheartedly! This wasn't a sudden character change, nor was it unexplained. Ginny was already identified as a forceful character several books ago by her brother Ron ("she never shuts up, normally") and Hermione has evidently gathered lots of evidence of her individuality from their long-standing acquaintance. That some growth happened "offscreen" so to speak is evident, but since the narrative POV always hovers around Harry, and since Ginny's tendency was to clam up around him because of her crush, this is to be expected, IMO. To be a bit more specific about the implications about Ginny from this scene: 1)She is intuitive. She knows there's more to Harry's distress than he lets on. 2)She is still very aware of and concerned for Harry's emotional well-being, but has truly let go of her own hopes for a relationship. She knows he and Cho are on the outs, and figures that for a likely cause of Harry's unease. Rather than saying "you're better off without her," she says, "talk to her." This is one really together young lady. 3) Her major familial attachment-- I mean the people in her family that she feels most admiration for, the ones whose attitudes and actions most infulence her--is to the twins. That explains several of her other unexpected character traits/actions in the book, like throwing dungbombs at the door at 12 Grimmauld Place. > snip > > 8. McGonagall ignores Umbridge, and pretends to think Umbridge > > has a sore throat. Then she is scornful of Umbridge's note and > > quotes Lupin as a better judge of DADA knowledge. What do you > > think of McGonagall in this situation? This scene really tickled me in many ways, especially since early in the book, it was MM urging Harry to keep his tongue and his temper around DJU. And yet, on Harry's behalf, she winds up in a yelling match that Harry hears all the way down the hallway on his way out! Of course, even if she doesn't meet her own principles of behavior, her repartee and cleverness in disputing outclasses the toad's on every level. > snip > > 11. The twins leave Hogwarts as heroes. Do you think we'll see > > these two playing a big role again? Having declared their independence from Hogwarts and having proven themselves quite capable of taking care of themselves financially (I wonder how soon they'll be trying to pay back Harry's "investment?") I am sure that not even their formidable mother can keep them from joining the order. And they could be brilliant at it, as well as funny. I just hope that DD remembers their hot-headed nature and doesn't put them in temptations' way of acting without thinking of the consequences. Of course, whatever they do for the Order will put them in harms way, and that shivers me. > > 12. Your own question here. Meri: > How freaking awesome was Fred and George's escape? Was that not the > single coolest scene ever? Was anyone else cheering and jumping up > and down when that happened? [Awkward silence...] Okay, just me > then! No, Meri, it was not just you. I'm sure I did a little dance right there in the middle of the livingroom. Just thinking about that scene still gets me to grinning. exultantly, Andrea From syroun at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 03:57:33 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:57:33 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115909 Sigune: > Well, 1) we know from OotP that he's not in the group photo of the Order Moody shows Harry; syroun: >which proves nothing... Nora: > Please clarify this blank assertion. If we review canon, we see that Snape was admittedly a DE and has, at some point, turned to the side of DD and has become a closet member of the OOTP. I tend to think his defection was nothing new, and had occured some time ago, perhaps even during LVWI. If that had been the case, it would have served no good purpose to "out him" as a member of the OOTP; indeed, it would have been a death sentence. I think that he may have very well have been a longer term member of the order but not included in the photo. Of course, that is pure speculation, but on the other hand, there is no proof that each and every member of the order was seen in that photo. Nora: > It seems, that unlike the DEs, the Order does *not* have a > situation wherein the members do not necessarily know who the > other members are. I do not agree. If this were the case, Sirius would have known of Snape's defection to the order, but he did not. I think that DD is intentional in his deliberate and painstaking efforts to control the delivery of information to characters, e.g. Harry, order members, etc. His choice of who to tell what, in my view, has a profound effect on the progress of events and is done so with reason. > Sigune: > Are you talking about the present OotP or the past OotP... See above...I think it is a question as to when he actually defected - before LV's demise or after the war? Syroun From Snarryfan at aol.com Tue Oct 19 09:43:13 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:43:13 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115910 Sigune: > > Are you talking about the present OotP or the past OotP... Syroun: > See above...I think it is a question as to when he actually > defected - before LV's demise or after the war? It was before, when only those who know the prophecy could see the end of LV's reign: "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." (GOF, ch 30) Now, did Snape heard the prophecy and thought to go before it was too late? Christelle From cat_kind at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 10:04:16 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:04:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115911 > Alla: > > > I agree, most of the time JKR plants very skillfull clues (as long > as we forget about Mark Evans fiasco :o)) > > Let's speculate that McGonagall and Dumbledore are both dead at the > end. Who do you think will be a Headmaster? catkind: The remaining Heads of House would seem to be the obvious candidates, i.e. Snape, Flitwick and Sprout. Snape seems to be a generally nasty piece of work, and I wouldn't put very high odds on him surviving the series either, so we are left with Flitwick and Sprout. We haven't heard much about either of them, but we have to assume some leadership qualities and they seem to be good and unbiased teachers. It would be nice to think the WW will be sufficiently revolutionised that Lupin is a candidate. He seems to be one of the cooler heads in the books, and is depicted as an inspired/inspiring teacher, even above McGonagall. I could see him slipping into the wise leader role, if he's got over the blind loyalty to his friends. The poor sod hardly has friends left to be blindly loyal to. From ilana_lydia at hotmail.com Tue Oct 19 10:22:45 2004 From: ilana_lydia at hotmail.com (Ilana Lydia) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:22:45 -0700 Subject: What JKR Finds Important (previously Kids and Grownups) References: <1098174370.3836.23114.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115912 Hi Everyone. I've enjoyed reading the incredibly diverse views here--thanks for letting me come out and play. Lupinlore wrote: JKR has said time and again that this is *Harry's* story. In fact, she has gone so far as to say that Harry appeared, more or less full blown, in her imagination and she proceeded to wrap the story around him. This means that any other character, child or adult, is only important in so far as they touch on Harry. I sometimes think that were JKR not such a polite person, she would dissolve in torrents of laughter at many of the theories so hotly disputed and deeply held among long-time readers, myself included. Is Snape and his redemption the key to everything? Chuckle, titter, laugh! Does the prophecy actually refer to Neville? Guffaw! Is the basis and answer for everything to be found in the MWPP generation? Oh please cease and desist while I catch my breath! Ilana replies now: Isn't it funny how quickly our pet theories come into focus when we use this test? I think it's a fair one. Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making "improvements" on JKR's vision and weaving tales that don't fit strictly into her world--that's what fan fiction is all about! I think you make a valid point, though, that it's going to continue to return to Harry again and again and again, just when we're begging for another POV. I'm not certain if personal experiences of reading the book are off topic or not--I haven't seen too much of it come up--but I'd be interested to hear if others had the same impression of OOP as I did. It seems to me that JKR included a lot more moodiness (outbursts of anger, suppressed rage, and worry) for Harry in the final book than we saw in the previous books. It was almost melodramatic--too much--reminding me of something like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment (not to imply similarity of guilt or character, but of authorial technique.) My question is do you feel this was a device to create distance between the reader and Harry, rather than to continue and sustain unwavering empathy? Did anyone out there feel claustrophobic reading OOP--like JKR was pushing Harry's view to the point that you couldn't see the story unfold clearly? Thanks for your insights! Ilana ----- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 11:28:11 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:28:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: >. > > It would be nice to think the WW will be sufficiently revolutionised > that Lupin is a candidate. He seems to be one of the cooler heads in > the books, and is depicted as an inspired/inspiring teacher, even > above McGonagall. I could see him slipping into the wise leader role, > if he's got over the blind loyalty to his friends. The poor sod > hardly has friends left to be blindly loyal to. Alla: Oh, yes, THAT would be an ending I would LOVE to see (Sorry, Pippin) After WW is reborn like phoenix, it changed so much that werewolf is able to take such important position and with all these comments JKR makes about him being such a wonderful teacher. Who knows? :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 11:39:37 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:39:37 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts job, was, Dumbledore's motive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115914 > Ten'ou wrote: > > Or - and here's one of Ten'ou's inspirations that is either genius or complete insanity... The position attracts evil. Like when you have a ley line that's turned dark, it attracts dark things to it... (like attracting like) This even explains Lupin, who has the tendency to gnaw on people during a full moon unless he takes his medicine like a good doggie. I for one think that is just a little bit evil. snip > > Beatnik replied: >snip It goes along with a pet theory I've had, which > > relates back to something that a Weasley once said (sorry, can't > > recall which book), something to the tune of "Some people reckon > > that the DADA position is cursed." snip > Carol notes: > The Weasley who made the remark was Percy in SS/PS, citing a rumor > rather than a known fact. I don't know what to think of the jinx idea except that Snape (whom we don't know to be evil and who probably isn't given DD's trust of him) would hardly be jinxing a position he applies for every year. (That was also a rumor until Snape confirmed its truth to Umbridge in OoP.) > > It's interesting that the position was considered jinxed even before Quirrell died, though he seems to be coming back to it after a year's absence doing practical research in Albania. He must have taught for at least a year before leaving. (Constance Vigilance, if she's reading this, will have some ideas on the subject.) If something as abstract and insubstantial as a teaching position can be jinxed, which seems unlikely, it would make sense that the person doing the jinxing would be a DE, someone like, say, Lucius Malfoy, who doesn't want the students to learn *defense* against the Dark Arts. In fact, if he hadn't given in to Narcissa, he have sent Draco to Durmstrang to learn the Dark Srts themselves rather than defense against them. Snape, on the other hand, studied very hard for his DADA OWL and evidently knew the subject in great detail even as a fifth-year. It seems most unlikely that he would put a jinx on a subject he cares so much about--or agree to substitute for Lupin, as he must have done every month though we only see the one lesson, if he thought the position was jinxed. > Potioncat: The idea that DADA might attract evil or bring out evil would lean towards some of the theories on why it isn't given to Snape. (or am I just re-stating the point of Ten'ou's post?) So an ideal teacher would be someone who is strong enough to resist that pull, and most likely, not a job you would want to stay in for a long time. For some reason that reminds me of X-ray technicians who wear a monitor to be certain they haven't been over-exposed to harmful radiation. (Not sure if that's still done.) Did Percy really say it was thought to be jinxed in SS/PS? I could have sworn it was Hagrid in CoS! (of course, I have a memory like a sieve) That puts a whole different slant on the position. I thought it based on Quirrell. And along that line of thought. Quirrell had the job, took a year's break and came back a changed man. Even afraid of his students. Is there a known time-line for this? I always thought that Harry's first year, was Quirrell's first year back. But Hagrid talks about how different Quirrell is. So has Quirrell been tending LV for a year at Hogwarts before Harry comes? It also seems that Hagrid insists that no one else applied for the job in one of the books (IRRC). Which means that either Hagrid was wrong. Or Snape didn't apply either. As to the jinxing. It may just be a rumor. We've seen lots of incorrect rumors at Hogwarts. Or it could be that if it does "attract evil" that it is sort of self-jinxing. Or if Snape jinxed it, he could have done something like Hermione did...under these circumstance "that anyone other than Severus Snape master of Hogwarts is teaching" the position causes bad things to happen. And one more thought. Young Severus did work very hard on DADA. It could be he worked on all his classes like that driven by a need to succeed. Or it could be he felt the need to know the defense against Dark Arts as well as he knew Dark Arts. Or maybe he wanted to do well in DADA to prove he wasn't up to his eyes in Dark Arts? Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 11:53:13 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:53:13 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115915 Carol: (snippin a very good post) > Does that make any sense? Is it more plausible than a mass memory > charm or a magically binding pledge of silence? I know of no evidence > that anyone besides Dumbledore, Karkaroff, HRH, a few Order members > (including Moody, Lupin, and the now-dead Sirius Black) knows about > Snape's DE past, though it's a safe bet that Lucius Malfoy, the > Lestranges, and the rest of the inner circle DEs know. Can anyone > provide evidence that someone outside these two small groups is aware > of it? Does anyone have a better explanation (short of a Flint) as to > why they don't? Potioncat: I would think a magically binding pledge to keep the proceedings secret would be plausible. Afterall, that's sort of what the Fidelus Charm does. The explanation that Snape was too young and unknown for his name to be remembered has merit. But, consider. He must have already been at Hogwarts at the time. You would think some of those 200 witnesses would have a student at Hogwarts or know someone who had a child there. OTOH, look at the number of cleared Death Eaters who work at the MoM! >Carol: >> Carol, who thinks that Sanpe's boggart is the specter of his DE past and that he'll have to face it in Book 7 Potioncat: That would be chilling! Potioncat (who just thought that "chilling" now means to relax, not to have one's blood run cold. And who of course means the latter.) From drliss at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 12:45:19 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:45:19 +0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] Message-ID: <101920041245.16718.41750C5E000E280E0000414E22007621949C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115917 Pippin said: We don't need an in depth exposition of Lupin's frustration about the way he was treated either...we got that in OOP, where the attitude of the wizarding world toward Harry was very much what Lupin must have experienced once he left Hogwarts. Harry was regarded as unbalanced and possibly dangerous, persecuted by Umbridge, jerked around by the ministry, had no one to turn to except his friends who were sympathetic but couldn't help much, and was banned from doing the one thing that he seemed born to do. Sound familiar? Lissa: I can see a lot of points in your argument, but there's just one thing I can not ever reconcile with ESE!Lupin, and I think it throws a huge javilin through the theory. There have only been 6 people in the world that we know of to help Lupin: his parents, James, Sirius, and Peter, and Dumbledore. We don't know much about his parents: in fact, we have one sentence- that they tried everything to cure him. So let's take them out of the equation. They could be dead and gone (or reappearing as the dude in the snippet), or Voldie henchmen, or somewhere off in Iceland for all we know. James, Sirius, and Peter: They became Animagi to help Remus. Sure, there were other really cool aspects to it. But "really cool" rarely gets you through three years of risk-taking and frustration. "Really cool" doesn't make you give Peter all the help you can to accomplish this. "Really cool" doesn't make you exclude Remus from the task that you're spending three years on, especially when he IS so bright. I think we can take MWPP at their word when they say the three became Animagi specifically to help Remus. And despite the infamous prank, the friendship DID continue, and was close until the end. After all, Peter was quite sure that Sirius would have told Remus about the Secret Keeper switch- or at least that it was plausible that Sirius would have done so. (You can argue that Peter was trying to cast the blame to Sirius and make him look guilty, but that would not have been effective if Remus and Sirius hadn't spoken in years.) But the big person is Dumbledore. Dumbledore let Remus into school when no one else would, and gave him work when he hadn't been able to find any. Beyond that, Remus KNOWS this, and certainly seems grateful in PoA. To align with Voldemort is to align DIRECTLY against James, Sirius, Peter (in theory), and Dumbledore. It's to bring about their destruction. I can understand that Remus may be frustrated. I can understand where there was an appeal- and I do think that's why Sirius thought that he was the spy. But I can not see Remus going directly against those four, when they have meant everything to him. And even above MWPP, I can not see him going against Dumbledore, who is the only person to ever take a public risk on his behalf. And if Voldemort is going to win, Dumbledore must be destroyed. Remus is plenty smart enough to know this. We've already had one surprise revelation among MWPP, and I really think to have a second is too much- especially since (as mentioned in another thread) the story IS about Harry. But beyond that, I just can't see Remus going against the one person that's ever given him a chance. Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 13:24:00 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:24:00 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important (previously Kids and Grownups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115918 > Lupinlore wrote: > > JKR has said time and again that this is *Harry's* story. In fact, she has gone so far as > to say that Harry appeared, more or less full blown, in her > imagination and she proceeded to wrap the story around him. This > means that any other character, child or adult, is only important in > so far as they touch on Harry. Annemehr: This was a great post. I'll go on to say that Harry's story is *JKR's* story, so of course it has to go where she takes it. The reason I'm pointing out the obvious is to analyse a little where our frustrations come from. The world Harry inhabits is so rich with characters and possibilities that we can imagine thousands of stories to go with them. Jo is only telling one of them in its entirety. We may be disappointed to find our own favorite possibilities un-fleshed-out, but think what it would have to mean otherwise. To explore *all* our interests fully would require a series of books of encyclopaedic proportions! Well, much more than that, actually . Fortunately, Jo seems to be perfectly content to let us explore other options in the fanfic world; it's simply too much to expect her to write about everyone and everything herself. ;) Lupinlore: > I sometimes think that were JKR not such a polite person, she would > dissolve in torrents of laughter at many of the theories so hotly > disputed and deeply held among long-time readers, myself included. > > Ilana replies now: > > Isn't it funny how quickly our pet theories come into focus when we use this test? I think it's a fair one. Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making "improvements" on JKR's vision and weaving tales that don't fit strictly into her world--that's what fan fiction is all about! Annemehr: Absolutely. Besides, there are theories, and there are theories! Some of them hold together beautifully, and I'm sure JKR has great respect for many. I think of them this way: before the story is completed, there are many directions the plot can take. Jo publishes her vision, but the best theories would have been worth publishing as well. Just because they may end up being 'the road not taken' doesn't mean they were the 'wrong' way to go. They will only be 'wrong' as predictions of what Jo was going to write. And of course, it is inevitable that some people are going to be sorely disappointed when Jo takes the left fork when they wanted to go right, and that's not to mention all the unexplored side roads in the distance... Ilana: > I'm not certain if personal experiences of reading the book are off topic or not--I haven't seen too much of it come up-- Annemehr: Actually, I'm pretty sure it's on-topic. After all, we can each discuss canon only from our own points of view; a little explanation of those POVs can only help clarify the discussion (of course, if the topic drifts to personal experiences alone, without reference to canon, we take it to Off-Topic Chatter). Ilana: but I'd be interested to hear if others had the same impression of OOP as I did. It seems to me that JKR included a lot more moodiness (outbursts of anger, suppressed rage, and worry) for Harry in the final book than we saw in the previous books. It was almost melodramatic--too much--reminding me of something like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment (not to imply similarity of guilt or character, but of authorial technique.) My question is do you feel this was a device to create distance between the reader and Harry, rather than to continue and sustain unwavering empathy? Did anyone out there feel claustrophobic reading OOP--like JKR was pushing Harry's view to the point that you couldn't see the story unfold clearly? > > Thanks for your insights! > > Ilana > ----- Annemehr: My impression of the purpose of OoP was to be the motivation behind Harry maturing greatly and quickly in the next book, book-and-a-half. He has to change from a fairly typical teenage boy to the person who can defeat Voldemort, and it has to be believable. I actually think Harry was quite believable in OoP, though I know others feel differently. The return of LV as he did in the graveyard, along with Dumbledore's withdrawal, seem to me to be *plenty* to carry Harry's reactions and the rest of the plot in the book. Even though Harry did not always react the way I would have or wanted him to, my empathy for him was sustained because I did find him believable. If anything felt like 'too much,' it was how many bad things were happening *to* Harry, rather than what his reactions were. But as I just said, the events around LV's return were enough in the end to explain all that to my satisfaction. Life just caves in on you sometimes (I'm sure I see people nodding here), and having a connection to an evil overlord who wants to kill you is going to twist up your life a bit. The claustrophobia, I felt too. Actually, I think it was effective writing, because it was what Harry was feeling -- the world closing in on him, his options, preferences, and emotional supports removed. As I said, I think this is what is going to force him to grow up as he must. As for how clearly the story unfolds -- you have a point. It can get better after repeat readings; you begin to make the connections between an episode of scar pain and what LV must have been doing at the time (facts which may be separated by pages and pages in the book). You begin to relate the way the 'locked door' dreams evolve to the progression of LV's information about how to get at the prophecy, and you can tell a lot about which DEs did what and where if you sit down and work it out from the MoM battle chapters. It's all work, though -- you can't figure all this out from casual readings alone. Am I the only one who still has a lot of trouble finding any particular episode I want to look up in OoP, where in the other books I can usually go right to the chapter I want? It's kind of a relief that JKR said there will be fewer clues and red herrings in HBP, that it's time to start giving answers instead! Even if some of those answers are bound to be things we don't want to hear. Annemehr strapped in and along for the ride From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 19 13:47:40 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:47:40 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > snip> Although Pettigrew is absolutely central to this plot, his personal motives are not examined in great detail; it is assumed he is probably what he appears ? a betrayer, a DE who will return to his master at the earliest opportunity (mainly because it is the safest place for him once his cover is blown). > snip> All three main theories pay little attention to Peter as a person. They take him at face value, as a weak person placed in a non- negotiable position. At the same time, they also postulate that he may have had the intelligence to be either an effective spy for Voldemort, and/or bright enough to have staged a credible disappearance. There is something not right here, and it could be evidence that Peter is playing a different role ? although on his own initiative or another's, it is impossible to tell. > snip> It's true that Peter has largely been accepted as a 'passive' character - one whose actions appear to be determined by the vicissitudes of life in that he ends up in circumstances the parameters of which are set by the actions of others. He is not, to descend into the sterility of modern jargon, pro-active; he does not set his own agenda. Or at least, that's the way it reads. His co-option as SK; his subsequent submission to Voldy threats; his escape after the Shrieking Shack; he reacts pretty much the way one would expect of a weak individual - he bends or runs away. All well and good. If he is Agent!Peter then he's bloody good at it. Mind you, to those addicted to proper spy stories (as opposed to the James Bond, Mission Impossible rubbish) this is standard stuff. Le Carre and Deighton would smile knowingly; to be a successful spy you build a legend and then you live it. Only when you're established and trusted do you start to function. And to be accepted as what you aren't, you may have to do some nasty things along the way. Like betraying the Potters and killing Cedric? Er....hmm. That's too much for some. In fact, if you're cold-blooded (or devious) enough, it is possible to cobble together a rationale to embrace these. Agent!Peter would be briefed by DD about his apprehensions etc and told what precautions he (DD) was taking. Lily and James; that's bad but bearable; the one that matters is Harry and if James and Lily succumb that automatically protects Harry. Similarly, removing Cedric simplifies the situation enormously and gives Harry breathing space. Harry on his own might evade Voldy; Harry having to look after Cedric almost certainly couldn't. And what was Peter doing during Harry's escape? Starting as a central figure, he disappears from the readers view. Odd. Maybe all that consternation among the DEs wasn't just down to Harry's unaimed Impedimenta! spell after all. Once again Harry survives. The rat's prime directive is still being followed. Not that I really believe it; it's just an illustration of what can constructed if you think about it. There're lots of theories out there, many (most?) being variations on the themes expressed in MAGICDISHWASHER. I readily admit that much of what I burble on about was either adumbrated in MD or is an extrapolation (or perversion) of MD thinking. It's a pity then, that MD didn't spark the same levels of discussion regarding Peter that ensued with DD, Sirius and Lupin. Why was that? An unsympathetic character? A weak, colourless, pathetic personality? Never seen in human form without him being under pressure from stronger individuals? In which case have we ever seen the real Peter? Indirect evidence doesn't help much; the same bit of canon can be interpreted so as to reach diametrically opposed conclusions. For example - in PS/SS Ron tries to turn Scabbers yellow - "Aha!" say some, "an indication of Scabbers true nature that Seer!Ron has stumbled on by accident (again)." "Not so," reply others. "It's an indication that Peter isn't yellow and therefore a coward, after all." Then there's the sneakoscope in the train in PoA. It starts whistling and Scabbers is in the carriage. But, as Pippin will be most happy to instruct you, so was Lupin. You know, one would almost think that Jo's doing it deliberately. Really? Is she that twisty? Damn right she is. After the Shrieking Shack Lupin transforms and goes off into the Forest. Peter transforms and goes - where? It doesn't say. One would expect him to head for the trees too - if he's a true baddy. But if he headed towards the school instead - now that would make the Agent!Peter theory something to be reckoned with. He heads for the one person who could protect him. Oh, for a few extra words of canon. I've commented before that JKR doesn't seem to approve of unregistered animagi; two dead, one Igor to Voldy and the fourth with chipped nail varnish, unkempt hair and probably (horror of horrors!) split ends. Is there no limit to this author's malice? No matter that many fans see it as a fun thing, prancing round the countryside in an animal pelt, the author gives them a hard time. For those who theorised/wished Ginny to be a cat animagus, change your mind now. JKR hates cats, she's allergic to them. Ginny would likely come to a sticky end. (Thinks. TBAY? Mmm!) However, Peter's treated slightly differently to the other animagi Marauders in that he doesn't seem to have any redeeming features whatsoever. Now for Malfoy, Riddle, Bella and the rest of the Voldy groupies, that's fair enough, they're Slytherin after all. Not Peter: he's Gryffindor - a totally evil, cowardly Gryffindor - is that possible? What did the Sorting Hat think it was doing? Maybe Hagrid was speaking the literal truth - "Nobody went bad, 'scept they was in Slytherin." In which case, what does that make Peter? A member of the only too real Dumbledore's Army - a weak personality out of his depth - someone who cracked under pressure but can redeem himself - or a rat in a trap? You make your own minds up; I've got some analysis to do. Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 13:49:46 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:49:46 -0000 Subject: Whoops! Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115920 > > Potioncat: > > Well, as much wicked pleasure as readers have gotten > from "Whoops!", something doesn't fit here. > > Alla: > > Hmmm, wicked pleasure. I don't know. I think Snape certainly got a > lot of wicked pleasure out of it, as for me, I am not so sure. :) > Potioncat: In previous discussions of the Whoops episode, other readers have stated that they found it very funny. My son was being particularly obnoxious about the time I was reading OoP, so I tended to enjoy Snape's wickedness...things I might wish I could do, but never would. I never thought it was funny...although Snape standing there saying "Whoops!" does seem comical. Alla: > I am curious, why do you think it was out of character for Snape to break a vial in front of entire class? The purpose is humiliation > and Snape certainly had no problme huimiliating Harry in front of > entire class over and over again. Why breaking his vial was so > different? Potioncat: For one thing, if he broke it, Snape looks silly, not powerful. If he broke it, it was a "Clumsy me!" sort of approach. If someone else broke it, it's "I don't care." which is more powerful. In this scene, Snape is ignoring Harry. In chapter 31,(I think a few weeks later.) Harry wonders if Lupin ever talked to Snape about Occlumency: "If he had, then Snape had ignored Lupin as thoroughly as he was now ignoring Harry." Snape is ignoring Harry for a long time. But, while ignoring Harry he drops and breaks a flask of potion? In front of the class? Saying no more than Whoops? And doesn't do any other mean things to him? It just doesn't seem to fit. Once before that I remember Snape magicked away Harry's potion because Snape said it was no good. But this seems different. That was public, and with a sneer. Again, powerful. And I'm not sure if his ignoring Harry is out of anger or out of retreat. Goading Harry would make Harry want to tell what he saw, wouldn't it? We know that to Harry, his father looked worse than Snape did, but Snape doesn't know that. I also just read it as flask, not vial. So I agree, a flask would be less likely to roll off the desk and break. What we are told is that Harry hears the smashing, Draco laughs, Snape "is surveying him with a look of gloating pleasure." Snape is glad the flask broke. I'm still not sure Snape broke it. We don't know where Draco is. It is the end of the lesson and students are taking samples to Snape's desk. Is Draco also putting his sample on the desk and did he just happen to brush against Harry's sample? How busy is it? Did a different un-named student knock it off? I agree, Snape may have broken it, I think it is important to JKR that we don't know what happened. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 13:52:10 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:10 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: <101920041245.16718.41750C5E000E280E0000414E22007621949C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, drliss at c... wrote: > > There have only been 6 people in the world that we know of to help Lupin: his parents, James, Sirius, and Peter, and Dumbledore. > (snip) > > James, Sirius, and Peter: They became Animagi to help Remus. Sure, there were other really cool aspects to it. But "really cool" rarely gets you through three years of risk-taking and frustration. "Really cool" doesn't make you give Peter all the help you can to accomplish this. "Really cool" doesn't make you exclude Remus from the task that you're spending three years on, especially when he IS so bright. I think we can take MWPP at their word when they say the three became Animagi specifically to help Remus. And despite the infamous prank, the friendship DID continue, and was close until the end. (snip) > >But I can not see Remus going directly against those four, when they have meant everything to him. And even above MWPP, I can not see him going against Dumbledore, who is the only person to ever take a public risk on his behalf. And if Voldemort is going to win, Dumbledore must be destroyed. Remus is plenty smart enough to know this. > Lissa > I think you are skating over Peter a bit, in your keeness to exonerate Lupin. Betrayal is not nice, but it doesn't come out of thin air. You have made considerable effort to emphasise how close the four of them were, so why did Peter do it then? Not only trusted by the rest of the marauders, but by Dumbledore and the Order...so what went wrong? Maybe it wasn't all quite so cosy as you imagine. I didn't see Lupin making any effort to control Peter's over-sycophantic admiration of James, any more than he tried to control James and Sirius attacking Snape. There was a pecking order in the MWPP, and Peter was at the bottom of it. Lupin didn't care about that, or have any left over sympathy for another weak and marginalised individual, despite the efforts that Peter had made to be liked. Not very nice. 'Sow that you shall reap', is the oft-quoted Biblical admonition. Oh, and since it's apparently all about Harry, and not the adult characters' stories, there wouldn't be a parallel showing anywhere with the Creevey brothers, would there? Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 14:01:32 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:01:32 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories LINK to Agent!Peter paper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115922 As I mentioned in my recent post 115794 comparing conspiracy theories, there is not a lot on HPfGU about Agent!Peter. However, I mentioned the 'Lets Chat About the Rat' paper presented at ConventionAlley. I've been in touch with Phyllis about this, and she has alerted one of the authors, Sharon Brown, who has provided a link to where the complete paper can be read online: www.azriona.net/peterpettigrew (follow the link to the 'Peter Paper' in the left hand menu). Hopefully, Sharon is also coming online shortly to join our discussion. Carolyn From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 19 14:33:02 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:33:02 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115923 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Pippin asked: > > > > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been > > Voldemort's spy for a whole year? > > Carol responds: > What he did in the duel with Sirius apparently took brains, didn't it? Blowing off his finger, turning into a rat, and making himself look like a murder victim, whether or not he actually blew up the street and killed the Muggles, which I think he did? (He probably made sure that Sirius had his wand out, though, so it looked like he did it.) > But as for spying, all he had to do is report what happened in the Order meetings and reveal names of Order members so the DEs could kill them off one or two at a time. >No lying or cleverness involved; just silence and a pretense of horror with each new victim. < Pippin: Maybe I'm confused...what do you see as the difference between 'lying and cleverness' and 'pretense'? Whatever you call it, Peter had to keep it up for a whole year, during part of which Albus Dumbledore, who usually knows when people are lying to him, was actively hunting among those close to the Potters for the spy. We know Peter was close to them, since he sat between them in the picture. Surely DD would detect that Peter's expressions of horror were feigned? If, OTOH, Peter was cool and clever enough to fool DD, why fall apart in the Shack? And if that was OscarWinner!Peter, then why would he think shifty eyes and nervous panting would add to his portrayal of someone who thought the accusations against him were ludicrous? Carol: >This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK an innocent boy without a second thought.< Pippin: I don't object to Faith-based theories on principle, but they, too, should simplify rather than complicate the canon. Peter killed Cedric? You'll have to explain to me how it was simple for Peter to put aside the bundle in his arms and get his wand out before Cedric could stop him. Cedric had his wand out already. He'd just seen Harry collapse at his side. We are reminded in OOP that Cedric was a world-class champion adult wizard who knew quite as much about duelling as Harry, so this is not one of those minor inconsistencies that JKR lets by. This is something we are to take note of, a clue slipped into an innocent chapter. Somehow Cedric let Wormtail get the drop on him without so much as an "Expelliarmus". Wormtail, who was always hopeless at duelling. Something's not right. Pippin From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 14:49:16 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041019144917.66108.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115924 Just Carol wrote: >Your answer raises another question for me. Apparently wizards can't be killed in a car crash or from being splinched, and baby Harry didn't die when a house fell on him, so they're more resistant than Muggles to violent death. How, then, can witches and wizards be killed other than by an AK? >Anybody have any ideas on this?<< Chancie wrote (I think?): >Harry's survival from GH is still very secretive. He may have been there with some one who saved him from being crushed in the house. IMHO its very hard to say anything definate about the happenings at GH until JKR decides to spill the beans, but speculating sure does help pass some time! >Also I do believe it is VERY posible for wizards to die in other ways than the AK. But I would assume that wizards could be killed by other things as well. And I can't recall hearing any Wizards dying in car crashes or things like that, but I believe it is possible.<< Tina replied: >Another example that has often puzzled me is Tom Riddle's mother. She died in childbirth! How did a witch die during childbirth? Who's care was she under or was she alone? Well, someone was there to record the name... More questions, not a lot of answers - sorry!<< Kim here: Great thread! To add to the list of what can kill wizards, I thought of Nicholas Flamel's death apparently from natural causes, after many years using the elixir of life and reaching the ripe old age of 600+. But it's also obvious that the life spans of most wizards/witches are naturally very long anyway; Dumbledore for example, is at least 150, isn't he? (I don't have the calculation handy). You're right, wizards are sure made of stronger stuff than us muggles for them to live that long! No wonder it's hard to kill them! So Tom Riddle's mother's death in childbirth is definitely a puzzle. Maybe there's a special vulnerability when a witch gives birth -- Mrs. Weasley would be the one to ask about that... ;-) Another that comes to mind is basilisk venom, which nearly did Harry in. It looks like he'd have been history if Fawkes hadn't shed some tears on the wound. JKR has certainly made the point that once a witch or wizard is dead, there's no bringing them back, so I've often wondered too at the way the teachers at Hogwart's let the students take such risks with their lives, Quidditch being just one example. They often seem to be within a hair's breadth of dying, but it just never happens, often seemingly by pure luck. Kim --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Tue Oct 19 14:55:58 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:55:58 -0500 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories/why theorise? Message-ID: <2D7CA07E071FDE43A5A8EB8D8BBC0183040EF1@pbswmu00024.corp.pep.pvt> No: HPFGUIDX 115925 Neri wrote: >> But the conspiracy theories are so much more complicated than the canon version of the Shrieking Shack that I shudder to think how JKR is going to explain them in the middle of Book 7 dramatic climax. << And Carolyn responded: > I think this misses the point somewhat. Firstly, things only look complicated when you don't have the full picture. < boyd: Allow me to state for the record that I am firmly 100% entirely for the art/science of theorising, as my past posts have shown. And I will further argue that the defense of theorising need go no further than stating the obvious: JKR is holding something(s) back from us, but we don't know what. e.g., how/why Harry can defeat LV, GH, The Gleam, Slytherin/other founders, and the locked MoM door. So raising possible solutions to this bevy of layered riddles is not just understandable, but unavoidable. Neri and others have already declared that the true answer must be simplifying, an argument with which most agree. I find that many of our better theories do just this. For example, MD simplifies many mysteries by adding just one new element--DD's agenda with its behind-the-scenes tactics--thus MD's popularity. Just as JKR adds Polyjuice to simplify/solve the mysteries within GOF, a good theory may add a new element that is, by itself, seemingly complex in order to tie together a number of other loose ends. Nice job, MDDT! Of course, IMO you're just an exciting enabler, because the greater mysteries are not resolved within MD alone. And I'm still not convinced that OoP furthered MD much, since we still haven't seen DD doing anything as sly and calculating as the greater chuncks of MD. However, where I really lose faith occasionally is in our solutions' ability to be *illuminating*. Do we really think that this whole series is only about beating LV? Please, no. My heart screams for more. Where is the great moral? Where is the reason for me to sit back after the series and ponder the brilliance? Or does Harry's importance end with the defeat of one baddie? Just doesn't feel right. That's why I and others occasionally posit such broad new elements as a need to destroy all magic, or a singular evil life force coming back repeatedly throughout time, and so on. To whit, if Harry succeeds in destroying not just one dark lord, but evil magic forever, doesn't that make his horrible childhood and continuing burdens seem more tragically meaningful? That's just one example of an illuminating theory, and doesn't it feel much more likely than a simple plot twist such as ESE? Especially if she's had this whole thing plotted out since the beginning, I'd expect a bangy, meaningful conclusion. Something illuminating. As for conspiracy theories in general...you had me at conspiracy. :) -- boyd wondering whether the WW is governed by a magical karma, wherein one's good & bad deeds (e.g. life debts) will be repayed in kind seemingly through chance. Peter unintentionally does good! LV's tremendous evils engender a bangy end to him & all of his kind! Justice on this earth! News at 10! From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 15:02:31 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:02:31 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115926 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Carol: > >This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK > an innocent boy without a second thought.< > > Pippin: > I don't object to Faith-based theories on principle, but they, too, > should simplify rather than complicate the canon. Peter killed > Cedric? You'll have to explain to me how it was simple for Peter > to put aside the bundle in his arms and get his wand out before > Cedric could stop him. > > Cedric had his wand out already. He'd just seen Harry collapse > at his side. We are reminded in OOP that Cedric was a > world-class champion adult wizard who knew quite as much > about duelling as Harry, so this is not one of those minor > inconsistencies that JKR lets by. This is something we are to > take note of, a clue slipped into an innocent chapter. Somehow > Cedric let Wormtail get the drop on him without so much as an > "Expelliarmus". Wormtail, who was always hopeless at duelling. > Something's not right. It may come off as screwy to us, but I don't think it's meant to be deeply screwy by JKR, as she has no qualms about answering that question straight out, at the World Book Day chat: Rorujin: Did Wormtail used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric? Is it why Cedric comes out of Voldemort's wand even though was Wormtail who killed him? JK Rowling replies -> Correct! Of course, if you want to argue for multiple Wormtails, go right ahead... :) But it's far simpler (and Faith-based) to assume one Wormtail, the one we know of, and he kills Cedric, end stop. -Nora notes that Faith sure is becoming popular again these days From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 15:09:47 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV Inmortality (plus Predicting the future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041019150947.11989.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115927 Kim wrote: > I think Carol makes a good point, that since DD won't use an Unforgiveable curse himself, he'd hardly expect Harry to use one, even to vanquish the Dark Lord. I think JKR definitely has something else up her sleeve as to how LV will meet his end. << Distaiyi replied: >I think this is an excellent point and I just want to point out that the countrary has been use as a literary device a number of other times. For Example, in "Ender's Game" ... They know they could never live with destroying a planet, but a child would recover, which Ender eventually does.< >Now in Hogwarts they teach not to use the unforgiveable (sp?, sorry tired) curses. But if a child, even a well trained child were to use one, well eventually they would get over it. Maybe getting Harry to the point where he can cast AK is exactly what Dumbledore wants?<< Now Kim again: I'm not familiar with the Ender book, but you make a good point. Dumbledore may also realize that Harry is the only one (though isn't he actually one of many?) who would be justified in killing Lord Voldemort, as a way to give LV his just punishment for the crime of killing his (Harry's) parents. On the other hand, letting a child (or an adult) use an Unforgiveable curse for any reason might set a dangerous precedent in that child's life, since then they might feel more "comfortable," in a sense, with killing as a means to solve a problem. Not that I don't think Voldemort of all people doesn't deserve to be killed, but as he's proved in the past, maybe he *can't* be killed, even by his own AK curse backfiring on him. And the point was made by Dumbledore at the MoM battle that there could be a fate worse than death for someone like Voldemort. Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------------------- 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! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From garybec101 at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 15:20:02 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:20:02 -0000 Subject: the Marauders Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115928 Hi Everyone, Becki here; I don't want to sound stupid, but being an American, some of the British phrases I have had to look up, although I was usually right in my guess do to the way the word or phrase was used, (with the exception of "Filch *punting* the kids across the F&G's swamp", that was a funny picture. I imagined a football player drop-kicking the kids to the other side). After all this time I decided to look up "Marauder", just wondering the technical definition. I "asked Jeeves" and this is what he told me, *noun: someone who attacks in search of booty* Now my imagination is really going overboard wondering if the Marauders ever got caught trying to get up the stone slide to the girls dorms. ;D Becki From averyhaze at hotmail.com Tue Oct 19 15:22:52 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:22:52 -0000 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115929 LadyOfThePensieve wrote: The 3 saints Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus. They all died in 309 AD in Egypt as martyrians. Well. Does these names sound familiar to you? Dharma replies: Thanks for posting this information! My first thought is the obvious, given this context. Lucius, Peter and Snape are going to all be dead at the hands Death Eaters or Voldemort by the time book 7 comes to an end. Much wild speculation comes to mind in thinking about how they might die!! > Tooks: That is a fastinating thought...one I could see occuring. The only one I doubt is Lucius being named after Saint Leucius, he really doesn't come across as a saint or one to redeem. It's more likely, IMHO, that he was named after the character of the same name in William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus - a throughly nasty man who attempts to bring about the destruction of King Titus by hurting and/or causing the deaths of all those close to the king. (Pardon me for not going into the plot, I haven't read the play, just heard of the Lucius character.) - I know JKR named Hermione after a character from A Winter's Tale by Shakespeare, so it's possible she did it more than once. Dharma replies: Lucius betraying just about anyone who stands between himself and power is perfectly consistent with his character. Even Voldemort knows that Lucius is slippery, and was not enthusiastically supportive of the reappearance of the Dark Mark at the World Cup. Lucius does not have to join "the Light" to betray his fellow Death Eaters or Voldemort. He is selfish, self-centered and interested in power and control. It would be interesting to me if he and Voldemort did come into conflict at some point. They are quite alike in their willingness to manipulate others to gain control. Unfortunately for Lucius, Voldemort does not really allow anyone else to gain any real power in his circle. Which is a situation ripe for a good bit of turncoat behavior. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 19 15:33:14 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:33:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115930 Potioncat: >> 2. Harry lets everyone think his bad mood is due to the upcoming O.W.L.s. But Ginny sees that it is something else. She advises immediately that he talk to Cho. But when he tells her the real problem she quickly comes up with a solution for that. What does this say about Ginny?<< SSSusan: That she's perfect for Harry!!! ;-) Seriously, for all the talk about how in tune Hermione &/or Ron are with Harry, GINNY is the one who "gets it" here, and straight off. As Meri said, she's got brains & moxie. As Andrea added, she's intuitive and concerned about Harry's emotional well-being. Part of that may be the remnants of the crush; part of it, also, I think comes from the fact that [as she reminds Harry at one point] she alone can understand a *bit* of what it's like for him to have Voldy "in his head." Potioncat: >>3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what broke the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself?<< SSSusan: Oh, I don't think there's any question that Snape broke it, since it happened so quickly after Harry turned it in and since he issued the "whoops" and the sneer. COULD it have been someone else? Yes. Do I believe it was someone else? No. It was Snape's way of "paying Harry back" for looking in the penseive, imo. Potioncat: >> 8. McGonagall ignores Umbridge, and pretends to think Umbridge has a sore throat. Then she is scornful of Umbridge's note and quotes Lupin as a better judge of DADA knowledge. What do you think of McGonagall in this situation?<< SSSusan: I loved what Lupinlore said about MM in this scene, in particular the bit of a smile she wore when she said, "Yes, Potter, POTIONS." Lupinlore: > IMO this is just a common way of conveying sympathy and > understanding without having to denigrate another teacher, > especially in front of Umbridge. McGonagall seems to be one of those > unfortunate souls possessed of a tender heart combined with an > inability to unbend beyond a certain rather limited point. Thus she > must rely on minimal expressions and gestures, especially in > professional situations, to convey her feelings. SSSusan: I think this is an excellent description of MM's tender heart & strictness rolled into one. She's almost never going to be a gusher, that one. Well, except for after that Gryffindor victory over Slytherin, where she sobbed harder than Wood.... And Andrea had this to say: > This scene really tickled me in many ways, especially since early > in the book, it was MM urging Harry to keep his tongue and his > temper around DJU. And yet, on Harry's behalf, she winds up in a > yelling match that Harry hears all the way down the hallway on his > way out! Of course, even if she doesn't meet her own principles of > behavior, her repartee and cleverness in disputing outclasses the > toad's on every level. SSSusan: An excellent point! I love how fiesty MM is in this scene, and how supportive of Harry, how she doesn't back down from Umbridge one bit. For all of us who think Harry needs to learn to control himself, it *does* serve as a reminder of just how hard that can be when you're being baited! But at least the shouting was reserved for after Harry's departure. Potioncat: >> 9. Do you think Black and Lupin really listened to Harry? Did they just dismiss his worries?<< SSSusan: I think they heard but didn't quite *listen* deeply enough to accurately assess Harry's level of concern. I think they also got a little lost in their reminiscences.... Potioncat: >> 11. The twins leave Hogwarts as heroes. Do you think we'll see these two playing a big role again?<< SSSusan: I sure hope so! With all the darkness, doom & gloom that's surely awaiting Harry, et al., we'll be in desperate need of their humor at times. Potioncat: >> 12. Your own question here.<< Meri: > > How freaking awesome was Fred and George's escape? Was that not > > the single coolest scene ever? Was anyone else cheering and > > jumping up and down when that happened? [Awkward silence...] > > Okay, just me then! Andrea: > No, Meri, it was not just you. I'm sure I did a little dance right > there in the middle of the livingroom. Just thinking about that > scene still gets me to grinning. SSSusan: Me three, Meri! It was perfect. They *wanted* to do it for Harry and to get Umbridge. The time was right--they were truly ready to depart. They did it with their own brand of style. And what better advertisement for their future enterprise? Siriusly Snapey Susan From averyhaze at hotmail.com Tue Oct 19 15:50:02 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:50:02 -0000 Subject: Truly International Secrets?(was Re: African Prince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115931 Dharma wrote: Obviously I did not clarify my question significantly. My question goes to how global the "International Statute" really is. An agreement between 10 countries would be international, but not inclusive of all Wizarding communities. There are places in the world where magic is part of the cultural/social/political leadership. Are these cultures/states included? Is there any evidence that all Wizarding communities adhere to the Statute of Secrecy? Is there evidence that there are communities wherein Wizards and Muggles live together? Carol responds: I don't know how extensive the International Statute of Secrecy is, but the answer to your last question is yes. If Hogsmeade is theonly all-wizarding village in Britain, there must be many such communities. Even Godric's Hollow, which I take to be the name of a village and not the house itself (even though English country houses sometimes have names, or used to, a house would not be called a "hollow"), is at least partly a Muggle community. And 12 Grimmauld Place, IIRC, is in a *London* neighborhood wedged between two Muggle houses. And have you noticed the ads in JKR's Rumours section for an alarm to warn against interruptions by Muggle neighbors? I don't think the ad is wholly tongue in cheek. Dharma replies: I see your point and have come to realize, yet again, that the way I'm asking this question is just not clear I'm wondering if there are Wizard/Muggle societies that are open and integrated. It struck me when reading GoF that the Wizards who were trying to pay Mr. Roberts in large gold coins, might have come from societies wherein exchange between Wizards and Muggles was a more open salient process. It is easy to assume that they might not have been familiar with Muggle culture, but it seems to me that they could have just understood Muggle culture in a different way. As there are places where magic is part of the culture and belief systems, is it necessarily the case that *all* Wizards would be operating under the same assumptions that secrecy is a necessity? I'm under the impression that there might not be enough information about other Wizarding cultures in the books to answer this question, but thanks for the input. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 19 15:50:56 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:50:56 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > -Nora notes that Faith sure is becoming popular again these days Faith - as Hypothetic Alley points out, is cousin to Naive and Gullible. Accepting existing canon at face value is a losing game for two reasons: 1. The canon's not yet complete and 2. JKR keeps modifying it. For 2.75 books Scabbers is a dozy rat; it's 3.25 books before we get a hint that there's more to learn about Neville; for 4.5 books James is a nice though possibly mischievous teenager; it's 5 books and a website before we find out that DD has been in communication with Petunia before Godric's Hollow. Are you perhaps claiming that no more re-assessments will be necessary, or will you just surreptitiously move the goal-posts at any new revelation, claiming that "Well, it is canon after all"? Naughty, naughty. Kneasy Who notes that 'faith' is not synonymous with truth From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 16:05:25 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:05:25 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Are you perhaps claiming that no more re-assessments will be > necessary, or will you just surreptitiously move the goal-posts at > any new revelation, claiming that "Well, it is canon after all"? > Naughty, naughty. Faith, as is also pointed out, is the incarnation of belief in authorial authority--hence Faith has no problem accepting any revelations, because they *are* canonical when made. She wears 5- inch spike heels and yet survives Hurricane Jo far better than anyone else in the Bay--has anyone been recovered from the wreckage of the Fourth Man Hovercraft yet? She's a good person to keep in one's sights at all times-- particularly given the cheerful glee with which JKR is going through and trashing various theories and speculations, these days. I myself am certainly *not* claiming that re-assessments are not going to be necessary. I suspect we differ on what kinds of re- assessment we suspect are going to have to happen. Want to answer the JKR-supported claim that the books are really all about Harry, and thus the kids and what they do are more important than the adults? With that in mind, expecting the adults to be key to everything is like going to a Handel opera and then complaining when there's no big love duet between the tenor and the soprano. Methinks the GARBAGESCOW will be busy-as-usual, come next book. -Nora boggles at the number of published scholarly essays out there on a work that isn't even completed yet From legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 19 13:07:57 2004 From: legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk (legobaty29) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:07:57 -0000 Subject: OOP - Creating distance from Harry - was "What JKR Finds Important" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115934 Ilana wrote > It seems to me that JKR included a lot more moodiness (outbursts of anger, suppressed rage, and worry) for Harry in the final book than we saw in the previous books. My question is do you feel this was a device to create distance between the reader and Harry, rather than to continue and sustain unwavering empathy? Didanyone out there feel claustrophobic reading OOP--like JKR was pushing Harry's view to the point that you couldn't see the story unfold clearly? Legobaty: Harry's behaviour in OOP seemed very much like typical teenage behaviour - being in a mood because your friends are prefects and you aren't. Thinking no-one understands you and that your problems are sooo much bigger than everyone else's. Wanting to be part of the adult goings-on (OOP meetings where the kids had to go to bed and ALL contested it hotly). It did seem to be so present on every page - Harry was overreacting to a lot of things Hermione and Ron said, and even moody teenagers usually don't fight against their peers AND adults all the time. Harry seems constantly annoyed that people aren't taking him as seriously as he would like to be taken. He seems too obsessive for the Harry that we know. JKR could have been creating distance between the reader and Harry, so in the event of his possible death at the end of the series, we could be able to see the story as a series of events that happened to a certain character, rather than the WRONG series of events that happened to OUR hero, but I think it's more likely that JKR wassimply describing a Harry as he is in the fifth book - 15, moody (hormones!), under incredible pressure and starting to really feel it and struggle to accept his lot. Perhaps he didn't behave like this in previous books because he was still so young and naive - children are often really brave but adults know better! Harry's in transition in OOP. He used to be the famous kid that defeated LV, but now he's the famous kid many think is conceited, and LV needs defeating again - it's an uphill struggle! As several people pointed out on this thread when it was titled "what JKR finds important" - this is Harry's story, no-one else's, which means the reader always feeling the full extent of Harry's feelings at any given time. One last point - if Harry is the one who dies at the end of book Seven, who's to say we need to distance ourselves from him? We may find out with him what the "next great adventure" is over the other side... Legobaty From kethryn at wulfkub.com Tue Oct 19 16:25:09 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:25:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important (previously Kids and Grownups) References: <1098174370.3836.23114.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004f01c4b5f8$36091be0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115935 >>Ilana: I'm not certain if personal experiences of reading the book are off topic or not--I haven't seen too much of it come up--but I'd be interested to hear if others had the same impression of OOP as I did. It seems to me that JKR included a lot more moodiness (outbursts of anger, suppressed rage, and worry) for Harry in the final book than we saw in the previous books. It was almost melodramatic--too much--reminding me of something like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment (not to imply similarity of guilt or character, but of authorial technique.) My question is do you feel this was a device to create distance between the reader and Harry, rather than to continue and sustain unwavering empathy? Did anyone out there feel claustrophobic reading OOP--like JKR was pushing Harry's view to the point that you couldn't see the story unfold clearly? Thanks for your insights! Ilana Kethryn now - In answer to your question, I don't think that claustraphobic is quite the word I would choose. Rather, OotP reminds me, no matter how much I would rather not remember, of when I was 15. At 15, I was moody, irritable, persecuted, and, oh yeah, kept in the dark and fed a lot of ...you know. Of course, most of my being "kept in the dark" was because I had my nose stuffed so far into a book, the world could have ended I wouldn't have noticed. So taking my experiences and wrapping them back into OotP, I was able to see the story unfolding clearly from Harry's point of view (and from his emotions). Very powerful stuff there. I just don't think JKR gets enough credit for being able to transport her readers like that...I read a heck of a lot and HP (and a very select few other books) has the power to transport me so quickly and so absolutly to another world, it takes days for me to come back to myself. And, even when I do come back to myself, I am still at Hogwarts. Kethryn who feels really really sorry for the people who can't love HP like she does. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 16:24:52 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:24:52 -0000 Subject: OOP - Creating distance from Harry - was "What JKR Finds Important" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115936 Legobaty > One last point - if Harry is the one who dies at the end of book Seven, who's to say we need to distance ourselves from him? We may find out with him what the "next great adventure" is over the other side... > Potioncat: I hope not. I just finished reading "Our Town" for my...erm my daughter's...English class. The other side ain't so great. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 16:28:43 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:28:43 -0000 Subject: OOP - Creating distance from Harry - was "What JKR Finds Important" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "legobaty29" wrote: > > Legobaty: > > Harry's behaviour in OOP seemed very much like typical teenage behaviour - being in a mood because your friends are prefects and you aren't. Thinking no-one understands you and that your problems are sooo much bigger than everyone else's. Wanting to be part of the adult goings-on (OOP meetings where the kids had to go to bed and ALL contested it hotly). Alla: Yep, I adore JKR for daring to show teenager mood swings in Harry's character. I was not feeling calustrophobic, but I understand why other people could experience that sensation - we certainly were in Harry's head A LOT. Legobaty: > It did seem to be so present on every page - Harry was overreacting to a lot of things Hermione and Ron said, and even moody teenagers usually don't fight against their peers AND adults all the time. Harry seems constantly annoyed that people aren't taking him as seriously as he would like to be taken. He seems too obsessive for the Harry that we know. > Alla: Well, yes, he was, but again, I found it to be VERY realistic, giving Harry's upbringing with Durlseys. The only question I had was why it did not happen earlier int eh series. Legobaty: > JKR could have been creating distance between the reader and Harry, so in the event of his possible death at the end of the series, we could be able to see the story as a series of events that happened to a certain character, rather than the WRONG series of events that happened to OUR hero, but I think it's more likely that JKR wassimply describing a Harry as he is in the fifth book - 15, moody (hormones!), under incredible pressure and starting to really feel it and struggle to accept his lot. Alla: I agree. I doubt JKR was creating distance between readers and Harry . Even if he dies at the end(please, no ), no distance is needed. Harry is the main character in the books anyway. JKR also already said that Harry is going to have to master his emotions in order to be useful in HBP, so it is quite likely that resentful teenager stage will be less resentful in HBP. I do worry about that statement ina sense that she will gloss over Harry's emotions very fast and he will be back to happy and healthy in no time, but I sure hope that mastering the emotions does not mean forgetting about it, just healing. Legobaty: > As several people pointed out on this thread when it was titled "what JKR finds important" - this is Harry's story, no-one else's, which means the reader always feeling the full extent of Harry's feelings at any given time. > Alla: Yes. From kethryn at wulfkub.com Tue Oct 19 16:36:15 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:36:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the Marauders References: Message-ID: <006701c4b5f9$c2da7f40$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115938 >> Everyone, Becki here; I don't want to sound stupid, but being an American, some of the British phrases I have had to look up, although I was usually right in my guess do to the way the word or phrase was used, (with the exception of "Filch *punting* the kids across the F&G's swamp", that was a funny picture. I imagined a football player drop-kicking the kids to the other side). After all this time I decided to look up "Marauder", just wondering the technical definition. I "asked Jeeves" and this is what he told me, *noun: someone who attacks in search of booty* Now my imagination is really going overboard wondering if the Marauders ever got caught trying to get up the stone slide to the girls dorms. ;D >>Becki Hey Becki, Kethryn now - You know, I am so glad I'm not the only person who had the mental image of Filch drop kicking students across the swamp. I giggled about that for days on end...I wonder if JKR realize(s or d) the mental image some of her words produce for us non-British types and intentionally includes choice phrases like that for a reason? You know, slyly humorous? Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 19 16:40:13 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:40:13 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: She wears 5- > inch spike heels and yet survives Hurricane Jo far better than anyone else in the Bay--has anyone been recovered from the wreckage of the Fourth Man Hovercraft yet?< Pippin: Tee Hee! Who'd have guessed the Fourth Man was *another* Lestrange? If you want to theorize that there will be no more duplicate-name characters, go right ahead. Put your toe caps on though...those spike heels can really stomp. Nora: > Want to answer the JKR-supported claim that the books are really all about Harry, and thus the kids and what they do are more important than the adults? < Pippin: Hold on...what Harry does is more important than anything else does not translate into the kids are more important than the adults. I'll buy that Harry is learning to understand people, and that's more important than the adults' or the other childrens' destinies. So, it's more important that Harry understand the flaws in Sirius's character than that Sirius be cleared. It's more important that Harry learn how to deal with Snape than that Snape be reformed. It's more important that Harry discover that the Uncle Remus stereotype is just as false and demeaning as the Big, Bad, um, Wolf, than anything that happens to Remus himself. Yes? Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 16:44:03 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:44:03 -0000 Subject: the Marauders In-Reply-To: <006701c4b5f9$c2da7f40$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115940 > Hey Becki, Kethryn now - > > You know, I am so glad I'm not the only person who had the mental image of Filch drop kicking students across the swamp. I giggled about that for days on end...I wonder if JKR realize(s or d) the mental image some of her words produce for us non-British types and intentionally includes choice phrases like that for a reason? You know, slyly humorous? > > Potioncat: One day in the glorious future, when it is easier to find old posts, you'll be able to see that a lot of Americans had the same mental image.(me too) Even if we did know there was something wrong with it. If nothing else we knew Filch would have enjoyed it and that couldn't be right! From adatole.301453 at bloglines.com Tue Oct 19 16:50:37 2004 From: adatole.301453 at bloglines.com (adatole.301453 at bloglines.com) Date: 19 Oct 2004 16:50:37 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) Message-ID: <1098204637.1801522166.7036.sendItem@bloglines.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115941 There certainly are other things that can kill wizards (or else why would St. Mungo's be so busy or have so many floors.). Mr. Weasly certainly would have bled to death without timely intervention, although again we're looking at snake venom as at least part of the problem. I think it goes back to how magic itself works in JK's world - spells and wands are needed unless emotions are running high, then nearly anything is possible if you want it hard enough. Aunt Marge is a perfect example, as well as all the "accidental" magic Hagrid aludes to in book 1. So anyone under duress (car crash, house collapsing, being chased by bullies, etc) is probably going to protect themselves whether they know the correct spell or not. The willingness of Neville's family (uncle?) to hold him out a window also points to the knowledge that wizards will get minor cuts, bruises and breaks but nothing more, and all they were trying to do was scare the magic out of him. But once the magic is countered, circumvented or overwhelmed, I think wizards are as kill-able as the rest of us. Leon (who has not posted in a long, long time.) From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 16:53:54 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:53:54 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" > wrote: She wears 5- > > inch spike heels and yet survives Hurricane Jo far better than > anyone else in the Bay--has anyone been recovered from the > wreckage of the Fourth Man Hovercraft yet?< > > Pippin: > Tee Hee! Who'd have guessed the Fourth Man was *another* > Lestrange? If you want to theorize that there will be no more > duplicate-name characters, go right ahead. Put your toe caps on > though...those spike heels can really stomp. That *was* sneaky of her, wasn't it? Yet also...not deeply meaningful. A cautionary tale, perhaps? Me, I just wish I could *walk* in spike heels. I've been told it takes practice, but I tried on shoes this past weekend and nearly fell over. My feminine pride is currently deeply wounded... > Nora: > > Want to answer the JKR-supported claim that the books are > really all about Harry, and thus the kids and what they do are > more important than the adults? < > > Pippin: > Hold on...what Harry does is more important than anything else > does not translate into the kids are more important than the > adults. I'll buy that Harry is learning to understand people, and > that's more important than the adults' or the other childrens' > destinies. So, it's more important that Harry understand the flaws > in Sirius's character than that Sirius be cleared. It's more > important that Harry learn how to deal with Snape than that > Snape be reformed. It's more important that Harry discover that > the Uncle Remus stereotype is just as false and demeaning as > the Big, Bad, um, Wolf, than anything that happens to Remus > himself. Yes? You seemed a little more in agreement with me back in 115872, so I'll clarify :). It's clear that Harry is the hero and things revolve around him--but I also think that JKR cares more about the kids and their actions than the adults. They get a disproportionate amount of the page space, they really do the most things that we see all the time. The Trio themselves are on the top of the current list of favorite characters. I do like your examples, but I think they also illustrate that the adults are there more as exempla, in some ways, than as the real driving actors of the story. Hence, what they represent is perhaps more important than what they do...and we're going to find the most important things in the future books to be Harry's actions, not the twists and turns of backstory--they will be illuminating, perhaps, but not determinative. Thankfully, we've been promised answers in book 6, and perhaps a book where more things actually happen. (Ooh, I see the FEATHERBOAS over there looking happy.) (I also admit to addressing that last comment to Kneasy, with his known antipathy towards the kids--can't stand those obnoxious teenagers, right?) And, out of curiosity--what form in the Bay does ESE!Lupin take? Torpedo speedboat? Raft tied together with twine and sticks? (I but jest, of course...) -Nora notes that she also lacks Faith's distinctive plaid skirt From drliss at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 17:01:00 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:01:00 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 5362 Message-ID: <101920041701.21420.4175484B000C50AC000053AC22007348409C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115943 Carolyn: I think you are skating over Peter a bit, in your keeness to exonerate Lupin. Betrayal is not nice, but it doesn't come out of thin air. You have made considerable effort to emphasise how close the four of them were, so why did Peter do it then? Not only trusted by the rest of the marauders, but by Dumbledore and the Order...so what went wrong? Maybe it wasn't all quite so cosy as you imagine. I didn't see Lupin making any effort to control Peter's over-sycophantic admiration of James, any more than he tried to control James and Sirius attacking Snape. There was a pecking order in the MWPP, and Peter was at the bottom of it. Lupin didn't care about that, or have any left over sympathy for another weak and marginalised individual, despite the efforts that Peter had made to be liked. Not very nice. Lissa: Actually, I don't think I am skating over Peter. Not at that point in time. No one suspected Peter of a betrayal. Now, I'm not going to say they shouldn't have, or they didn't underestimate him, or that the boys didn't treat Peter as they should, but at the time I think they saw Peter as totally loyal to them. Maybe they were projecting their own feelings onto Peter, maybe not- it's hard to say right now. But it was a shock. Sirius never even thought of it. Remus didn't think of it. James didn't think of it. There was something there. When the boys opted to become Animagi, they were 12 when they started, 15 when they finished. Peter didn't betray the Potters until he was in his 20s. It's very, very, very possible that something happened in between the time when he was hanging out with them at school and the time when he was working for Voldemort to change him enough that he'd work for Voldemort. There's a lot of time in between there. Heck, maybe part of it WAS his frustration that he was willing to do this great feat- at even greater risk than Sirius and James because it was harder for him- and no one really acknowledged that. One of the big questions we don't know is why Peter was willing to betray his friends. I've always had the impression he didn't just wake up one day and say, "hmmm. I'm kind of evil, I'll go work for Voldemort." Something big- bigger than what James, Sirius, and Remus could offer him- had to have been dangled over him. Now, I know I've been reading WAY too much fanfiction, but my personal favorite theory was it was his family. Help us, we leave your family alone. Don't help us, your family gets it. That might be ascribing too much nobility to Peter, but maybe not, if he just accepted that at face value and didn't try to think of a way around it. Of course, it could always be what Sirius says- that Peter wants power and hangs around with the biggest bullies on the playground as well, but there ARE alternate explanations. One of my frustrations with the Pensieve scene is that it's changed so many people's opinions from "the boys were great" to "the boys were pretty awful." I truly believe the truth is somewhere in between. We are seeing the boys for five to ten minutes, right after they a.) finished a difficult exam and b.) shortly after they have accomplished a MAJOR magical feat, from the mind of their worst enemy, when they are fifteen. There ARE some power/relationship issues, but I think at the root of it the four of them were still very close, very tight friends that would die for each other, and maybe only Peter will ever get the chance. (Everyone else seems to be in line for dying for Harry, and odds are good Peter will do that as well, but hey.) But anyway, I remember 15 and I remember being a jerk myself- more Lupin style, but I had friends that were more like Sirius and James and they're still wonderful people, especially today at 30. So, I don't think Peter's friendship was false back in the heydey. I don't think that the boys got what they deserved from him, although I think they did help it along a bit. I don't think Lupin was unnecessarily cruel to him. Maybe he didn't make a move to control anything, but maybe he did. Sirius says Remus DID make them feel guilty sometimes. He just didn't in that one instance that we saw. Bad move on Remus's part, but it takes people- all of them- time to become what they are today, and many lessons are learned through mistakes. Remus certainly seems to have sympathy for the underdog in the present day- look how he treats Neville. Besides, the main thrust of my argument is still the Dumbledore-Remus relationship, and that's the one that really pokes holes in the ESE!Lupin argument. Carolyn: Oh, and since it's apparently all about Harry, and not the adult characters' stories, there wouldn't be a parallel showing anywhere with the Creevey brothers, would there? Lissa: Not sure what you mean here. Please clarify? Liss [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 19 17:13:16 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:13:16 -0000 Subject: Whoops! Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115944 Potioncat: > It just seems that JKR had a reason for us to not know what > happened. SSSusan: Right. The reason is that we're seeing this from Harry's POV as usual. HARRY isn't supposed to know for certain that Snape broke it-- that way he can't accuse him or report him! That Snape's a smart guy! IMO, he saw what Hermione was doing, saw that Harry's back was turned, made a quick decision to "repay" Potter for the Pensieve incident. Perfect! Potter will "know" from the look on his face and the "Whoops" but he won't be able to DO anything about it because he didn't see it directly. We're supposed to feel it the way Harry felt it--frustration and all, I think. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 19 17:49:02 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:49:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what broke the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? > Hmmm...were you suggesting here that Snape broke it because Draco was watching and it wouldn't look right for Harry to get an 'O' grade on a potion when he's supposed to be taking a remedial class? Pippin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 19 18:11:18 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:11:18 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > Want to answer the JKR-supported claim that the books are really all > about Harry, and thus the kids and what they do are more important > than the adults? With that in mind, expecting the adults to be key > to everything is like going to a Handel opera and then complaining > when there's no big love duet between the tenor and the soprano. > In the same way that Moby Dick is about a whale, perhaps. But he's far and away the least interesting character in the story. So's Harry. So DD can vanish, as can Lupin, McGonagall, Hagrid, Petunia, Snape? Labelled "Not wanted on Voyage"? Tut, tut. Be realistic. Without the adults he's Voldy-fodder. What Harry does will undoubtedly be important, but who's going to tell him *how*, who's going to tell him *why*, who'll break down relating the back-story? More importantly, who's going to tell *us*. Without the adults it'd be as mindless as a Disney (spit) 'young adult' film, pandering to the limitless egos of idiotic adolescents who somehow always know more than any grown-up, resulting in a resolution that is facile, moronic and has all the credibility of a nine-bob note. Adults dismiss such stuff as the rubbish it is. Now if JKR goes along that route I shall be severely pissed - so also, I'd venture to say, would many on the site; this is after all, a site for grown- ups, not one for retarded teenagers with delusions of social adequacy and a yearning for the stereotypical resolutions reflecting the non-existent standards inherent in many a television-induced intellect narcosis, often called popular programming. Expectations are high and I'm confident that she won't crash and burn at the final bend. It's much too intricate, detailed and ambivalent for that sort of let-down to be likely. Kneasy I *never* complain when there's no love duet, for I suspect that such as Handel were the Abba of their time. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 19 18:32:18 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:32:18 -0000 Subject: who is the hero? was DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115947 Kneasy wrote: > Without the adults it'd be as mindless as a Disney (spit) 'young adult' film, pandering to the limitless egos of idiotic adolescents who somehow always know more than any grown-up, resulting in a resolution that is facile, moronic and has all the credibility of a nine-bob note. > > Adults dismiss such stuff as the rubbish it is. > Now if JKR goes along that route I shall be severely pissed - so also, I'd venture to say, would many on the site; this is after all, a site for grown-ups, not one for retarded teenagers with delusions of social adequacy and a yearning for the stereotypical resolutions reflecting the non-existent standards inherent in many a television- induced intellect narcosis, often called popular programming. > > Expectations are high and I'm confident that she won't crash and burn > at the final bend. It's much too intricate, detailed and ambivalent for > that sort of let-down to be likely. Potioncat: But, face it, the series is about Harry Potter It isn't "Severus Snape and the Unfortunate Events at Hogwarts." It isn't "Albus Dumbledore: Puppetmaster of the Wizarding World." It's "Harry Potter and the..." Harry gets to be the Hero. He may not like it, but he does. Where was Snape when the trio braved the enchantments and went after the stone? Where was McGonagall when Harry went into the Chamber? Was anyone in the graveyard with Harry? Snape's burst of glory, rescuing the trio in the Shrieking Shack, earns him a headache and a grand embarrassment. Nope. It won't be the grownups that save the day...but I'm sure JKR can pull it off and we won't be disappointed. Potioncat (typing as fast as she can before kids come home and requesting everyone to please ignore all typos and errors.) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 19 18:45:13 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:45:13 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: <101920041245.16718.41750C5E000E280E0000414E22007621949C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115948 > Lissa: > > But the big person is Dumbledore. Dumbledore let Remus into school when no one else would, and gave him work when he hadn't been able to find any. Beyond that, Remus KNOWS this, and certainly seems grateful in PoA. < But he also admits that he has twice betrayed Dumbledore's trust. Once by leading his friends to become illegal Animagi and breaking the rules Dumbledore had made for his safety, and again as an adult, by not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was an Animagus. He also failed to turn in the Marauder's Map, which wouldn't have revealed his earlier betrayal, and would have revealed Sirius if he was on the grounds. That Lupin did this because he had doubts about Sirius's guilt is a pervasive bit of fanon, but the books don't support it much more than Leatherpants!Draco. Lupin says at least three times that he thought Sirius was guilty. "Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter[...] I believed it myself --" "And so I convinced myself that Sirius was getting into the school using dark arts he had learned from Voldemort." "All this time we've thought Sirius betrayed your parents, and Peter tracked him down--but it was the other way around, don't you see?" Lissa: > To align with Voldemort is to align DIRECTLY against James, Sirius, Peter (in theory), and Dumbledore. It's to bring about their destruction. I can understand that Remus may be frustrated. I can understand where there was an appeal- and I do think that's why Sirius thought that he was the spy. But I can not see Remus going directly against those four, when they have meant everything to him. And even above MWPP, I can not see him going against Dumbledore, who is the only person to ever take a public risk on his behalf. And if Voldemort is going to win, Dumbledore must be destroyed. Remus is plenty smart enough to know this.<< I remember from history class that revolutions happen when rising expectations are stalled. That's what happened to Lupin. Whatever he thought was going to happen after Hogwarts, the fact remains that he says his transformations while he was there were the happiest times of his life. Clearly things got worse for him after he left school--besides a statement like that being classic novelese for "The author wants you to know that this character has never really adjusted to adulthood." Remus *is* smart--but he has often been unwise. We also don't know if he made some new friends when he left school. What was he doing for the Order? He would have been isolated from other werewolves while at Hogwarts. Meeting them might have changed his perspective. And Voldemort's cunning can't be left out of the picture either. We have Sirius's word that most wizards didn't realize what he was capable of until late in his rise to power. We saw in OOP what Dumbledore was like as master of the Order--aloof, remote, wary of revealing himself to anyone, like Lupin, who seems to have legilimency talents. And we never see that Lupin has an emotional closeness to Dumbledore the way that Harry or Hagrid or even Snape has. If Voldemort presented himself to Lupin as he did to Ginny...as someone who really cared about him, when Lupin's old friends were pre-occupied with the Order--well, who knows what might have happened? The fact that JKR has left us so much room here to speculate is in itself suspicious, IMO. Pippin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 19 18:46:06 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:46:06 -0000 Subject: who is the hero? was DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115949 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > But, face it, the series is about Harry Potter It isn't "Severus > Snape and the Unfortunate Events at Hogwarts." It isn't "Albus > Dumbledore: Puppetmaster of the Wizarding World." It's "Harry > Potter and the..." Harry gets to be the Hero. He may not like it, > but he does. > OK. Remove (or severely downgrade) the adults. Remove Sirius and his back story. Do the same to Snape, Peter, Voldy and stuff like the betrayal. Delete DD's plan, what it is and how it will be executed, what part Harry plays in it. What are you left with? Some kid with a wand. Not very exciting, is it? Without the adults there would have been no plot in any of the books. I'm willing to bet the same will be true of the future 2 volumes. Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 18:56:26 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:56:26 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115950 Finwitch wrote : "Actually, it's rather: do you believe that Voldemort's back&killed Diggory or that Harry's a liar&killed Diggory?" Del replies : But Finwitch, that is *precisely* the point ! Given the circumstances, the second option is MUCH MORE believable than the first one ! LV is supposedly dead, he hasn't been seen anywhere around Cedric, and he had no reason to kill him. Harry, OTOH, has already been suspected of attacking a student, he's pubicly (well, I still wonder about that) disappeared along with Cedric, and he had a motive to kill him (competition). That's why I keep saying that people like Mrs Finnigan have every good reason to be fearful of Harry and to suspect him. And even kids like Seamus, who know better, have nothing more than their *liking* of Harry and the word of their Headmaster to convince themselves that Harry isn't the bad guy. After all, school kids killing schoolmates, that DOES happen (Tom Riddle...). Finwitch wrote : " Further, that Harry's required to 'prove his innosence' by giving out the details is, in itself, against basic human rights. Sure, it makes it easier for people to believe him, but..." Del replies : Innocent until proven guilty, huh ? Only problem : no trial was held over Cedric's death. So technically, *everyone* is innocent, *including LV* ! If you choose to stick to that high principle, then you can no more condemn LV than Harry. Del From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 19 18:57:10 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:57:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115951 > 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what broke > the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that > Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco > have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? > Hannah: No, I think Snape drops it deliberately to 'get at' Harry. He's not a clumsy person - I don't think he'd have dropped it or knocked it accidentally. It's there to show us that Snape is still angry about the pensieve incident, though he's moved on from the initial hysterical physical attack, and returned to his usual more subtle nastiness. > 5. Are classes for Auror set, or was McGonagall making her own > recommendations here? Why was she smiling about Harry taking > Potions? Hannah: Because she knows Harry's feelings about Snape, and vice versa. It's interesting that she doesn't seem to be worried about Snape's treatment of Harry. I think she's as fond of Snape as she is of Harry, and maybe finds it amusing that students should not see Sevvie as she does: a rather sulky, melodramatic teenager. It wasn't that long ago that she was teaching Snape, and we all know he hasn't grown up much since... I think Auror classes are partially set, with some subjects being compulsary, but with a couple of optional choices as well. > > 6. Ron wasn't interested in Healer, but notice, the courses > McGonagall offers for Auror are almost identical to Healer. What do you think Ron will take? Hannah: Whatever the plot demands! He'll probably mainly chose what Harry's doing, though I don't think that would stretch to potions. I could imagine him doing Care of Magical Creatures, Transfiguration, Charms, Herbology and DADA. I think virtually every student (certainly all of the main characters) will take DADA. I can't see Ron wanting to do Divination, Astronomy, or History of Magic. Maybe there'll be some new subjects as well, more specialised/difficult subjects that only become available at NEWT level. > 8. McGonagall ignores Umbridge, and pretends to think Umbridge has a > sore throat. Then she is scornful of Umbridge's note and quotes > Lupin as a better judge of DADA knowledge. What do you think of > McGonagall in this situation? > Hannah: I think she's fantastic! Her cutting wit in this, and her other encounters with Umbridge, is worthy of the king of sarcasm himself, Snape. I suppose it could be considered a bit unprofessional, but really the situation is long beyond professionalism. I hope we see more of McGonagall in subsequent books, though as someone else pointed out, that 'last thing I do' comment has got me worried too. > 9. Do you think Black and Lupin really listened to Harry? Did they just dismiss his worries? > Hannah: It's hard to say. Maybe in a different situation, they would have been more understanding. Harry was short of time and at a considerable risk, so there wasn't much chance for deep conversation. I think their treatment of Harry here was interesting though, as it exemplified the way he was treated by the Order throughout the book. They hastily and sketchily explained what he had seen, and made out it was nothing important or to be worried about. Yet there was the feeling that they were holding back a lot, and the gaps in the story told more than what was actually said. It really left me wondering just what the underlying truth is behind the Marauders' school days that everyone seems at such pains to avoid. > 10. Black and Lupin are very upset that Occlumency lessons have > stopped. They don't think Dumbledore will approve. Black will > talk > to Snape. No, Lupin will. Harry has to. Why does JKR set this up, > then leave us in the dark about who, or when, or if anyone ever > talks to Snape or Dumbledore? > Hannah: I have always wondered about this. Did Lupin ever talk to Snape? Surely he told DD at least? Was Snape asked and refused flatly to continue (I find that unlikely, at least if DD did the asking or was likely to become involved if he refused Lupin). Did Lupin and Sirius think it over and decide it was better that their old enemy wasn't invading Harry's mind twice a week? Or did they worry that Harry might see another memory, maybe something making them look even worse? A lot of time passes between this conversation and the final conclusion, so there would have been time for Lupin to have told DD or spoken to Snape himself. Hmmm... I smell conspiracy! > 11. The twins leave Hogwarts as heroes. Do you think we'll see > these two playing a big role again? > Hannah: The twins play a much larger part in this book, though looking back, they are always some of the most important non-trio characters. I don't think that this is their 'peak.' The joke shop funding has set up a link between them and Harry that will (hopefully) ensure their continued importance in the book. They also appear at the end - JKR wants to keep their profile high, IMO. Sadly, I'm betting one or both is for the chop before the end. Hannah From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 19:08:00 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:08:00 -0000 Subject: What JKR finds important (Was Re: Kids and grownups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115952 I snip everything but I sadly agree. You forgot one, though, Lupinlore : You mean Sirius was nothing more than a parental figure for Harry to invest in and then lose, so he could grow and develop ? The answer might very well be yes. Del, who really wants less and less to read the last 2 books. Better live in happy ignorance and immense expectations... From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 19:21:47 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:21:47 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115953 Paul wrote : "1. Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has when they think that another person is trying to take a lover or friend, or a possession, away from them. 2. Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has when they wish that they could have the qualities or possessions that another person has. 1. Envy is the feeling you have when you wish you could have the same thing or quality that someone else has. 2. If you envy someone, you wish that you had the same things or qualities that they have. >From the above is quite clear that in GOF and in general Ron is rather jealous than envious as a person." Del replies : I won't ceased to be amazed at how 2 people read exactly the same thing and come to opposite conclusions :-) >From what I can see from the definitions you've provided, Paul, I see Ron as envious, not jealous. Jealousy seems to imply that one wants not only the same thing as someone else, but they also want to strip the other from that thing. In other words, they want to *take* that thing from someone else. Envy, on the other hand, seems to be when you want to have something *too*. You don't mind someone else having it, but you wish you could have it too. And *this* is what Ron does : he doesn't mind Harry having some things, he just wishes he could have them *too*. For example, he doesn't resent Harry for being rich, he only wishes he could be rich too. In GoF in particular, Ron never says that he wishes he had been the only one entering the Tournament. He only wishes Harry had *shared* his secret about how to get past the Age-line with him. When the Twins mention looking for a way to get past the Age-line, Ron *immediately* turns to Harry to ask him if he *too* would like to give it a try. In Ron's mind, it was always about *the two of them* having a chance. He never even thought of keeping the Twins' eventual discovery from Harry. And he gets mad when he thinks Harry did keep something from him. He wishes he had been given the *same* chance. Not that he had been the *only* one. Envy, not jealousy : I don't mind you having it, I just wish I could have it too. Del From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 19:27:05 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:27:05 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Peter/Creevey parallels In-Reply-To: <101920041701.21420.4175484B000C50AC000053AC22007348409C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115954 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, drliss at c... wrote: > Carolyn: > > Oh, and since it's apparently all about Harry, and not the adult > characters' stories, there wouldn't be a parallel showing anywhere > with the Creevey brothers, would there? > > Lissa: > > Not sure what you mean here. Please clarify? > > Liss > Carolyn: The way the Creevey [read 'creepy'] brothers behave towards Harry is very similar to Peter's abject sycophancy with James. Harry so far has not been quite so nasty to them as the rest of MWPP were towards Peter, but he seems fairly tempted, and who can blame him? They are extremely irritating. The overall point I am making is that what is emerging is a greyer picture of the stresses and strains between the MWPP as they grow up, one which is equally relevant to the teenage trio the books are supposed to be about. But you don't pick it up unless you start to consider the adults' stories as well as the childrens'. It's ridiculous to say the books are mainly about Harry. They are plainly much richer and multi-layered than this. Carolyn From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 19 19:37:47 2004 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:37:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: David Message-ID: <20041019193747.66424.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115955 Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of David, the Bright morning star. Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! And who were Sirius' friends? JAMES Potter, Remus JOHN Lupin, PETER Pettigrew. Who were Jesus' disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane? James, John and Peter! Who denied Jesus? Peter. Who betrayed Sirius and had him imprisoned? Peter! Doesn't this prove that Harry Potter is not only very similar to the Alchemical Wedding, but also to the New Testament? I have tried to tell anyone who would listen, time and time again, that Harry Potter is a timeless road map to liberation, just like the Alchemical Wedding, the Gospel of the Buddha, the Tao Teh Ching, the New Testament, etc. The story told by the New Testament is clearly indicated by these small clues. And I think they're hidden in such a way that they CAN BE FOUND. Jo is giving those who really want to know, the opportunity of determining what Harry Potter is really about. I just can't tell you how deeply moved I feel about this. Jo is telling the timeless story of faith, hope and love, the three greatest gifts one can give to another human being. But she is not giving them to one person, but millions of people. Right now those millions are not aware of that, but I think one day people will wake up to realise what Harry Potter is really about. (In my humble opinion, Amanda) Jo said that she named her son after nothing to do with Harry Potter. Ha ha! Sirius is the root and the offspring of David. David is the Liberated Man, the shining example of what we can all achieve if we complete the journey Harry is making. Revelation 2:28 I will give him who conquers the morning star. Hans PS My sincere and heartfelt thanks to the member who pointed out the three names to the group. It just fell into my subconscious for a long time, but yesterday suddenly popped up with a bang. Sorry I can't remember who the member is. ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 19:39:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:39:00 -0000 Subject: who is the hero? was DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > OK. Remove (or severely downgrade) the adults. > Remove Sirius and his back story. Do the same to Snape, Peter, Voldy > and stuff like the betrayal. Delete DD's plan, what it is and how it will > be executed, what part Harry plays in it. > What are you left with? > Some kid with a wand. > Not very exciting, is it? > > Without the adults there would have been no plot in any of the books. > I'm willing to bet the same will be true of the future 2 volumes. > Alla: Here is what I think. I agree with Nora and Potiocat that books are primarily about kids. I am also willing to place a bet that Dumbledore incorrectly interpreted prophecy and Harry'solution will be something DD was not able to predict it. Boy, oh boy, how much I wish that the old fool will survive only to read about surprised expression on his face. I partially agree with Kneasy. I will be dissapointed a bit, if the adults completely dissappear and I do care a lot about some of them, BUT they are already downgraded to suporting functions, I think. I would prefer to know A LOT more about the adults, but It IS Harry's story after all, I am not as dissapointed as other people, who care more about the characters other than Harry, because as long as Harry is front and center I am very happy. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 19:44:09 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:44:09 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy > I *never* complain when there's no love duet, for I suspect that > such as Handel were the Abba of their time. Alas, I suspect the intent of my analogy has been largely missed (or just slipped by). Expecting a love duet in Handel doesn't work, largely because there are no (or very few tenors). But--everyone knows that going in, that Handel ain't Puccini, although I can almost bring myself to feel some pity for those who are shocked at the opening sound of the harpischord. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that somehow Harry is going to off Voldemort, right? Harry himself may live or die, but the more extravagant claims of Dark!Harry and temptation and all that have already been shot down by her--she seemed pretty indignant about it, too. Sure, the adults are *important*, but the more I think about it and how it's really all about Harry, they are primarily there to give him guidance. I hope, just as fervently as you hope for other things, that Dumbledore is going to be wrong about the prophecy and Harry's going to have to figure things out by himself, to some extent. That's what the Bildungsroman model would lead us towards--the development of his character into independence and all that. I think she's conned us into trying to draw all of these intricate parallels between MWPP's generation and Harry's, and then messes with them. (To answer another thread, I don't think the Creevey brothers are meant as a direct Peter analogy, obnoxious though they may be.) But we shall have to wait and see, I think. Fear of sap, dear Kneasy? We all know your feelings about *ick* Love. But do expect it to play some major role in the series, after all. -Nora admits to preferring Puccini to Handel--mainly because there's no harpsichord From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 19:45:06 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:45:06 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115958 > Del replies : > From what I can see from the definitions you've provided, Paul, I see > Ron as envious, not jealous. Jealousy seems to imply that one wants > not only the same thing as someone else, but they also want to strip > the other from that thing. In other words, they want to *take* that > thing from someone else. > > Envy, on the other hand, seems to be when you want to have something > *too*. You don't mind someone else having it, but you wish you could > have it too. And *this* is what Ron does : he doesn't mind Harry > having some things, he just wishes he could have them *too*. For > example, he doesn't resent Harry for being rich, he only wishes he > could be rich too. Alla: I have a very opposite definition of envy, Del. The one, which is very close to "jealousy". Did you hear the expression "black envy" and "white envy". In my language "black envy" implies exactly that - that you want something that other person has AND you want that something to be taken from other person. Del: Envy, not jealousy : I don't mind you having it, > I just wish I could have it too. Alla: That is WHITE envy, Dell. I read Ron as bgeing ful of BLACK one in GoF. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 20:04:53 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:04:53 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115959 Alla wrote : "I read Ron as bgeing ful of BLACK one in GoF." Del replies : I'd never heard of black and white envy before, but they make sense. What I don't understand though ;-), is why you see Ron's envy as black ? Where do you read that not only he wanted the same things as Harry, but he also wanted Harry NOT to have them ? As I pointed out earlier, Ron never even thought of keeping a way of getting past the Age Line from Harry. He never plotted to be the only one of the two to have a chance at being champion. So what gives you the impression that Ron wanted to take anything away from Harry ? Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 20:21:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:21:20 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115960 > Del replies : > I'd never heard of black and white envy before, but they make sense. > > What I don't understand though ;-), is why you see Ron's envy as black > ? Where do you read that not only he wanted the same things as Harry, > but he also wanted Harry NOT to have them ? Alla: To me black envy not only means taking things from other person, but also wishing bad things or expressing ill feelings toward the person who has that thing, BECAUSE that person has it. I think Ron was doing PLENTY of that in GoF. I will find quotes later tonight ( no book with me), if nobody else will From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 19 20:31:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:31:21 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that somehow Harry is going to > off Voldemort, right? Harry himself may live or die, but the more > extravagant claims of Dark!Harry and temptation and all that have > already been shot down by her--she seemed pretty indignant about it, > too. > Kneasy: I'd give it 6:4. I expect the resolution to be something other than wands at 10 paces. Nora: > Sure, the adults are *important*, but the more I think about it and > how it's really all about Harry, they are primarily there to give him > guidance. I hope, just as fervently as you hope for other things, > that Dumbledore is going to be wrong about the prophecy and Harry's > going to have to figure things out by himself, to some extent. > That's what the Bildungsroman model would lead us towards--the > development of his character into independence and all that. > Kneasy: Oddly enough I have very little confidence in the significance of the Prophesy in the coming two books. There's a fair chance it's all history and therefore largely irrelevant, no matter what DD says. Independence - with Voldy in his head? Harry is not alone. Too many parallels between Harry and Tom. He's linked and it's the uncoupling that will resolve all. But that's not independence, not in the same terms that you're envisaging. Nora: > I think she's conned us into trying to draw all of these intricate > parallels between MWPP's generation and Harry's, and then messes with > them. (To answer another thread, I don't think the Creevey brothers > are meant as a direct Peter analogy, obnoxious though they may be.) > But we shall have to wait and see, I think. Kneasy: Can't speak for others, but most of the generational parallels I drone on about involve the Sorting Hat being nobbled. And that considers *types*, i.e. typical Slyth, Huff, whatever, rather than individuals repeating the sins of the fathers. So the Trio + Neville are bunged into Gryff, no matter how unreasonable. Similarly the Marauders; but it's part of DD's agenda (or maybe the Sorting Hats) rather than following the doomed footprints of a preceding generation through fate. > Nora: > Fear of sap, dear Kneasy? We all know your feelings about *ick* > Love. But do expect it to play some major role in the series, after > all. > Kneasy: Been there, done that. Enough to know that there's many flavours and conditions of love. In sixty years you can experience a lot. But stuffing 'em all under one catch-all label is fraud IMO. It just highlights the naivety of those concerned. And naivety is another form of ignorance, no? It raises unreal expectations. It's never a solution to a problem, though it may be a comfort to the afflicted. > -Nora admits to preferring Puccini to Handel--mainly because there's > no harpsichord Kneasy: See? Wrong again. Some lovely bashing of harpsichord keys if you know where to look. Try Wanda Landowska thumping out the Goldberg Variations. Makes Puccini sound like an ice-cream vendor with a strangulated hernia. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 20:53:36 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:53:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115962 Building on the recent threads of "this is Harry's story", I'm wondering about what new experiences Harry might have to go through. According to JKR (paraphrase), if Harry knew what's in store for him, he would run and hide. So I'm wondering what could be so horrible. Physical pain ? Well, I don't know for you, but I'm getting tired of being told 10 times in each book that "Harry had never felt such intense pain before". I truly hope that OoP was the last book where physical pain plays such a role. After all, he's been Crucioed back in GoF, then tortured in OoP, then there was the possession. Short from death itself, I don't see what could possibly be more physically painful that those things. Emotional pain ? Ah, many more possibilities here. 1. We already know that Harry is right now in the throes of grieving over Sirius. Could there be other deaths that would be at least as significant to Harry ? - His best friends. Hum, considering that JKR said that Hermione would live, if I'm not mistaken, that might not bode well for Ron. But it could also be Ginny, Neville or even Luna. Or one of the twins. It could be another one of the adults, like Lupin or Tonks, but I don't think it would affect Harry as much. - His mentor, DD. That would leave Harry completely alone to face LV. Harry might have felt alone when DD would not talk to him in OoP, but that would be nothing compared to what Harry would feel if DD died. - His adoptive family. I'd go for one or both of the parents, with a favour for Molly, as the mother figure, since Sirius was the real father figure. - Who else ? Maybe a real love interest ? (Kneasy, if you're reading, skip this paragraph) Having Harry discover a more real and profound love with someone more compatible than Cho, and then have this girl taken away from Harry, might sound too stereotyped, but it could be awfully interesting, in terms of Harry's development. 2. Harry also started discovering the true horror of guilt. Could he possibly make another mistake, or take another wrong decision, that would end up in another death, undisputably his fault this time ? I somehow doubt it. JKR already killed off Cedric in GoF because he happened to be with Harry, and Sirius because he went to Harry's help. I don't think she will make anyone else die "just because of Harry". I think he's learned his lesson, and won't go flying into action without thinking again. 3. A really interesting possibility, IMO, is betrayal. There have already been several betrayals in the story, but they were never both intensely personal and intensely damaging. Peter betrayed Harry's parents, not Harry himself. Marrietta betrayed the DA, not Harry himself. Ron and Hermione both betrayed Harry, but it didn't have lasting consequences, and it was not done to bring problems to Harry. We're still waiting for the Real Betrayal : from someone really close to Harry, who would betray Harry personally, with an evil intention, and with terrible consequences. Something like Traitor!Ron, though as a Ron fan, I can't envision it. 4. Another thing we haven't really seen, is Self-doubting!Harry. We've had glimpses of it in almost every book, but I don't feel we've seen Harry in full-bloom self-doubt, paralysed by his uncertainties about himself. But now that Harry knows to what extent LV was actually controlling him, he might have doubts as to how much he can trust himself. He might then come to understand why many of his schoolmates are not as determined as he is, for example. 5. And then of course, there's the ultimate test of courage : fear. The only time I can remember Harry being really scared is before the First Task of the TWT. But then he had to go and face his fear, and he knew there were protections anyway. The worst he faced was public humiliation. It would be interesting to see him facing such an intense fear, but with no other reason to face it than because it's the right thing to do, and with much more horrible perspectives in case of failure. I have no doubt he would come through with his head high, but it sure would be a good way for him to learn how to be a better leader. What else ? Public distrust, diffamation, suspicion, isolation, being deprived of everything he likes, being chased by evil beings, and so on, he's already faced all those things. On the light side, I already mentioned some more romance. Now that the truth is revealed, I also expect a lot more loyalty and cooperation, people looking up to him and willing to help him. An acceptation of his special qualities and aptitudes. Things like that. What do you think ? What have I missed ? What do you think will be the particular trials and errors Harry will be thrown into by JKR ? And what are the goodies she will throw him to keep him going ? Del From drliss at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 20:58:02 2004 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:58:02 +0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] Message-ID: <101920042058.27862.41757FD9000E737500006CD622007481849C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115963 Pippin: But he also admits that he has twice betrayed Dumbledore's trust. Once by leading his friends to become illegal Animagi and breaking the rules Dumbledore had made for his safety, and again as an adult, by not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was an Animagus. He also failed to turn in the Marauder's Map, which wouldn't have revealed his earlier betrayal, and would have revealed Sirius if he was on the grounds. That Lupin did this because he had doubts about Sirius's guilt is a pervasive bit of fanon, but the books don't support it much more than Leatherpants!Draco. Lupin says at least three times that he thought Sirius was guilty. Lissa: The first times Lupin broke Dumbledore's trust, it wasn't "evil." Dumb, yes. Stupid, yes. Dangerous, yes. Malicious... no. Make no mistake- I'm not saying Remus is perfect! I just don't think he would put himself in the way to harm Dumbledore. Lupin spent a lot of PoA rationalizing, I think. I DO think there was a small part of him that didn't want to believe in Sirius's guilt. Logic and reason told him yes, Sirius was guilty, but boy- is he quick to listen when Sirius shows up in the Shrieking Shack! And although I think he has some very good reasons to be quick to believe, he does believe Sirius... as soon as he sees Peter's name on the map. He says he tried to convince himself Sirius was getting into Hogwarts using Dark Magic, not because he was turning into a dog. King of denial there, but I think it was incredibly hard for him. I see Remus's refusal to confess everything to Dumbledore as exactly what he says it is: an act of cowardice because he doesn't want DD to be disappointed in him, not an act of evil. Being an overachiever oldest child, I can understand that pretty well ;) Pippin I remember from history class that revolutions happen when rising expectations are stalled. That's what happened to Lupin. Whatever he thought was going to happen after Hogwarts, the fact remains that he says his transformations while he was there were the happiest times of his life. Clearly things got worse for him after he left school--besides a statement like that being classic novelese for "The author wants you to know that this character has never really adjusted to adulthood." And Voldemort's cunning can't be left out of the picture either. We have Sirius's word that most wizards didn't realize what he was capable of until late in his rise to power. We saw in OOP what Dumbledore was like as master of the Order--aloof, remote, wary of revealing himself to anyone, like Lupin, who seems to have legilimency talents. And we never see that Lupin has an emotional closeness to Dumbledore the way that Harry or Hagrid or even Snape has. Lissa: I agree that Lupin's never fully adjusted to adulthood (that seems more mature comment did make me giggle). However, the big thing is that Dumbledore made a promise "You can go to school here"... and he came through. If DD had not yet come through, AND protected Remus during the prank, then I might say okay. I can see the frustration. But Dumbledore has fulfilled that particular promise, and Remus is smart enough to know DD can't control the rest of the world. As far as an emotional closeness, the only time we do see DD and Lupin together is at the end of PoA, when Lupin is leaving, which is kind of hard to count because it is an emotional moment with a lot of disappointment and sadness from both characters. Other than that, it's really hard to say, except one big quote: "Dumbledore's trust has meant everything to me." I'd say there's something there. Pippin: The fact that JKR has left us so much room here to speculate is in itself suspicious, IMO. Lissa: I do agree that Lupin is hiding something and there is a lot of room to speculate. I just can't see the ESE!theory playing out, simply because of the attachment Lupin has to DD. (Although I really would like to know how Lupin feels about DD after OotP!!!!) Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 20:59:19 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:59:19 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115964 Alla wrote : " To me black envy not only means taking things from other person, but also wishing bad things or expressing ill feelings toward the person who has that thing, BECAUSE that person has it. I think Ron was doing PLENTY of that in GoF. I will find quotes later tonight ( no book with me), if nobody else will" Del replies : I'd be interested in reading those quotes, because I can't remember Ron wishing *ill* to Harry. I *can* remember Ron making sarcastic remarks to Harry, but never wishing him ill. Ron never told Harry he wanted him to lose or be hurt in the TWT. He never participated in all the Harry-bashing. And when he realised that someone must have indeed wished ill to Harry, he immediately sided by his friend again. Del From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 19 21:30:05 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:30:05 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115965 Pip!Squeak: > > But Sirius doesn't get killed, attacked, tied up safely, > > *anything*! Just a threat from Snape which is actually a - > > warning 'Give me a reason to do it and I swear I will'. > Nora: > I think it's a little stronger than that--Snape doesn't relent > even begged, but *then* pulls out the threat about the dementors. > At the least, he's really being something of a sadist there. MD > has it that he's doing that to make sure he provokes Harry into > attacking him, right? > > Not exactly. Snape *is* trying to provoke Harry - he's probably doing that in a way that also pays Sirius and Lupin back. Very precisely, in fact. There's likely to be an element of sadist in Snape's natural make-up, but Sirius is not completely undeserving of Snape's nastiness in this case. One of the things Snape hears just before pulling off the cloak is Sirius announcing that Snape deserved to be Wolfie Chunks. That Sirius is, in fact, not in any way repentant of a stupid trick that could have ended up killing Snape, getting his friend expelled, and possibly killing James Potter as well. So yes, Snape threatens Sirius into thinking he's going to die a horrible death, in much the same way that Sirius made him think he was going to die a horrible death years before. And then Snape doesn't carry that threat out. Snape had two chances to kill Sirius - firstly in the Shack itself, secondly by calling the Dementors back when he recovers consciousness. Instead, he takes him to Dumbledore. There are two Snapes in the books. One is the verbal picture. That's the picture we get from the words Snape speaks, and Harry's interpretation of Snape. Leaving aside MD itself for a bit, my main contention with this character-view of Snape is that this verbal picture, this face value reading is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and JKR is playing absolutely fair with us, because she's consistently, in each novel, giving us clues that what we 'see' isn't the whole picture. The second Snape, is the picture we get from his *actions*. Not his words. That's picture's not of a nice guy, btw. But it is someone who (some random examples) will put someone he deeply dislikes on a stretcher and take him to Dumbledore (when he could have called the dementors back). It is someone who (in CoS) is backed up by the other staff when he faces Lockhart down. It's someone who will charge into a room containing a troll, or a werewolf at full moon, or an unknown imposter, to protect the pupils. It's someone who will try to teach Harry occlumency, when he doesn't want to. Someone respected; who deserves respect ('Professor Snape, Harry'). And we are given clues, that the Harry view of Snape is maybe not quite the right view. The qualifying phrases 'seemed', 'appeared'. 'Harry had a shrewd suspicion' (this at the end of a book about suspecting the wrong person). As I say - JKR is playing fair. Just as in Book One, we see that a spell to change Scabbers appearance *doesn't work*, and are told that First Years can't bring rats. There's something odd about Scabbers. We're given the clues from the start. And those same types of clues are being planted about Snape. Nora: > I need to work through the PoA timeline again to place one > comment, but that's going to take more thought than I have to spare at the moment...you all understand... :) > I know that feeling. Well do I know that feeling, especially in the last few months {grin}. Pip!Squeak From aoibhneach1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 21:46:59 2004 From: aoibhneach1 at yahoo.com (Cindy) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:46:59 -0000 Subject: OOP - Creating distance from Harry - was "What JKR Finds Important" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "legobaty29" wrote: > > Ilana wrote > > > It seems to me that JKR included a lot more moodiness (outbursts of anger, suppressed rage, and worry) for Harry in the final book than we saw in the previous books. My question is do you feel this was a device to create distance between the reader and Harry, rather than to continue and sustain unwavering empathy? Didanyone out there feel claustrophobic reading OOP--like JKR was pushing Harry's view to the point that you couldn't see the story unfold clearly? -------------------------------------------------- If JKR was intending to create distance between the reader and Harry, it didn't work with me. My sympathy for Harry went way up in book 5, and I could really see why Harry was behaving as he did. It has been many years since I was a teen, but Harry's behaviour seemed so familiar to me. He has an awful lot of stress to deal with, and speaking for myself, when dealing with stress, I (unfortunately) at times, yell at those I love. :-( Teenagers have even less control than adults, and things can seem so much more overwhelming to them. I did not get a claustrophobic feeling at all, either. If Harry dies at the end, it will be very depressing for me. -Cindy From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 21:56:28 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:56:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: > Nora: >> I need to work through the PoA timeline again to place one >> comment, but that's going to take more thought than I have to >> spare at the moment...you all understand... :) > > > I know that feeling. Well do I know that feeling, especially in the > last few months {grin}. I have it--and I've satisfied myself. Back over the summer (ah, to be back in the summer, when I had more fun things to do and posted almost nothing...not that I don't love you guys too...), I posted about the end of PoA (note 107020). Pippin posted an alternative and correction in 112842, but... As I re-examine it, my possibility is still eminently open, because of Fudge's comments: "...and once young Harry's back in his right mind, I expect he'll want to tell the Prophet exactly how you saved him..." This is heard when the kids have roughly five or so minutes left--it's hard to tell, true, about when things happen between the markers of 10 minutes left and 3 minutes left, because we have no indication in the middle, we have no indication of how much time it takes them to run places, none of that. But it seems to me, then that the infamous Snape comment I referred to probably *does* come after Snape and Fudge have been evicted from the Hospital Wing. The two of them are evicted, TTed!Harry and Hermione hear their comments, wait just long enough so that they have their conversation with Dumbledore, and slip back into the room. If it were to have happened before, Fudge's comments don't make sense--he seems to be referring to the Raving!Harry, not an Asleep!Harry. Either one is possible. And it doesn't affect MD, right--his nasty comments to Fudge are just 'playing a role' in MD, if I remember correctly. However, if you take my timeline, we have Snape who does the professional thing by taking Black in, gets very annoyed at his boss when the expected 'Yeah, execution time' doesn't materialize, encourages Fudge, gets bamboozled by his boss for screwing around, and flips out--although he must pick up on the "I'll tell you about it later" clues. The timeline doesn't provide enough specificity to go one way or the other, but I'll stand by my reading of Fudge's comments being meant to let us, the readers, know that Fudge has *heard* what Harry said, and thinks he's a raving loony at the moment. (I also can't make out any good reason why DD would ever want to reinforce the 'Harry Potter=teller of insane stories' idea to Fudge, which also makes me think that's Snape acting on his own.) -Nora gets back to marking off points of imitation and tonal types From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 21:57:19 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:57:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115969 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" > wrote: > > Not exactly. Snape *is* trying to provoke Harry - he's probably > > doing that in a way that also pays Sirius and Lupin back. Very > > precisely, in fact. There's likely to be an element of sadist in > > Snape's natural make-up, but Sirius is not completely undeserving > of > > Snape's nastiness in this case. One of the things Snape hears just > > before pulling off the cloak is Sirius announcing that Snape > > deserved to be Wolfie Chunks. That Sirius is, in fact, not in any > > way repentant of a stupid trick that could have ended up killing > > Snape, getting his friend expelled, and possibly killing James > > Potter as well. > Alla: > > Oh, the infamous..."served him right". It is certainly a possibility that Sirius is completely unrepentant of the stupid trick he played on Snape many years ago, but as you say, I find something VERY wrong with this picture. Sirius is just escaped from the Hellhole named Azkaban. It is canon that Dementors leave you with your worst feelings, with your worst fears, if you might. > Sirius leaves Azkaban driven by revenge against Peter and desire to protect Harry. He does not expect to hear or see Snape in Hogwarts, he does not even know that Snape is teaching. > But the minute Lupin mentions trick, Sirius reacts VERY strongly. > Could it be that "serves him right" is something more that just > unrepentance? Could it be that Dementors forced Sirius to remember > some VERY unpleasant Snape/related moments? > > Oh, the possibilities. :) > Pip: > > Snape had two chances to kill Sirius - firstly in the Shack itself, secondly by calling the Dementors back when he recovers consciousness. Instead, he takes him to Dumbledore. > Alla: > > Yes, he does. IMO, because it is a possibility to get more glory for > him - you know, to catch the escaped murderer AND for the world to > know about it. It is much more pleasant to watch Dementors to kiss > Sirius and gloat with pleasure knowing that Harry will see it too, > for example. And of course, Order of Merlin. > Pip: > > > There are two Snapes in the books. One is the verbal picture. > That's > > the picture we get from the words Snape speaks, and Harry's > > interpretation of Snape. Leaving aside MD itself for a bit, my main > > contention with this character-view of Snape is that this verbal > > picture, this face value reading is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and > > JKR is playing absolutely fair with us, because she's consistently, > > in each novel, giving us clues that what we 'see' isn't the whole > > picture. > > > > The second Snape, is the picture we get from his *actions*. Not his > > words. That's picture's not of a nice guy, btw. But it is someone > > who (some random examples) will put someone he deeply dislikes on a > > stretcher and take him to Dumbledore (when he could have called the > > dementors back). It is someone who (in CoS) is backed up by the > > other staff when he faces Lockhart down. It's someone who will > > charge into a room containing a troll, or a werewolf at full moon, > > or an unknown imposter, to protect the pupils. It's someone who > will > > try to teach Harry occlumency, when he doesn't want to. Someone > > respected; who deserves respect ('Professor Snape, Harry'). > > > Alla: > > I don't think view of his actions and words is that separable. Of > course, Harry does not have a full picture of Snape, but even when he gets fuller and fuller picture, there is something which does not change - even when Harry knows that Snape on Dumbledore's side, Snape still a sadist. Whether he supports Light or not, it does not excuse, IMO, his gloating over humilation and distress of the pupils in his care. Snape is capable of doing a right thing sometimes, of course, but how he gets there is important too and may cross out A LOT.Just my opinion, of course. > > Pip, I remember you used to call Snape a git and I used to think that this a very, very tender name for him. Yes, sadist is the word I am much more comfortable with or as Nora puts it "mild streak of sadism". > > By the way, what do you mean, same type of clues are planted about > Snape? You mean, he will turn out to be a traitor after all and Harry > will turn out to be right all along? :o) > > Even I don't believe in ESE!Snape. Snape, who has not redeemed > himself yet, YES, but not ESE. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 22:16:47 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:16:47 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115970 I (Carol) wrote: > > ...Either that or Percy turned seventeen just after the school year began and had to wait till he was almost eighteen to learn. If that were the case, I don't think he'd be showing off quite so much. (BTW, JKR hasn't mentioned his birthday on her site, so either he hasn't had a birthday between May 15 and October 14, or he's off her list of good guys who merit a happy birthday wish.) > > saraquel responded: > JKR did post Percy's birthday. It's August 22. Carol again: Yes, thanks. Someone else also informed me. I somehow missed that one (but it seems like a good omen--would she wish Percy a happy birthday if he wer ESE!?)? Has anyone made a list of the birthdays? Maybe the Elves could add them to the database or something? I know we have Harry, Hermione, Minerva McGonagall, Filius Flitwick, Angelina (IIRC), and Percy, and we already Ron's and the twins'. Who am I forgetting? Have they done Snape yet? (I'm predicting he was born in the dismal month of November.) Please check to see if anyone else has responded yet before answering. I don't want to start an avalanche of posts with merely factual information. Carol From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 22:17:01 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:17:01 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115971 Ilana Lydia wrote: "Did anyone out there feel claustrophobic reading OOP--like JKR was pushing Harry's view to the point that you couldn't see the story unfold clearly?" Del replies : ALL HARRY LOVERS, DO NOT READ !! And I mean it !! I felt horrible while reading OoP, but I'm sure it wasn't intended. OoP is the first HP book I actually had troubles reading and finishing ! It took me many days to finish it, when all the others had been over in a couple of days. I would pick it up, read for a couple of hours, and put it down, because I was just so annoyed by the whole thing. My main problem was Harry and his emotions, and particularly the way he abuses his friends. I was never too close to Harry pre-OoP, but I did care about him. However, when I ran into Angry!Yell-at-everyone!Harry, I stopped caring. I was angry at him more often than not throughout the book, and by the end I positively wanted to punch his nose flat. To give you an example, I was so angry at him for going to the MoM in the first place, that when Sirius died, my only thought was "Serves you well !" Reading about Harry lashing out at DD after that was more than I could take, I was sooo angry at him ! And when Harry grieved by the lake, I felt a savage pleasure at his misery, and wanted to ask him if he had learned his lesson now. Not nice, I agree, but it shows how detached from Harry I had become. (Note : now that I'm not so annoyed with him anymore -I got used to it-, I can actually empathise with Grieving!Harry.) My other problem, related to the first one, is that Harry's emotions were masking the story way too often. It had always been that way in the previous books too, but I felt it more in OoP, probably because I didn't care much about Harry's emotions anymore. I just wanted him to get a grip on himself, stop acting like a self-centered git, and start worrying about what really mattered. However, I must admit that I wasn't a typical adolescent back in my young age, and that I still cannot tolerate people shouting to get their way. That probably explains why I couldn't relate to Harry in OoP. In other words : my fault, definitely not JKR's. In fact, it is a tribute to her talent that Harry irritated me so much, as much as a real person ! I do hope Harry will change in HBP, though. Del From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 19 22:21:37 2004 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:21:37 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] David Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115972 Hans suggests: >Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of David, the >Bright morning star. > >Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! I believe the morning star is the planet Venus (and that it's also the evening star). Janet Anderson _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 22:23:51 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:23:51 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115973 > Del replies : > > ALL HARRY LOVERS, DO NOT READ !! And I mean it !! Alla: LOLOL! Too late. You should have put a warning as subject. :o) Del: > My main problem was Harry and his emotions, and particularly the way > he abuses his friends. I was never too close to Harry pre-OoP, but I > did care about him. However, when I ran into > Angry!Yell-at-everyone!Harry, I stopped caring. Alla: Well, since you care more about Ron and Hermione, I understand you being upset. Honestly, I like them, but without Harry, as I said, I much prefer to read more about Sirius, Lupin and yes, even about Snape. As far as I am concerned, Harry needed to go throw this blow up at everybody phase. I am glad it happened, I am noly hoping that he will change back slow enough. Del: > I do hope Harry will change in HBP, though. > Alla: Personally, I am positive of it. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Oct 19 22:31:20 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:31:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: <00a501c4b56f$ae303a10$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Pippin said > > But Lupin was a Gryffindor, who, IMO, ended up on Voldemort's > side only because he began to feel that outside Hogwarts there > was no useful place for him in the light. Renee: Lupin was a member of the first Order of the Phoenix. To me, this qualifies as a "useful place in the light". I don't know if the Marauders and Lily became members right out of Hogwarts, but given the timeline it can't have been very long afterwards. Lupin hardly had time to start feeling useless until after Voldemort's fall. As the ESE!Lupin theory requires him to have joined Voldemort before that, this isn't a very convincing argument. > Sherry: > > Pippin, you build a compelling case for ESE Lupin. I hope you are wrong. I > admit this is a very personal bias on my part. As a disabled person, I > can't tell you how many times I've been told, that if I had enough faith I'd > be healed, or that I or my parents must have done some terrible thing for me > to be blind. i've had people tell me that till they got to know me, they > thought I was developmentally disabled, though they did not use such a clean > politically correct term. People talk to me as if I'm a child, or as if I > am also deaf and mute. People think I am incompetent, though I have worked > successfully for many years. People either think I am super human or only > part human, the other part some freak of nature or God. Over the > generations, disabled people have been looked at with suspicion and fear, > especially people who are developmentally disabled. Now, I'm not saying > that disabled people are all wonderful either; I've known some pretty scummy > disabled people and some down right criminals. But to me, to have Lupin bee > truly ESE, would be confirming all the stereotypes the WW has about his > kind. I see Lupin as the representative almost disabled person in the cast, > and I'd really hate to have the WW opinion of him proved correct. It would > feel like a confirmation of many, many people's beliefs about all people > with disabilities. > > So, as I say, I realize my feeling on the subject is based on very personal > bias, and your thoughts on ESE Lupin are very intriguing. I just hope you > are wrong. Renee: Sherry, I don't know what value you attach to the judgment of someone who rarely posts on this list, but I'm with you here. As Pippin pointed out herself, JKR has stated that Lupin is a metaphor for the way people react to illness and disability. I'd like to add there's a very personal quality to this statement. JKR's own mother suffered from multiple sclerosis, a crippling, incurable disease that is often fatal - Mrs. Rowling died of it when she was 45 years old. It can also lead to discrimination; for instance, the people affected by it have difficulty getting a regular job (sound familiar?) because they can't work 40 hours a week due to fatigue and other symptoms. In many countries, there are laws against this (though not in the Wizarding World), but these are only too easy to circumvent for employers. A great deal has to be done still for people suffering from MS and other chronical diseases that do not only cripple the sufferer but also make it difficult for them to function socially. Not surprislingly, JKR supports the MS Society of Scotland. I don't think it's a coincidence that Lupin is one of her favourite characters. Nor do I think he's unimportant to her; she's mentioned him too often in her interviews and commentaries. No wonder, if he represents a personal issue to her. As Alla said in a previous post: I am again keeping my fingers crossed that having an "edge" does not mean ESE!Remus, because to me it would cross out message about tolerance and help to the victims of prejudice. It would mean that you cannot survive in the tough conditions without turning to evil, but it is just my opinion. Renee again: ESE!Lupin would also cross out the plea for a change of attitude towards people who, like JKR's mother, suffer from an incurable, crippling and socially impairing disease through no fault of their own. And what message would it be to say: If you're being treated badly because of your illness, you're bound to go bad? What we're actually shown, so far - that Lupin's integrity is compromised because of his condition (he likes too much to be liked), but that he remains a positive character nonetheless - is far more effective. To the general audicience it says: Look how discrimination can affect the victim. To the people affected it says: you don't have to conform to the prejudice; you can fight to retain your dignity. A two-edged sword. Plotwise, the ESE!Lupin theory is very ingenious. But the HP books can be read on more levels. Given JKR's personal involvement with illness and disability, the theory is complete and utter rubbish on the metaphorical level. To me, this means it won't happen in the plot either. Sherry, I hope this helps, Renee From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 22:39:36 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:39:36 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115975 > Kethryn wrote: > > > If the Slytherins love purebloods so much and you can't hide > anything from the Sorting Hat, why oh why do halfbreeds end up in > Slytherin? One would think that, since ancestry is what caused > Salazar to split from Hogwarts, the Hat would know better (or be > bewitched) than to put people into Slytherin that aren't pureblood. > Of course, the Hat does take it upon itself to occasionally teach > object lessons... > > Tammy (I think) responded: > Well, the supply of purebloods is probably getting a little thin, > there's a reference to that in SS/PS. > > But more importantly perhaps the Hat has taken it upon itself to look more at attitude than actual blood. For example Millicent Bullstrode is a halfblood (at least according to that book that JKR showed on TV), but if Millicent doesn't know it, and the family doesn't acknowledge it, then perhaps it doesn't matter much to the hat. Tom Riddle was a halfblood and was a Slytherin. Not just because he was the heir, but he had the attitude of a Slytherin, that wizards are better than muggles. He hated muggles, and perhaps that's more > important to the hat? Carol agrees with Tammy and adds: The hat received "brains" from all four founders, though it was originally Godric Gryffindor's hat and may lean just a bit toward his views. Nevertheless, I think that, much as it regrets having to "quarter the students every year" (probably not exact quarters--I don't like the idea of its having a quota to fill), it seems to have its own criteria for a house, based partly on what the founder wanted and partly on where it feels a student belongs. So a student with ambition and an interest in or talent for the Dark Harts (sheesh!) Dark Arts, whether it's Tom Riddle or Severus Snape, will be placed there because he'll feel at home. Students whose parents have raised them with Slytherin values, especially purebloods like Draco Malfoy and Theo Nott, will be placed there as a matter of course. And whether Crabbe and Goyle are purebloods or halfbloods (they're certainly not Muggleborns), their fathers are Death Eaters and they, too, undoubtedly expected and wanted to be placed in Slytherin. (The Sorting Hat seems to think Harry would have done well there. Does it think that Snape might have mentored Harry rather than resenting him if he'd been made a Slytherin? If so, Harry's prejudgment of Slytherin combined with the Hat's awareness of his potential for courage, overpowered that hope.) On a side note, JKR doesn't use the term "halfbreeds," which is rather politically incorrect and would, if used, apply to half-giants like Hagrid, Centaurs like Firenze, and other "half-humans" (including, possibly, werewolves like Lupin). The term for witches or wizards with one Muggle or Muggleborn parent is "half-bloods." Oddly, though JKR says on her site that terms like "half-blood," "pure-blood" and "Muggleborn" are used by people like Lucius Malfoy who care about such distinctions, Dumbledore also uses those terms and has not discouraged Harry from using them. Carol, with apologies if I misattributed the unsigned post From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 22:49:01 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:49:01 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115976 Alla wrote : "Well, since you care more about Ron and Hermione, I understand you being upset." Del replies : Actually, I didn't really care more about them than Harry before OoP. I liked them all the same : all a lot. I cared a lot about Harry : when Molly gave him that hug at the end of GoF, I was right there with her ! It's in fact *since* OoP that I don't care much about Harry anymore. I never really related to him before, but I did get upset whenever something bad happened to him and I did want him to be happy. But in OoP, I couldn't care less. Ron and Hermione, OTOH, only grew in my eyes through OoP. First of all because they remained so steadfastly loyal to Harry no matter how badly he treated them. And also because they seemed to handle their own private lives quite well, unlike someone else. (And yes I know, their lives were nowhere as hard or complicated as someone else's life. Don't bite :-) Alla wrote : "As far as I am concerned, Harry needed to go throw this blow up at everybody phase." Del replies : I guess one of my problems is that it came at a completely wrong time *in my idea*. I was truly expecting Harry to blow up in one of the first books, but no, he just swallowed it all like it was nothing. He seemed to be the epitome of the resilient kid that nothing can truly disturb. And then suddenly, in OoP, he blows up at the slighest offence, real or imaginary. He had always held himself up very nicely, but then suddenly everyone has to suffer for his own problems. You see, I'm not at all like Harry, so to me, all of this seemed either forced on the part of JKR or self-indulging on the part of Harry. Either way, it jerked me out of the story, and cut me off from Harry. Del From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Tue Oct 19 15:01:22 2004 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:01:22 -0400 Subject: Snape and Lockhart (was Re: Whoops!) Message-ID: <2C9D437B.16C1A749.39E60FE2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115977 Potioncat: > For one thing, if he broke it, Snape looks silly, not powerful. If he broke it, it was a "Clumsy me!" sort of approach. If someone else broke it, it's "I don't care." which is more powerful. > ...while ignoring Harry he drops and breaks a flask of potion? In front of the class? Saying no more than Whoops? And doesn't do any other mean things to him? It just doesn't seem to fit. Once before that I remember Snape magicked away Harry's potion because Snape said it was no good. But this seems different. That was public, and with a sneer. Again, powerful. fuzzlebub85: Just on a side note, potioncat, about Snape looking silly when he says "Whoops!", of course he looks silly...BUT has ANYONE noticed that the only OTHER reference to someone saying that word in the entire series is LOCKHART?! In the Dueling Scene in CoS, *in front of Snape*! Doesn't he say, "Whoops! My wand is a little overexcited!"? Why is it that the ONLY other character we hear say that is Lockhart?! Just wondering... Kaylee Tonks-Lupin, throwing this post out for the conspiracy theorists to chew on From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 23:00:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:00:42 -0000 Subject: Lack of sorting hat scenes in CoS & PoA In-Reply-To: <2b.63d0ba96.2ea2796c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at a... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/15/2004 11:12:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > susiequsie23 at s... writes: > > Does anybody think there could be something to this? Or was JKR > just having trouble coming up with a new Sorting Hat song for every > single year? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > I would think it is more a matter of not boring the reader. We all know > what the sorting is all about. Why go through a bunch of names if they add > nothing to the story? > > > Neil Carol adds: Not to mention that if we're used to similar scenes every year (and a bit bored by them), we might be tempted to skip or skim the Sorting Hat scene in GoF, which provides a bit of background on the ceremony and introduces the concept of a new song every year, or the very important new song in OoP, dignified with its own chapter title, which reinforces the unity theme introduced in GoF with the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Essentially, it's just like Harry's classes. JKR details them when they're important and skips them when they're not. (IMO, of course.) And there's also the possibility that some of the students introduced during those ceremonies, even though they're "ickle firsties," will prove important or interesting later. (Dennis Creevey drowns trying to defend the Giant Squid from the DEs? Or something like that. :-) ) Carol, noting that the Muggleborn Creevey brothers, especially Dennis, are described as "tiny" like Flitwick and Diggle From azriona at juno.com Tue Oct 19 15:49:06 2004 From: azriona at juno.com (Sharon) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:49:06 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115979 Carolyn: > Agent!Peter: This is a portmanteau term invented to cover the various roles the rat might or might not be playing in the series, and doesn't relate to any one poster or theory....a presentation by Amy Webb & Sharon Brown called `Let's Chat About the Rat' at ConventionAlley this August provided an extensive (50-page) run through some of the arguments. Unfortunately, AFAIK, the paper is not available electronically (although you can buy a copy of the proceedings). Sharon: Good lord, from reading all that, I'm winded. And I thought I was winded after writing the paper... Carolyn, just a quick note to tell you that the paper IS online at my website, if you or anyone else want to read it. There's also a listing (which will hopefully grow, hint hint hint) of Peterfics and PeterTheories. Go to http://www.azriona.net/peterpettigrew And thanks for the credit! --az (Sharon) From carla68 at adelphia.net Tue Oct 19 16:54:09 2004 From: carla68 at adelphia.net (basilhummus) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:54:09 -0000 Subject: Family Secrets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115980 Has it been posited by anyone that Petunia could in fact be Harry's Secret Keeper? I would appreciate being directed to this conversation if possible, as my search of the archives has proven to be fruitless at best. My husband wondered aloud whether this could be what compels Petunia to continue to give Harry a place to call home. If Voldemort gained "ultimate power" by killing Harry, it will not only bring the wizarding world crashing down, but the muggle world as well. Her housing of Harry could actually be the lynchpin that keeps both worlds intact. Not to mention, that it seems as the the over-coddled Dudley may also be part of this bargain in some way. With Greatest Appreciation, Carla From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 17:14:09 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:14:09 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages was:BIll Weasley as DADA? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115981 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I too have championed Bill as the new DADA teacher in the past. Being > a curse breaker means he must have a huge bank of knowledge about > curses and countercurses. Logic says that some of the tombs he is > breaking curses on had the curses put on them in languages and by > schools of magic that don't exist anymore. That's quite a feat in my book. LisaMarie: This comment about the curses in other languages brings up a question in my mind, but I am at a loss as to how to phrase it so that it can be understood by folks outside of my own head. Forgive me if it is too technical; I love to study languages and therefore cannot help myself! Magic and languages. This makes me wonder: Are there language barriers in the magical world? I mean, I know that wizards/witches in other countries speak other languages besides English Fleur and Krum), but what about the language of magic itself? Are the spells universal (read: accessible to users of any language), or are they language-specific? An example may help me illustrate my question. I'll use Bill Weasley. For the sake of example, let's assume Bill is in an Egyptian tomb, working on breaking a curse, called X. If Bill knows the countercurse for X, can he manage it, or will he have to use the language in which the curse was uttered? Another scenario, this time using a situation from PS/SS. When Quirrell is jinxing Harry's broom during the Quidditch match, Snape is uttering countercurses to protect Harry. If Quirrell had been a native German speaker, and therefore uttering jinxes in German, would Snape have been able to counter them, not knowing German spells, but English ones? Are they the same in essence, or totally different beasts. I don't even know where to look in canon for this one!! Lisa, hoping she hasn't bored anyone to the point of tears :) From distaiyi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 18:04:17 2004 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:04:17 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality (plus Predicting the future) In-Reply-To: <20041019150947.11989.qmail@web54102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds wrote: > On the other hand, letting a child (or an adult) use an Unforgiveable curse for any reason might set a dangerous precedent in that child's life, since then they might feel more "comfortable," in a sense, with killing as a means to solve a problem. Not that I don't think Voldemort of all people doesn't deserve to be killed, but as he's proved in the past, maybe he *can't* be killed, even by his own AK curse backfiring on him. And the point was made by Dumbledore at the MoM battle that there could be a fate worse than death for someone like Voldemort. Distaiyi the cynical writes : Oh Oh Oh, good point and you just sparked a neuron! What would be worse than death for Voldemort? Recall when he spoke to Harry in SS/PS... "There is only power and those too weak to seek it!" So what could be worse than death for the Dark Lord? POWERLESSNESS! To be a muggle would be the worste, or to be a wizard who is just powerless would be almost as bad. Wish I could write more but for now... Distaiyi From annegirl11 at juno.com Tue Oct 19 23:10:43 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:10:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] David Message-ID: <20041019.191215.2960.9.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 115983 Hans epistled: > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of > David, the Bright morning star. > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! And who were Sirius' friends? JAMES Potter, Remus JOHN Lupin, PETER Pettigrew. Who were Jesus' disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane? > James, John and Peter! Dude. That's like... trippy. So will Sirius will be killed yet rise again on the third ... something? Day? Third day in God-time (if you follow the "7 days is metaphorical for millions of years" creationist apology)? Third time someone tries to invoke the veil? I'm having a huge WTF moment: 1. In Dogma (a very well-researched movie), Lucifer is referrred to as "the morning star." I mostly slept through sunday school from ages 10-17, so if one of you people who stayed awake and did your communion homework could remind me what the heck that could mean in regards to Sirius? 2. When we were talking about the Potters and Voldemort, that "denies three times" thing kept jumping out at me. So, what's Peter and denying three times got to do with the Potters denying Voldemort three times? Was Voldie just jealous that he wasn't being denied, too? > Who denied Jesus? Peter. Who betrayed Sirius and had him imprisoned? > Peter! So he's got one more big betrayal to go. > Doesn't this prove that Harry Potter is not only very similar to > the Alchemical Wedding, but also to the New Testament? No. It doesn't. At all. It proves that Jo MAY have used some so-common-it's-part-of-the-secular-culture religious imagry for a bunch of friends. Or, more likely, that she gave two of her chracters very common names and gave a character with an unusual name a very common middle name. And she gave a big shaggy dog the name of the dogstar. She isn't Chris Carter or Kevin Smith. She isn't basing her entire series on the Bible. Aura ~*~ "I sat down to play yesterday and all of a sudden it was 4 hours later and dark -- as if God had hit my double arrow button." - The Sims forum Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 19:15:26 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:15:26 -0000 Subject: the Dark Arts Job Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115984 Ten'ou wrote: > The position attracts evil. Like when you > have a ley line that's turned dark, it attracts dark things to it... Beatnik replied: > Ooh, I really like this theory...<> something to the tune of "Some people reckon > that the DADA position is cursed." I think that these people might > reckon correctly. Is it possible to curse a teaching post? If so, > who's doing the cursing? Snape, so that he might get the job > someday or working on LV's orders? Some other evil person at > Hogwarts, who has not revealed their evilness yet? Carol notes: > The Weasley who made the remark was Percy in SS/PS, citing a rumor rather than a known fact. Beatnik responds: I realize this was a rumor (sorry, if it sounded like I was trying to pass if off as fact), but who's to say that some rumors can't be true. After all, the existence of the Chamber of Secrets was at one time 'just a rumor'. And, there are other examples within the text where rumors turned out to be accurate (like the one you cite below:)) BTW, I looked it up...and the reference I found was in CoS, and it was Hagrid, "People aren't to keen to take the job. They startin' to think it's jinxed." Although, I swear a Weasley said something to this effect, as well. Carol: > I don't know what to think of the jinx idea except that Snape (whom we don't know to be evil and who probably isn't given DD's trust of him) would hardly be jinxing a position he applies for every year. (That was also a rumor until Snape confirmed its truth to Umbridge in OoP.) Beatnik: My thought about Snape, was that he would jinx the position, in order that he *could* apply every year. The position would have to be open for Snape to have a chance to be appointed to it. I, also, assumed that if Snape had performed the jinx, he would know how to lift it once he was the DADA teacher. I don't think this has anything to do with Snape being evil, just ambitious; after all, he was in Slytherin! Carol: > It's interesting that the position was considered jinxed even before Quirrell died, though he seems to be coming back to it after a year's absence doing practical research in Albania. He must have taught for at least a year before leaving. (Constance Vigilance, if she's reading this, will have some ideas on the subject.) Beatnik: This confuses me, too. Carol: > If something as abstract and insubstantial as a teaching position can be jinxed, which seems unlikely, it would make sense that the person doing the jinxing would be a DE, someone like, say, Lucius Malfoy, who doesn't want the students to learn *defense* against the Dark Arts. In fact, if he hadn't given in to Narcissa, he have sent Draco to Durmstrang to learn the Dark Srts themselves rather than defense against them. Snape, on the other hand, studied very hard for his DADA OWL and evidently knew the subject in great detail even as a fifth-year. It seems most unlikely that he would put a jinx on a subject he cares so much about--or agree to substitute for Lupin, as he must have done every month though we only see the one lesson, if he thought the position was jinxed. Beatnik: Again, the reason I think Snape would jinx the position would be to allow him to teach it. I don't know that Snape really cares that much about the students' education in the subject. The only lesson we saw, the entire purpose of his curriculum was to punish Lupin, and get him fired. Of course, it's definitely possible that someone else has jinxed the position, for example, someone who doesn't want the students to learn DADA, like a DE. That is, if the position is jinxed at all. Beatnik P.S. Thanks to Carol, to responding to my post, it makes us Newbies feel so special;) From sunflowerlaw at cox.net Tue Oct 19 20:32:46 2004 From: sunflowerlaw at cox.net (Lindsay W.) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:32:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] David In-Reply-To: <20041019193747.66424.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20041019193747.66424.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041019130924.03f51ff8@pop.west.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 115985 Hans wrote: >Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of David, the >Bright morning star. > >Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! Lawless replies: Isn't the morning star Venus? (Sometimes Mercury?) I've never heard of Sirius A being referred to as the morning star. Certainly one of the brighest true stars, but Venus has always held the rank as the "morning star." Hans wrote: >And who were Sirius' friends? JAMES Potter, Remus JOHN Lupin, PETER >Pettigrew. Who were Jesus' disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane? James, >John and Peter! > >Who denied Jesus? Peter. Who betrayed Sirius and had him imprisoned? Peter! Lawless replies: James, John and Peter are also extremely popular names. I certainly wouldn't put it past Rowling to make Biblical references, but somehow I have trouble equating Peter Pettigrew with Simon Peter. After all, Peter never betrayed Jesus, he just "fell out" for a short while, before returning to be what some call the Model Disciple. I can't at all relate Petter Pettigrew to that. Furthermore, your analogy would mean equating Sirius with Jesus, and again, I have trouble seeing that. Sirius is far from perfect, and certainly not benevolent - though he does have good intentions. I also saw James as more of the ringleader than Sirius, or them as equals. I'll agree that Rowling is telling a timeless story, and while she is Christian, I doubt that she is putting Biblical references into her stories. Though, as I said, I wouldn't put it past her - never underestimate Rowling, after all! --Lawless From cat_kind at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 20:53:07 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:53:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115986 potioncat: > Umbridge and McGonagall exchange barbs over Harry's potential for > making Auror. McGonagall dismisses the current DADA marks and > specifically quotes Professor Lupin's opinion. She vows to do > everything in her power to help Harry succeed. "If it's the > last > thing I do." catkind: I have a question, I hope it's not one of potioncat's FAQs: What exactly does McG mean to do about helping Harry to succeed? She shows in fact no sign of helping Harry with his Potions work, and Harry certainly doesn't sound like he's improved enough to get the Outstanding Snape is looking for in his NEWT students, even if the exam does go better than he expected. It would be hideously unprofessional if she were to try to make an exception for Harry, on the other hand I can't see Snape volunteering, or Harry proceeding without Potions. The only way out I can see is for there to be a new Potions teacher next book. Perhaps Snape can finally be given the DADA job? I'm getting bored of constantly having new characters in it, and it would be a lot of fun to see how Snape gets on with Harry in his best subject. catkind From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Oct 19 23:29:40 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:29:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115987 > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" Sirius is not completely undeserving > > > > > of Snape's nastiness in this case. One of the things Snape > > > > hears just before pulling off the cloak is Sirius announcing > > > that Snape deserved to be Wolfie Chunks. That Sirius is, in > > > > fact, not in any way repentant of a stupid trick that could > > > have ended up killing Snape, getting his friend expelled, and > > > possibly killing James Potter as well. > > > > Alla: > > > > Oh, the infamous..."served him right". It is certainly a > possibility that Sirius is completely unrepentant of the stupid > trick he played on Snape many years ago, but as you say, I find > something VERY wrong with this picture. > Sirius is just escaped from the Hellhole named Azkaban. It is > canon that Dementors leave you with your worst feelings, with your > worst fears, if you might. Ah, yes of course. I forgot. It's all Snape's fault [grin]. Under no circumstances can Sirius be a git. Sirius has *reasons* for any nasty behaviour. Snape doesn't understand poor Sirius. He is unsympathetic to what he's been through. He was probably to blame for Sirius bullying him as well. Obviously. The way he was, well, just *being* there in the Pensieve scene. Besides, he has grey underwear. Snape most likely smelt. Somebody has to do something about kids like that. Humiliate them, for example. OK, I'm being sarcastic. Because frankly, neither Snape nor Sirius are nice people. The reason we see Sirius as nice is quite simple - Harry likes him. We see Sirius through his viewpoint. When not viewed through Harry's viewpoint, Sirius 1)was a school bully 2)played a potentially lethal trick on the kid he bullied 3)owns a slave (whether house-elves are always slaves is a moot point, but I'd say that Dobby, Winky and Kreacher are all treated as if they were slaves by the Malfoys, Crouches and the Blacks) 4)treats that slave with contempt. There are probably other points. Sirius is charming and Snape is charmless - they're both very flawed human beings. > > Alla: > Sirius leaves Azkaban driven by revenge against Peter and desire > to protect Harry. He does not expect to hear or see Snape in > Hogwarts, he does not even know that Snape is teaching. > > > But the minute Lupin mentions trick, Sirius reacts VERY > > strongly. Could it be that "serves him right" is something more > > that just unrepentance? Could it be that Dementors forced Sirius > > to remember some VERY unpleasant Snape/related moments? Such as turning him upside down and exposing his underwear? > > Alla: > > Oh, the possibilities. :) Anything is possible - but to date we've seen Sirius allow the unconscious Snape to knock his head against a tunnel wall, bully him two on one (to be fair, James instigated that one) and tell him how to get into a tunnel with a werewolf at the other end. What he's said against Snape is - *not* that Snape used to attack him at school. Instead, he's said that the young Snape was fascinated by the Dark arts, knew a lot of curses, hung around with Slytherins who later became DE's, and was slimy. And oily. And tried to get them kicked out of school. Unfortunately, the current state of canon evidence (rather than speculative evidence) is that Sirius and James were the bullies, Snape the victim. Even the trying to get them kicked out of school can be (speculatively) fitted into a 'victim' pattern for Snape - people who're being bullied often dream about the bullies getting expelled. Sirius tries to follow this pattern of bullying in Chapter 24 of OOP, by the way. > > > Pip: > > > > Snape had two chances to kill Sirius - firstly in the Shack itself, > secondly by calling the Dementors back when he recovers > consciousness. Instead, he takes him to Dumbledore. > > > Alla: > > > > Yes, he does. IMO, because it is a possibility to get more glory > > > for him - you know, to catch the escaped murderer AND for the > > world to know about it. It is much more pleasant to watch > > Dementors to kiss Sirius and gloat with pleasure knowing that > > Harry will see it too,for example. And of course, Order of > Merlin. Of course. I'm trying to think of another point in the books (not in speculation) where Snape seeks glory. His work in the first Voldemort war is undercover. His work in the second Voldemort war is fairly low-key. Given the opportunity to please Umbridge he sticks with Dumbledore. He's willing to have the whole staff-room think he's refereeing unfairly to save Harry. And so on. The order of Merlin is first brought up by Fudge, not Snape, and later mentioned by Lupin, not Snape. Order of Merlin - not red and herring shaped, is it? :-) > > Alla: > > > > I don't think view of his actions and words is that separable. > > Of course, Harry does not have a full picture of Snape, but even > when he gets fuller and fuller picture, there is something which > does not change - even when Harry knows that Snape on Dumbledore's > side, Snape still a sadist. Whether he supports Light or not, it > does not excuse, IMO, his gloating over humilation and distress of > the pupils in his care. Snape isn't a true sadist. *Umbridge* is a true sadist. Umbridge is what real sadism looks like. Snape is a git in the fine old English tradition of sarcasm so withering you burst into tears, and have to be dragged out of the toilet two hours later, you're so upset. Snape's a picture of a type of teacher who used to be (possibly still is) very common in English schools. I remember a Miss Snape. And I hated her. But it was a recognised teaching style, something that pupils had to learn to cope with because we'd meet it in the real world later. Such teachers were not remotely interested in caring for your emotional well-being; just in battering the lesson plan into your dim little brain {g}. Alla: > Snape is capable of doing a right thing sometimes, of course, but > how he gets there is important too and may cross out A LOT.Just my > opinion, of course. Of course. If we all had the same opinions, this would be a very low volume list [grin]. > > Alla: > > Pip, I remember you used to call Snape a git and I used to think > that this a very, very tender name for him. Yes, sadist is the > word I am much more comfortable with or as Nora puts it "mild > streak of sadism". Um. Well to me, sadist implies more physical violence. I think Snape does have a sadistic streak, but as I say above, if I was asked to identify the 'sadist' in the Hogwarts classroom, I'd go for Umbridge. Snape tries, I think, to keep the sadistic streak strictly verbal; the one time he does injure Harry he starts screaming at the boy to get out, now. Unlike Umbridge, who keeps Harry cutting into his hands for hours and hours and hours ... > > Alla: > > By the way, what do you mean, same type of clues are planted > > about Snape? You mean, he will turn out to be a traitor after > > > all and Harry will turn out to be right all along? :o) :-P Misdirection. It's all misdirection. But which direction is being mis-ed? {g} Pip!Squeak From syroun at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 21:39:40 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:39:40 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115988 Sigune: > Are you talking about the present OotP or the past OotP... Syroun: > See above...I think it is a question as to when he actually > defected - before LV's demise or after the war? Christelle: > It was before, when only those who know the prophecy could see the > end of LV's reign: > > "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." (GOF, ch 30) > > Now, did Snape heard the prophecy and thought to go before it was > too late? Syroun: Thanks for citing the basis for this premise in canon, Christelle. I thought that was the case, but did not take the time to look it up and since you are all so diligent in knowing these things from rote, I thought it best in my comments to leave some room for debate. I think canon cited reinforces the premise that Snape is far more deeply involved in the DE inner workings than we realized, which leads me to my earlier thesis that Snape had helped LV in a substantial way through his prowess as a potions master. His understanding can be compared to a roadmap of sorts. As a DE, he was aware of LV's great plans for war and the outcome. Those plans are most likely still guiding thier actions now, as we see LVWII unfold. As I wrote earlier, the behaviour of the DE's as a group were likely more than even a Slytherinist such as Snape could stand and he defected, albeit quietly. Whether or not that was solely due to pangs from his conscience or practicality, is not yet know. It is often the case that those who prey on the weakness of others in pursuit of power, often do so under the guise of some self- important justification (Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1911, German Nazis in WWII, Stalin's purges in the former USSR, Serbian ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, Israelis occupying Palestine for 37 years and counting, etc.). Those who seek power through their own interpretation of the world, will eventually find it justifiable to prey upon themselves, if it serves their grandios delusions. After all, for those with no conscience, the end always justifies the means. History is replete with these groups that justify their actions, just as Salizar Slytherin did and the DE's now do. There are those in the UK that criticize the HP series as a thinly-veiled inditement of the british aristocracy, perhaps with a bit less blood in the recent past. It will be interesting to see how this plays out...Hermione and her efforts with SPEW; Harry disallowing Lupin and Sirius from killing Peter on the spot. These are only 2 examples of how JKR has developed "Harry's story" to illustrate how children can see through the web of complexity that we adults weave in society and come to better judgement on their own, than we could ever have expected. As a mother, I am relieved to see my 20 y.o. daughter making (some) proper decisions on her own, without having to continually police her and lecture at every turn. Certainly, she also makes decisions that I do not quite appreciate, but it is still her own choice to learn from her mistakes. Harry, Ron and Hermione also do so and we sit back and watch it unfold. It seemed to turn out well for JKR, so we can take heart for the trio yet! Syroun From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 19 22:22:06 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:22:06 -0000 Subject: Whoops! Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115989 Potioncat: > For one thing, if he broke it, Snape looks silly, not powerful. If > he broke it, it was a "Clumsy me!" sort of approach. If someone else > broke it, it's "I don't care." which is more powerful. > barmaid: I did not read it as "silly" or "clumsy" at all, but rather as deliberate and mean. First I should say I am a Snape fan of a sort. I find him so compelling as a damaged, conflicted person who I believe is trying hard to be "good" when this is not his natural way. I have suggested before that he is a sort of "dry drunk" when it comes to evil... *anyway* - I always have read this scene like this: Harry turns in his potion and turns away. Snape picks up the potion and looks at Harry, looks at the potion, and willfully drops the vile or flask or whatever. He gets a little evil grin and says in a voice dripping with sarcasm, "Whoops". Sounds very powerful to me. Of course, I am filling in the details there with my own imagination and you are right that we do not really *know* what happened. That may be on purpose, or JKR may have thought it was obvious and required no detailed explanation. --barmaid From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 19 23:52:52 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:52:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115990 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Building on the recent threads of "this is Harry's story", I'm > wondering about what new experiences Harry might have to go through. > According to JKR (paraphrase), if Harry knew what's in store for him, > he would run and hide. So I'm wondering what could be so horrible. Well, actually she said that in Harry's place *she* would run and hide. There isn't any reason to think that she is equating her reactions with Harry's. After all, I seriously doubt she has been through as much as Harry has. > > On the light side, I already mentioned some more romance. Now that the > truth is revealed, I also expect a lot more loyalty and cooperation, > people looking up to him and willing to help him. An acceptation of > his special qualities and aptitudes. Things like that. > I agree this is a strong possibility. Remember that JKR has also said that fifth year was designed in the overall arc of the story to be Harry's worst year. That means that, at least in some ways, sixth year should be a marked improvement over fifth year. Lupinlore From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Oct 20 00:16:09 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:16:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <014e01c4b63a$00932c20$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 115992 Renee: Sherry, I don't know what value you attach to the judgment of someone who rarely posts on this list, but I'm with you here. As Pippin pointed out herself, JKR has stated that Lupin is a metaphor for the way people react to illness and disability. I'd like to add there's a very personal quality to this statement. JKR's own mother suffered from multiple sclerosis, a crippling, incurable disease that is often fatal - Mrs. Rowling died of it when she was 45 years old. It can also lead to discrimination; for instance, the people affected by it have difficulty getting a regular job (sound familiar?) because they can't work 40 hours a week due to fatigue and other symptoms. In many countries, there are laws against this (though not in the Wizarding World), but these are only too easy to circumvent for employers. A great deal has to be done still for people suffering from MS and other chronical diseases that do not only cripple the sufferer but also make it difficult for them to function socially. Not surprislingly, JKR supports the MS Society of Scotland. I don't think it's a coincidence that Lupin is one of her favourite characters. Nor do I think he's unimportant to her; she's mentioned him too often in her interviews and commentaries. No wonder, if he represents a personal issue to her. As Alla said in a previous post: I am again keeping my fingers crossed that having an "edge" does not mean ESE!Remus, because to me it would cross out message about tolerance and help to the victims of prejudice. It would mean that you cannot survive in the tough conditions without turning to evil, but it is just my opinion. Renee again: ESE!Lupin would also cross out the plea for a change of attitude towards people who, like JKR's mother, suffer from an incurable, crippling and socially impairing disease through no fault of their own. And what message would it be to say: If you're being treated badly because of your illness, you're bound to go bad? What we're actually shown, so far - that Lupin's integrity is compromised because of his condition (he likes too much to be liked), but that he remains a positive character nonetheless - is far more effective. To the general audicience it says: Look how discrimination can affect the victim. To the people affected it says: you don't have to conform to the prejudice; you can fight to retain your dignity. A two-edged sword. Plotwise, the ESE!Lupin theory is very ingenious. But the HP books can be read on more levels. Given JKR's personal involvement with illness and disability, the theory is complete and utter rubbish on the metaphorical level. To me, this means it won't happen in the plot either. Sherry, I hope this helps, Renee Sherry Renee That was very beautifully written. I hope my message didn't make me sound like i've got a hang-up over my disability. I get frustrated by the attitude of most of society, but my parents taught me to be independent and to take care of myself and to believe in my abilities. I also was born with a disease called juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, so I can sympathize with people like JKR'S mother with a chronic illness that causes pain and other types of disability. I have a fused knee and several artificial joints. But hey, in spite of all the odds, I'm still walking and able to live independently. I'm very grateful to my parents and the teachers and bosses who believed in me, and I'd never betray them. I'm also grateful to the friends who accepted me and who don't consider my disability, but rather learn how I live and learn ways to understand it or make it better. For instance, I have dear friends who know I'm a movie addict. So they will rent tons of movies, when I visit, ones they've seen, and then they will watch those with me and describe all the action. So, to bring this back to canon, I love the marauders for learning to become animagi to keep Lupin company during his werewolf times. I appreciate Lupin's parents and Dumbledore for believing in him and doing their best to give him an education and a chance. I just can't imagine him betraying that. He has definitely been weak sometimes, but we all are. I sure am! But not admitting about Sirius being an animagus is far different from being the spy who caused the murder of his best friend and his best friend's wife. I hope very much that he will not be the bad guy in the end. However, let me say, how much I enjoy reading Pippin's ESE Lupin posts, and trying to figure out ways to counter them! Lupin is one of my favorite characters, though not the favorite, and just because I like him, I don't want him to be ESE. But also because of what he represents in the story of combating prejudice I hope he turns out to be good. Either way, it's going to be fun finding out. Wish that next book was here! Thanks again, Renee. That was great! Sherry Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 00:22:28 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:22:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] David References: <20041019.191215.2960.9.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: <021a01c4b63a$e22ee8e0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 115993 ----- Original Message ----- From: > Dude. That's like... trippy. > 1. In Dogma (a very well-researched movie), Lucifer is referrred to as > "the morning star." I mostly slept through sunday school from ages 10-17, > so if one of you people who stayed awake and did your communion homework > could remind me what the heck that could mean in regards to Sirius? > > > Doesn't this prove that Harry Potter is not only very similar to > > the Alchemical Wedding, but also to the New Testament? > > No. It doesn't. At all. It proves that Jo MAY have used some > so-common-it's-part-of-the-secular-culture religious imagry for a bunch > of friends. Or, more likely, that she gave two of her chracters very > common names and gave a character with an unusual name a very common > middle name. And she gave a big shaggy dog the name of the dogstar. She > isn't Chris Carter or Kevin Smith. She isn't basing her entire series on > the Bible. > Now a slightly bemused Charme: Trippy it may be, however Hans has a right his view and we have to respect that. :) That being said though, while it's interesting to me regarding the name choices, I'm not as convinced they are totally intentional. For example, Sirius (the star) plays quite a part in the culture and religion of ancient Egyptians more fully that what Hans quoted WRT to Christianity and Revelations. From what I've read on Egyptian museum sites about Sirius, I'd submit the "names" are more coincidence than relative to any Biblical references. I also agree with you, Aura - JKR has used imagery from a variety of religious culture - again, there are character and creature names which also hail from Greek mythology and Arthurian legend plus those with saints and Romans. I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg, and there's others I have failed to mention. I think it's too soon to say the septology represents a view or story associated with the Alchemical Wedding or the New Testament. I will say this, though: I don't believe the septology is as spiritual, or Gnostic, as Hans believes. He's free to keep that view :) charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 00:37:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:37:12 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: <001201c4b365$ccaa2cf0$a7c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115994 I (Carol) wrote: > "We had a thread about this discrepancy awhile back. It turns out that the American edition of SS has Hagrid saying, "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" (16) but the British edition has a different reading. > Can anyone provide that other reading and might it be a correction > made to later printings while JKR was writing PoA? But then he also > says, "Young Sirius Black lent it me" (14), which I think is the same in both editions." > > DuffyPoo responded: > > In my Canadian paperback edition (same as British) published in 2000, Hagrid says: > > "I'd best get this bike away." instead of "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back." in the Canadian Hardback edition published in also in 2000 (part of a box set, probably a new printing from the original in 1997). > > Carol responds: Thank you! I was beginning to think that I'd imagined that alteration! If I understand you correctly, "I'd best get this bike away" is the later reading (2000) and "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" is the original reading (1997), retained in the American edition. (That's the opposite of what I originally thought, back in the old thread, when my concern was with the wording: To my ears, "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" sounds more like Hagrid's voice than the other reading and I thought then that it must be the revised reading because it sounded so much more authentic. Needless to say, I was wrong.) But the date, not the writing style, is what's important here: Yours is a later printing and seems to indicate an attempt by JKR to eliminate the discrepancy between Hagrid's two versions of the story, i.e., she's trying to make the British edition of PS agree with PoA. Unfortunately, she seems to have left in the line, "young Sirius Black lent it me," which makes the change to "I'd best get this bike away" rather pointless--a nice Hagridian line referencing a character we'll meet later is changed to a feeble and forgettable one without removing the idea the the motorbike was merely lent. Or did she also change the "lent it me" line in your edition, DuffyPoo? Carol, who just deleted another post on this topic because she wrote it before reading this one From amycrn4230 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 00:39:33 2004 From: amycrn4230 at yahoo.com (amycrn4230) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:39:33 -0000 Subject: Family Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115995 "basilhummus" wrote: > Has it been posited by anyone that Petunia could in fact be Harry's > Secret Keeper? *SNIP*...whether this could be what compels Petunia > to continue to give Harry a place to call home. If Voldemort > gained "ultimate power" by killing Harry, it will not only bring the > wizarding world crashing down, but the muggle world as well. Her > housing of Harry could actually be the lynchpin that keeps both > worlds intact. Not to mention, that it seems as the the over- coddled > Dudley may also be part of this bargain in some way. Amy here: You know, if this were the case, this could be one of the reasons Uncle Vernon gets so mad about Ron calling on the fellytone, mailing them letters (with too many stamps), or owl letters. I am not sure Petunia would fill Vernon in on it, but...if he had some idea...like, Petunia says..." That old cook says if we never tell anyone where we live, LV will never be able to find us...Fine, we wont talk to ANYONE, about ANYTHING!" so...when Vernon hears that Ron calls he goes berserk and says...you are letting people call? OMG! NO, No, NO! And why he is so concerned with Hedwig flying out and about so much....It is not really so much that they don't want others knowing they have a wizard in the house, but that they don't want anyone to know WHERE they live. He just doesn't understand the specifics,,,that Petunia has to actually tell them herself...not Harry. Plus he's just a great PRUNE anyway... :) Amy From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 20 00:42:34 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:42:34 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" > wrote: > > Pippin said > > > > But Lupin was a Gryffindor, who, IMO, ended up on Voldemort's side only because he began to feel that outside Hogwarts there was no useful place for him in the light. > > Renee: > > Lupin was a member of the first Order of the Phoenix. To me, this qualifies as a "useful place in the light".<< We don't know what happened in the first Order of the Phoenix, but we know in the second one, Lupin felt there wasn't much he could do to let people know about Voldemort's return. "And I'm not a very popular dinner guest with most of the community," said Lupin. "It's an occupational hazard of being a werewolf." My speculative theory is that Lupin's business for the Order now and previously involves other werewolves. Having been insulated from the worst of werewolf discrimination as a Hogwarts student, he was shocked to discover how poorly they were being treated, and it radicalized him. It made him an enemy of the Ministry, and the Order in those days seems to have been working with the Ministry pretty closely. We don't know if the other Marauders were still able to stay with Lupin during his transformations...if not, he would have been plunged back into the full horror of them, so he would be under a lot of pressure from that too. Sherry: > > Pippin, you build a compelling case for ESE Lupin. I hope you are wrong. I admit this is a very personal bias on my part. As a disabled person, I can't tell you how many times I've been told, that if I had enough faith I'd be healed, or that I or my parents must have done some terrible thing for me to be blind. i've had people tell me that till they got to know me, they thought I was developmentally disabled, though they did not use such a clean politically correct term. People talk to me as if I'm a child, or as if I am also deaf and mute. People think I am incompetent, though I have worked successfully for many years. People either think I am super human or only part human, the other part some freak of nature or God. Over the generations, disabled people have been looked at with suspicion and fear, especially people who are developmentally disabled. Now, I'm not saying that disabled people are all wonderful either; I've known some pretty scummy disabled people and some down right criminals. But to me, to have Lupin bee truly ESE, would be confirming all the stereotypes the WW has about his kind. I see Lupin as the representative almost disabled person in the cast, and I'd really hate to have the WW opinion of him proved correct. > It would feel like a confirmation of many, many people's beliefs about all people with disabilities. > Renee: > Sherry, I don't know what value you attach to the judgment of > someone who rarely posts on this list, but I'm with you here. > > As Pippin pointed out herself, JKR has stated that Lupin is a metaphor for the way people react to illness and disability. I'd like to add there's a very personal quality to this statement. JKR's own mother suffered from multiple sclerosis, a crippling, incurable disease that is often fatal - Mrs. Rowling died of it when she was 45 years old. > Not surprislingly, JKR supports the MS Society of Scotland. > > Renee again: > ESE!Lupin would also cross out the plea for a change of attitude towards people who, like JKR's mother, suffer from an incurable, crippling and socially impairing disease through no fault of their own. And what message would it be to say: If you're being treated badly because of your illness, you're bound to go bad? > Plotwise, the ESE!Lupin theory is very ingenious. But the HP books can be read on more levels. Given JKR's personal involvement with illness and disability, the theory is complete and utter rubbish on the metaphorical level. To me, this means it won't happen in the plot either.< Pippin: Sherry and Renee, your posts were very moving. I am aware of JKR's mother's illness -- my own sister suffers from MS. And I agree with your premise. If the theory meant the book had to end as you describe, with werewolves worse off than they were, or the courage with which Lupin *appears* to endure his condition discredited, it would be rubbish. I don't think it does. Harry is the hero, and he will make it his business to see that doesn't happen. He will not only say that it's unfair to make one person, good or bad, the representative of an entire class of people, he'll prove it. I don't know how JKR will resolve the story, but I remember an Agatha Christie novel where the detective found himself in a similar situation. The murderer turned out to be the director of an Institute who had developed a wonderful and humane treatment for mental illness (this was back in the snake-pit era). If he were exposed, his institute would lose its funding, his treatment method would be discredited, and many innocent people would suffer. The detective had to find a way to stop the murderer without that happening. I think JKR is sensitive enough and Harry is ingenious and brave enough to resolve this, even if it means, say, that his beloved godfather has to go down in WW history as the traitor. Pippin From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 20 00:50:18 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:50:18 -0000 Subject: Curse of the Truth (was:Re: the Dark Arts Job) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115997 imamommy: Just a thought: The DADA job seems to always reveal people for what they truly are. In each instance the consequences came to the professors because of their actions. 1. Quirrel Had LV on the brain. Was revealed, and destroyed by the extraction of said dark lord. 2. Lockhart Was truly a gutless near-squib, who happened to be good at memory charms. Was revealed, and found himself on the wrong end of a backfiring memory charm. 3. Lupin Werewolf. Secret revealed. 4. Crouch!Moody Evil imposter. Revealed, got smoochy with Dementor. 5. Umbridge Sneaking, conniving, backbiting, power-hungry witch. Revealed, andI don't think she'll be climbing any more political ladders after a wild night with the centaurs. Plus, backed the wrong horse (Fudge). If anything,I think perhaps Dumbledore hires (or allows people to be hired) people to reveal them. Possibly he has put a charm/curse on the job. I'm not sure where this fits in with the ESEDumbledore theories (I don't personally subscribe to them) but if this is the case I am curious about his methods/motives. imamommy --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" wrote: > > Ten'ou wrote: > > The position attracts evil. Like when you > > have a ley line that's turned dark, it attracts dark things to > it... > snip > Beatnik: > My thought about Snape, was that he would jinx the position, in > order that he *could* apply every year. The position would have to > be open for Snape to have a chance to be appointed to it. I, also, > assumed that if Snape had performed the jinx, he would know how to > lift it once he was the DADA teacher. I don't think this has > anything to do with Snape being evil, just ambitious; after all, he > was in Slytherin! > > Carol: > > It's interesting that the position was considered jinxed even before > Quirrell died, though he seems to be coming back to it after a year's > absence doing practical research in Albania. He must have taught for > at least a year before leaving. (Constance Vigilance, if she's > reading > this, will have some ideas on the subject.) > > Beatnik: > This confuses me, too. > > Carol: > > If something as abstract > and insubstantial as a teaching position can be jinxed, which seems > unlikely, it would make sense that the person doing the jinxing would > be a DE, someone like, say, Lucius Malfoy, who doesn't want the > students to learn *defense* against the Dark Arts. In fact, if he > hadn't given in to Narcissa, he have sent Draco to Durmstrang to > learn the Dark Srts themselves rather than defense against them. Snape, on > the other hand, studied very hard for his DADA OWL and evidently knew > the subject in great detail even as a fifth-year. It seems most > unlikely that he would put a jinx on a subject he cares so much > about--or agree to substitute for Lupin, as he must have done every > month though we only see the one lesson, if he thought the position > was jinxed. > > Beatnik: > Again, the reason I think Snape would jinx the position would be to > allow him to teach it. I don't know that Snape really cares that > much about the students' education in the subject. The only lesson > we saw, the entire purpose of his curriculum was to punish Lupin, > and get him fired. Of course, it's definitely possible that someone > else has jinxed the position, for example, someone who doesn't want > the students to learn DADA, like a DE. That is, if the position is > jinxed at all. > From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 00:52:21 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:52:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 115998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: Let me play devil's advocate, because it's far much more fun than doing analysis on madrigals, for the moment: > Ah, yes of course. I forgot. It's all Snape's fault [grin]. Under > no circumstances can Sirius be a git. Sirius has *reasons* for any > nasty behaviour. Snape doesn't understand poor Sirius. He is > unsympathetic to what he's been through. > OK, I'm being sarcastic. Because frankly, neither Snape nor Sirius > are nice people. The reason we see Sirius as nice is quite simple - > Harry likes him. We see Sirius through his viewpoint. > > When not viewed through Harry's viewpoint, Sirius > 1)was a school bully > 2)played a potentially lethal trick on the kid he bullied > 3)owns a slave (whether house-elves are always slaves is a moot > point, but I'd say that Dobby, Winky and Kreacher are all treated > as if they were slaves by the Malfoys, Crouches and the Blacks) > 4)treats that slave with contempt. > Pip!Squeak: > Anything is possible - but to date we've seen Sirius allow the > unconscious Snape to knock his head against a tunnel wall, bully > him two on one (to be fair, James instigated that one) and tell him > how to get into a tunnel with a werewolf at the other end. What > he's said against Snape is - *not* that Snape used to attack him at > school. Instead, he's said that the young Snape was fascinated by > the Dark arts, knew a lot of curses, hung around with Slytherins > who later became DE's, and was slimy. And oily. And tried to get > them kicked out of school. > > Unfortunately, the current state of canon evidence (rather than > speculative evidence) is that Sirius and James were the bullies, > Snape the victim. Even the trying to get them kicked out of school > can be (speculatively) fitted into a 'victim' pattern for Snape - > people who're being bullied often dream about the bullies getting > expelled. Ah, Pip!Squeak--if we're willing to be deeply speculative and allowant for one character, shouldn't we be fair, and do it for all? :) JKR has let us know (at least how I read her comments) that there's a certain amount of WYSIWYG regarding Current!Snape: he's a sadistic teacher who abuses his power. However, we also know that there is Much More To Him, and that he is (at least we think he is, and I'd really hate to be wrong on this point) on the side of the angels. But there are a lot of things about the schooldays that are unaccounted for. For one, we've had one glimpse of the past--and it's horribly nasty, and I myself mind it uncomfortable to read. This matches the theme of the rest of the book, however; who *isn't* seen at something of their worst in OotP? What I suspect is possible, although I cannot, of course, prove it as of yet, is that we've been hit with one big reversal of our images of some characters, but that we should be wary of extensive extrapolation, either into the future (Peter at 15 may not be the correct model for Peter at 20, for example) or to take the one incident as the dominant pattern for the whole. We have to fit James-the-git together with the James that McGonagall and Rosmerta remember so fondly, and I don't see how to do it, yet. [In contrast, we've had five books to establish some sort of pattern for Snape, although yes, we certainly have had to reconsider it all in light of rolling revelations.] I can't figure out how these two 'sides' of the problem talk to each other. JKR has told us why Black sent Snape to the Willow--he hated him. However, there was the interesting tag (and it was entirely mutual). I, for one, can't wait to hear exactly what happened (not to mention more on the why)--because I can't make the thing work out in sheer sequence of events, to my own satisfaction. (I've also read every attempt to do so. Heh.) There's also the OotP revelation that Lucius Malfoy (age 41) was at school with the generation in question (36-37); we have Bellatrix Black (trophy winner) and lots of other things to consider, not to mention the interesting questions of what Voldemort was doing and how publicly, what 'Mudblood' meant back then as opposed to now, etc. There is, of course, also this: "But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this. Again, it's bad boy syndrome, isn't it? It's very depressing. [Laughter]." Literary economy informs me of the possibility that James et. al. having been taken down a peg and our sympathies directed to be with Snape, it's his turn next book to take the textual beating. > Snape isn't a true sadist. *Umbridge* is a true sadist. Umbridge is > what real sadism looks like. Snape is a git in the fine old English > tradition of sarcasm so withering you burst into tears, and have to > be dragged out of the toilet two hours later, you're so upset. Snape is, perhaps, a good picture of Judith Shklar's 'moral cruelty' (unfortunately, a friend of mine has stolen my copy of the book, so I can't quote the relevant bits). No, it's not physical--but it still hurts, and frankly, it's designed to hurt and strike at one's very concept of one's self. Random trolling of an online dictionary gives as a definition: "The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty." I humbly submit (and JKR's comments bolster) that I think Snape *enjoys* watching the kids sweat, when he has them in a difficult situation. He's enjoying Black and Lupin's distress in the Shack, even if he doesn't intend to actually have both of them carted off to Azkaban. He belittles Neville outside of his own class, where he doesn't even have the 'keep the idiot kid from blowing things up' excuse. He's not Umbridge--but I'm no fan of the slippery slope argument, either. Unlike Snape, I see the difference. :) -Nora claps her hands and waits eagerly for a good chance to argue the other side From apeiron at comcast.net Tue Oct 19 23:44:47 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:44:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic/Languages was:BIll Weasley as DADA? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1098229487.13946.20.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 115999 LisaMarie: > This comment about the curses in other languages brings up a question in my > mind, but I am at a loss as to how to phrase it so that it can be understood by > folks outside of my own head. Forgive me if it is too technical; I love to study > languages and therefore cannot help myself! > > Magic and languages. This makes me wonder: Are there language barriers > in the magical world? I mean, I know that wizards/witches in other countries > speak other languages besides English Fleur and Krum), but what about the > language of magic itself? Are the spells universal (read: accessible to users > of any language), or are they language-specific? An example may help me > illustrate my question. I'll use Bill Weasley. The "language of magic" seems to be (for the most part, anyway) an amalgamation of Latin, pseudo-Latin, and Aramaic. Consider all of the different languages in just the areas surrounding Hogwarts: various types of English, numerous Celtic and Gaelic dialects, and so forth -- even some Teutonic influences in the earlier forms of what I'll call English for lack of a better term. All of these different people have collaborated and devised the usage of mostly Latin and some Aramaic (as seen so far, of course -- no one can predict what will come in books six and seven) for the purpose of using magic. Why Latin / Aramaic? That's a whole thread in and of itself, though I believe that it has something to do with the "ceremonious" nature of those languages, both from a real-world perspective and from a literary perspective. In this perspective, Sanskrit would also serve well. Of course, this raises the question of why Latin and Aramaic are used. To me, this is a question of the very foundation and essence of magic in the Potter world. We know of wandless, silent magic and its power (cf. most especially the fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort in OotP). Thus, I postulate that not only wands, but also spell words serve as focal points for the caster. Some don't need them, but most do. It is the employment of magical energy that matters -- not the words or the wand behind said energy. [examples snipped] > Lisa, hoping she hasn't bored anyone to the point of tears > :) Far from it, at least in my opinion. Best regards, Christopher Nehren -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From syroun at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 00:07:37 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:07:37 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116000 (snip) Del: > > My main problem was Harry and his emotions, and particularly the way > > he abuses his friends. I was never too close to Harry pre-OoP, but I > > did care about him. However, when I ran into > > Angry!Yell-at-everyone!Harry, I stopped caring. Alla: (snip) > As far as I am concerned, Harry needed to go throw this blow up at > everybody phase. I am glad it happened, I am noly hoping that he > will change back slow enough. Del: > > I do hope Harry will change in HBP, though. Alla: > Personally, I am positive of it. Syroun adds: JKR has told us that the basis through which Harry was saved from LV is emotion- his mother's love protected him then and it resides in him now as a form of protection. I find it in character that as he matures, he shows more and more that he is his mother's son. That may be uncharacteristic for a boy but the basis for his character. I think I find Harry's behaviour less objectionable than others may, because I am like him. I feel things, very deeply and that is my core. That does not mean that I am mentally unstable, but I am known to cry at movies or even when I am watching TV, or listening to the radio and see or hear something that is compelling. I cannot change that characteristic in myself but I have learned, over the years to temper my reactions that stem from those deep emotions. I am less apt to argue my point immediately upon confrontation, but have the ability now to wait for the correct moment (usually!). I also know people that react no differently than a tree stump when confronted with an emotional situation. I believe that they feel emotion, but cannot or will not express it. So, who is better off? Harry feels very deeply the loss of his parents and more recently, the loss of Sirius. His situation is simply overwhelming emotionally and his reaction to it, in the abscence of parental control or adequate supervision, is expected. His ability to feel emotion and his propensity to react to it, or perhaps over-react, is seminal to his character; he will not change fundamentally, but his behaviour hopefully will become more deliberate and planned....otherwise he may not survive physically or emotionally. Isn't that the process of maturation for us all? Harry is not a non-emotive tree stump! Syroun From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 01:29:01 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:29:01 -0000 Subject: Family Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "basilhummus" wrote: > > > Has it been posited by anyone that Petunia could in fact be Harry's > Secret Keeper? I would appreciate being directed to this > conversation if possible, as my search of the archives has proven to > be fruitless at best. > My husband wondered aloud whether this could be what compels Petunia > to continue to give Harry a place to call home. If Voldemort > gained "ultimate power" by killing Harry, it will not only bring the > wizarding world crashing down, but the muggle world as well. Her > housing of Harry could actually be the lynchpin that keeps both > worlds intact. Not to mention, that it seems as the the over- coddled > Dudley may also be part of this bargain in some way. > > With Greatest Appreciation, > Carla mhbobbin: I love this theory. But here's my problem with it---characters do find their way to the Dursleys home. Dudley's friends. Uncle Vernon's guests (in CoS). Dobby. The Advance Guard of the Order. Mrs. Figg. The Postman. The Milkman. The Weasleys through the fireplace. Owls from the MInistry. There's probably a way around this but I don't know what it is. Could the Dursleys former fireplace truly be on the Floo Network? That seems odd, too. mhbobbin From moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 01:34:42 2004 From: moonmyyst13 at yahoo.com (K G) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Family Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041020013442.44487.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116002 basilhummus wrote: Has it been posited by anyone that Petunia could in fact be Harry's Secret Keeper? With Greatest Appreciation, Carla I love this idea but the only problem would be that in the case of Petunia being secret keeper, Harry could not tell someone where he lives and they be able to find it. This would rule out the twins and Ron in CoS, Arthur, twins and Ron in GoF, and the Advanced Guard in OotP. There has to be something more to all of this but I do not think that it is secret keeper. My son had a thought. Is there any reason in cannon as to Why a person cannot be their own secret keeper? We know that they are not but Why? moonmyyst __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 01:34:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:34:57 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > > It's in fact *since* OoP that I don't care much about Harry anymore. I > never really related to him before, but I did get upset whenever > something bad happened to him and I did want him to be happy. But in > OoP, I couldn't care less. > > Ron and Hermione, OTOH, only grew in my eyes through OoP. First of all > because they remained so steadfastly loyal to Harry no matter how > badly he treated them. And also because they seemed to handle their > own private lives quite well, unlike someone else. (And yes I know, > their lives were nowhere as hard or complicated as someone else's > life. Don't bite :-) Alla: Well, believe it or not, Ron and Hermione also grew in my eyes threw OOP precisely because of their loyalty to Harry. But, I want to say something else which related to our other discussion (envvious Ron v jealous Ron). I thought that would be a good place. I am taking my words back partially - I could not find Ron actively wishing Harry ill in GoF. The most I found was when "Ron was not laughing but was not sticking up for Harry either", when Malfoy came up with 'Potter stinks badges" Why I mentioning it in this post? Because I found plenty of quotes, showing how badly hurt Harry was by Ron's rejection. Harry did NOTHING, absolutely nothing to deserve it, IMO. "He wrenched the hangings shut around his four-poster, leaving Harry standing there by the door, staring at the dark red velvet curtains, now hiding one of the few people he had been sure would believe him" - GoF, paperback, p.287. "Great," said Harry bitterly. "Really great. tell him from me I'll swap any time he wants. tell him from me he's welcome to it... People gawping at my forehead everywhere I go..." _GoF, p.290. "The next few days were some of Harry's worst at Hogwarts. The closest he had ever come to feeling like this had been during those months, in his second year, when a large part of the school had suspected him of attacking his fellow students. But Ron had been on his side then. He thought he could have coped with the rest of school's behaviour, if he could have just have Ron's back as his friend..." - p.296. I think again that Rowling is very very good in using "carmic payback" technique in the books. Ron also did not do anything to deserve Harry's anger, but I guess it was his turn in OOP and I think he showed his maturity by patriently listening to Harry running his mouth at him and still defeding him from unbelieveing classmates > Del replies : > I guess one of my problems is that it came at a completely wrong time > *in my idea*. I was truly expecting Harry to blow up in one of the > first books, but no, he just swallowed it all like it was nothing. He > seemed to be the epitome of the resilient kid that nothing can truly > disturb. And then suddenly, in OoP, he blows up at the slighest > offence, real or imaginary. He had always held himself up very nicely, > but then suddenly everyone has to suffer for his own problems. You > see, I'm not at all like Harry, so to me, all of this seemed either > forced on the part of JKR or self-indulging on the part of Harry. > Either way, it jerked me out of the story, and cut me off from Harry. > Alla: As I said, I also expected Harry to blow up earlier, but every person reacts to abuse differently and with the year Harry had, I think he was coping pretty well, actually. :o) My sympathy for him grew up tremendously after OOP. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 01:36:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:36:31 -0000 Subject: Cataloging Snape's Behavior, Pt. II CoS (very long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116004 I (Carol) wrote: > > I think a catalogue of Snape's behavior in PoA need not be incriminating as long as we realize that he is not privy to our after-the-fact knowledge and that he has reasons for being unable to view either Lupin or Black objectively. Snape is Snape, and of course he's very far from perfect, but mistaken assumptions and prejudice against werewolves (viewed by the writers of Harry's textbooks and the entire WW as Dark Creatures) don't make him evil. > > Sophierom responded: > > When I get to cataloguing Snape's behavior in PoA (which will be soon, I hope), I think, like Carol, that canon won't show Snape to be evil ... but, I do think we'll see Snape in a much less complimentary light than we saw at the end of PS/SS and CoS (and that's saying a lot as he's certainly not looking very nice - from Harry's pov - in either of those books.) In the first book, he's the villain who turns out to be on the good side. In the second book, he's mean, yes, but in comparison to Lockhart, he looks like a pretty decent teacher (aside from his cruelty to Neville) and an important member of the staff. > > In contrast, PoA puts him against Lupin, a very sympathetic character. > And even if we take those things into consideration that Carol > mentions (Sirius's practical joke, very real fear of Werewolves, and - > the one I think most important - Snape's belief that Lupin is helping > a murderous Sirius Black) - even if we consider these things, Snape > comes out looking foolish (at least from my earlier readings of the > book). Not evil, but foolish for holding onto prejudices and > assumptions that don't fit reality by the end of the book. This is > purely an impression I've gotten from reading PoA in the past, which > is why I want to go back through and look specifically at all the > Snape scenes/references in the book again and try to investigate > whether this impression is really as valid as I think it is. But hey, > as potioncat's recent TBAY "Rolling Cannon" post points out, we can > often use canon to back up our interpretations, rather than use canon > to create out interpretations. We'll see. > > Sophierom Carol responds: I think his "foolishness" is again partly our perspective. One thing that's important is how much he does--and doesn't--overhear in the Shrieking Shack, a point that Pippin addressed in detail a year ago if you want to hunt up the post. (It might be in Fantastic Posts or Recommended Posts, but I don't know for sure.) Anyway, he doesn't *see* Scabbers turned into a man, and I can understand why he would think the story was preposterous and the kids had been "confunded." I suppose I'm responding prematurely to a post that hasn't been written, but I'm just suggesting things to look for in an objective, careful reading that doesn't attribute our knowledge of events to Snape (whose state of mind regarding the werewolf and the "murderer" as he hears this information also needs to be considered. We can tell exactly when he comes he enters the shack (a door slams or something), but even then he wouldn't be within hearing range until he climbs the stairs and stands outside the doorway of the room where the bed is. Also, of course, Lupin, though sympathetic, also has some faults that perhaps Harry isn't fully aware of. He's hiding a lot of secrets from vaeious people in PoA, and Snape knows three of them: that Lupin is a werewolf, that Lupin was a close friend of Black's, and that Sirius knows how to enter the Shrieking Shack and could be using it as a hideout. The only secrets he doesn't know are that three of the four Marauders were animagi and that they created a map showing secret passageways that Black could be using. Note that Dumbledore (apparently) doesn't know these last two items, either. So Lupin, who also is fully ready to cooperate with Black in murdering Pettigrew, may not be quite as worthy of our sympathy as he seems. (No, I don't believe in ESE!Lupin, but I think you might consider the POV when you compare the two professors. And note that very interesting "seems" rather than "is" that JKR uses to indicate Lupin's maturity in relation to the rash and "unstable" Sirius Black. Maybe, then, Lupin isn't quite the rational, calm fahter figure that he appears to be in PoA and OoP? Also, I can understand Black, who had escaped Azkaban with the intention of murdering Pettigrew, being more than ready, even able, to cast an AK to do it. But Lupin? Knowing that using an AK means life in Azkaban or having your soul sucked by the Dementors? Does Lupin have a death wish? And could he even conjure up the cold indifference to the life of a former friend necessary to cast an AK? (Well, maybe murderous rage would work, too, but I'm thinking of Peter Pettigrew and Cedric or Voldemort and the Riddles.) Anyway, just some points I hope you'll think about. I'm not trying to influence you, only to suggest that just because Lupin is presented more sympathetically than Snape and Snape's actions in the Shrieking Shack appear irrational and foolish doesn't mean that Lupin is fully justified and Snape is wholly wrong. Which I'm sure you knew already without my pointing it out! :-) Carol, looking forward to your analysis of PoA and expecting it to be as insightful and entertaining as the previous two From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Oct 20 01:49:03 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:49:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Secret Keepers (formerly known as Family Secrets) References: <20041020013442.44487.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e501c4b646$ff72dc20$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116005 moonmyyst said - I love this idea but the only problem would be that in the case of Petunia being secret keeper, Harry could not tell someone where he lives and they be able to find it. This would rule out the twins and Ron in CoS, Arthur, twins and Ron in GoF, and the Advanced Guard in OotP. There has to be something more to all of this but I do not think that it is secret keeper. My son had a thought. Is there any reason in cannon as to Why a person cannot be their own secret keeper? We know that they are not but Why? moonmyyst Kethryn now - I'll bite, I don't think that there is a reason listed in canon. And, now, I'll raise. Why didn't Lily be James Secret Keeper and James be Lily's? Other than the fact that Harry would have loving and doting parents now and we would be out a lovable might-as-well-be orphan, that particular scenario makes the most sense to me. If you want to live, tell the person the secret that you trust the most. And, you know, if you don't trust your spouse with your life, you have problems. Maybe the person living in the house can't be the Secret Keeper because that would lock them in some weird parallel dimension thing? Or a logic loop? How about a circular argument? Something like that, at any rate. Kethryn whose head hurts trying to think of how to explain it better than that without totally ending up in the looney bin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 01:51:27 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:51:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116006 Bluesqueak: > Ah, yes of course. I forgot. It's all Snape's fault [grin]. Under no > circumstances can Sirius be a git. Sirius has *reasons* for any > nasty behaviour. Snape doesn't understand poor Sirius. He is > unsympathetic to what he's been through. > > He was probably to blame for Sirius bullying him as well. Obviously. > The way he was, well, just *being* there in the Pensieve scene. > Besides, he has grey underwear. Snape most likely smelt. Somebody > has to do something about kids like that. Humiliate them, for > example. > > OK, I'm being sarcastic. Because frankly, neither Snape nor Sirius > are nice people. The reason we see Sirius as nice is quite simple - > Harry likes him. We see Sirius through his viewpoint. > > When not viewed through Harry's viewpoint, Sirius > 1)was a school bully > 2)played a potentially lethal trick on the kid he bullied > 3)owns a slave (whether house-elves are always slaves is a moot > point, but I'd say that Dobby, Winky and Kreacher are all treated as > if they were slaves by the Malfoys, Crouches and the Blacks) > 4)treats that slave with contempt. > > There are probably other points. Sirius is charming and Snape is > charmless - they're both very flawed human beings. Alla: Oy, Pip. Why do you misdirect my argument so much? I am NOT saying that Sirius is all around nice person. Please, give me a little bit more credit than that. :) What I am saying is that it is quite possible that Snape, poor dear, was just as nasty and vicious to Marauders as they were to him in the pensieve scene. It IS canon that Snape was a DE ( but I forgot, it is all James and Sirius fault. They drove poor Severus to Voldemort. :o) Yes, I am being sarcastic too. It is NOT a canon that either James or Sirius or Remus EVER had been DE. Frankly, if the Penseive scene was the worst thing James and Sirius did in their lifes, I would be MUCH more afraid of ever trusting somebody, who alied with mass murderer than former school bullies. I suppose you refuse to entertain a motion that some students in Hogwarts could have been REALLY afraid of Snape, because he really had something to do with Dark Arts. It is your right. It is my right to think that such thing is possible. Remember which nickname he picked for Lily? But yeah, he was very upset, I know. Pip: > Snape isn't a true sadist. *Umbridge* is a true sadist. Umbridge is > what real sadism looks like. Snape is a git in the fine old English > tradition of sarcasm so withering you burst into tears, and have to > be dragged out of the toilet two hours later, you're so upset. Alla: We differ very much. I say Snape is also a true sadist just to the lesser degree than Umbridge. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 02:12:04 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:12:04 -0000 Subject: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: > > > > Meri wrote: > > And also interesting how you seem to > > think that there was no legitimate attraction involved. > > IMHO there could be an actual thing between them. Nothing so > shallow > > as "he just needed a girlfriend"; I think there may have at least > > been attraction, if not real love. > > Erin: > In my favored version, there is real love-- on Minerva's part. The > problem with Tom feeling real love is the one you pointed out > yourself: > > > I do see one problem with all this speculation. IIRC, JKR said > > in an interview that LV was never loved by anyone. > > > > Meri wrote: > >I don't really see McGonagal as someone who would be taken in > > on something as superficial as good looks and charm. (Like Hermione > > after her, it would probably have taken her less than a year to see > > right through them to who a person really is!) > > Erin: > I see student!McGonagall as sort of like what Hermione would have > been without Ron and Harry as friends. *That* Hermione was, IMO, > very vulnerable to the first people who would befriend her-- lucky it > was Ron and Harry! But I don't see McGonagall's not understanding > what Tom was really like as a failure on her part, but rather as an > indication of how very good at deception Tom really was. It wasn't > that McGonagall was overlooking clues, it was that Tom made > absolutely sure there were no clues at all. > > > --Erin Carol notes: The problem with the theory that McGonagall actually *married* Tom Riddle (aside from the difficulty of taking back her maiden name in the conservative WW) is that, as far as we know, Tom Riddle (having murdered his Muggle relatives the previous summer and being too old for the orphanage and having no place to call home), seems to have started out on his travels immediately. I've always thought that one of his reasons was fear that the Muggle authorities might become aware of his existence and come after him as the obvious suspect in the triple murder. In any case, he certainly wanted to begin his quest for immortality and his consorting with the worst of wizard kind (as I think DD put it). Possibly he was involved with Grindelwald for a short time before his defeat by DD in 1945. At any rate, he had some urgent reasons to disappear from public view and he wouldn't have hung around with a plain-faced, sharp-tongued young wife who disapproved of Dark Magic and his quest for immortality. I think he left his diary and perhaps a few other possessions with one of the "dear friends" who called him Lord Voldemort, quite possibly Lucius Malfoy's father (the 27-year difference between Tom's and Lucius's ages make this likely and Lucius's possession of the diary makes it still more plausible) and began his quest for immortality unencumbered by any worldly ties. I do wonder if McGonagall is or was married at some point in her life, though her fondness for tartan suggests that McGonagall is her maiden name, but I very much doubt that sensible, morally upright Minerva was ever smitten by charming, incorrigibly evil Tom. At least, for her sake, I hope not. Carol From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 02:12:57 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:12:57 -0000 Subject: David In-Reply-To: <20041019.191215.2960.9.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote: > Hans epistled: > > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of > > David, the Bright morning star. > > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! And who were Sirius' friends? > JAMES Potter, Remus JOHN Lupin, PETER Pettigrew. Who were Jesus' > disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane? > > James, John and Peter! > > Dude. That's like... trippy. > > So will Sirius will be killed yet rise again on the third ... something? > Day? Third day in God-time (if you follow the "7 days is metaphorical for > millions of years" creationist apology)? Third time someone tries to > invoke the veil? > > I'm having a huge WTF moment: > > 1. In Dogma (a very well-researched movie), Lucifer is referrred to as > "the morning star." I mostly slept through sunday school from ages 10-17, > so if one of you people who stayed awake and did your communion homework > could remind me what the heck that could mean in regards to Sirius? > 2. When we were talking about the Potters and Voldemort, that "denies > three times" thing kept jumping out at me. So, what's Peter and denying > three times got to do with the Potters denying Voldemort three times? Was > Voldie just jealous that he wasn't being denied, too? > > > Who denied Jesus? Peter. Who betrayed Sirius and had him imprisoned? > > Peter! > > So he's got one more big betrayal to go. > > > Doesn't this prove that Harry Potter is not only very similar to > > the Alchemical Wedding, but also to the New Testament? > > No. It doesn't. At all. It proves that Jo MAY have used some > so-common-it's-part-of-the-secular-culture religious imagry for a bunch > of friends. Or, more likely, that she gave two of her chracters very > common names and gave a character with an unusual name a very common > middle name. And she gave a big shaggy dog the name of the dogstar. She > isn't Chris Carter or Kevin Smith. She isn't basing her entire series on > the Bible. > > Aura Antosha: Unfortunately for the very interesting theory here, the bright morning star cited in Revelations would be Lucifer, aka Venus. Sirius is indeed the brightest non-planet in the heavens, but it's not as bright as any of the visible planets, and, like all of the stars in the sky except for Polaris, rises and sets at different times during the night. It's only visible in the morning sky at specific times of year. So I don't think that particular biblical parallel works. From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 02:32:06 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:32:06 -0000 Subject: Are TWO People Carrying the Soul of TR? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116009 I've just been rereading CoS with my daughters (makes me feel much less geekly that way ^.^) and have heard something that bears on a discussion that has been ongoing here. We've been considering the What-if-Tom-Riddle's-Soul-Was-Placed-in-Harry-at- Godric's-Hollow-leaving-LV-soulless (aka S.O.T.H.I.C.K--Soul of Tom, Harry Is Carrying-- Krikey!) theory--Kneasy's, I think. It's a wonderfully provocative theory, and as I was reading the "Heir of Slytherin" chapter were Harry finally confronts Tom over Ginny's dying body, something struck me for the first time. In describing how he possessed Ginny, TR says, "If I say it myself, Harry, I've always been able to charm the people I needed. So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted .... I grew stronger and stronger on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I grew powerful, far more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, *to start pouring a little of my soul back into her. . .*" CoS, p. 309, US ed. (Emphasis mine.) Now, in light of the Soul-of-Tom theory, what if we now have TWO vessels carrying the human part of the LV construct? Not to spill into a SHIP conversation, but what if it is some sort of connection--magical or otherwise--between Harry and Ginny that heals this soul and allows it ("the other" of the prophecy) to destroy LV? Just a thought. I haven't really considered all of the ramifications.... From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 20 02:40:48 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:40:48 -0000 Subject: MM clan was Re: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116010 Carol wrote > I do wonder if McGonagall is or was married at some point in her life, > though her fondness for tartan suggests that McGonagall is her maiden > name, but I very much doubt that sensible, morally upright Minerva was > ever smitten by charming, incorrigibly evil Tom. At least, for her > sake, I hope not. > Potioncat: Since we know JKR hemmed and hawed about teacher's being married, someone is/was and it will be important. I'm betting on McGonagall or Snape. Minerva could be a widow. And she could wear the McGonagall tartan in memory of her husband. Her maiden name could be important...or it could be just another Evans. I'm wondering if it's Prewett. (sp) Didn't Molly once call her Minerva? Oh, never mind on that one, Fred and George would have been calling her Aunt Minnie in that case. Potioncat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 03:06:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:06:50 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116011 Vekkel wrote: > > > > I've always wondered why the Old Man [Dumbledore] never said anything when Hagrid told him he was going to return the bike to Sirius Black. This is the next day and as far as everyone else knows Sirius betrayed the Potters so why would he not say anything. > > > Angie responded: > So, at the time the Potter's deaths were discovered, all anyone (DD) > knew was that Sirius had been the Potter's secret-keeper -- they > didn't know yet about Wormtail? If that's so, then you have an > excellent point. There is SOOOO much I don't understand! Carol tries to clarify: I don't think the WW in general knew anything about the Fidelius Charm. All they know is that the Potters were killed by Voldemort, their baby son Harry is marked with a scar but miraculously lived, and Voldemort is vanquished. (How they knew even that much I don't know. Yes, there wer owls and the Daily Prophet, but the question is how they knew Voldemort was involved if his body wasn't there and how they knew he wasn't dead if the body *was* there. But the Fidelius Charm, which had been cast to keep the Potters' whereabouts secret, was not common knowledge. Nor was the fact that there had been a Secret Keeper, much less his supposed identity. Certainly Hagrid didn't know. DD, of course, knew that James intended to make Sirius the Secret Keeper and must have suspected that Sirius was the traitor, but his cautious "No trouble, was there?" shows that he's not yet ready to jump to conclusions. Only when the twelve Muggles are killed and Pettigrew disappears, apparently murdered by an unhinged Black, does Dumbledore "know" the identity of the Secret Keeper and traitor. And the WW at large "knows" only what was reported in the papers, where Black is transformed into Voldemort's righthand man who killed twelve Muggles and a wizard. If you look at Stan Shunpike's account of events in the "Knight Bus" chapter, you can see what the average wizard on the street thinks of the events twelve years later. Stan makes no connection between Sirius Black and the events at Godric's Hollow, though he does know about the Boy Who Lived and Harry Potter's scar. Peter Pettigrew, in Stan's mind, is only the nameless wizard who "got it" when the street was blown up. And Madam Rosmerta isn't aware of the Fidelius Charm/Secret Keeper connection, either, when McGonagall, Hagrid, and Fudge give their still inaccurate but more detailed version of events in the Three Broomsticks. In other words, she doesn't "know" that Black betrayed the Potters, only that he "murder[ed] all those poor people" (PoA Am. ed. 203). Carol From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 04:26:45 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:26:45 -0000 Subject: What was DU hiding? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116012 Since several people picked up on my Fred and George question at the end of the last chapter discussion, thought I'd throw my other one out there for seperate discussion, just cause I want to know what y'all think. Anyway, DU states in OP that her fire is the only fire in Hogwarts that isn't being monitered by the MoM. Why is that? As loyal to the Ministry as she is, what could she be saying that she doesn't want anyone, even the people on her own side, to hear? Or are there other ways to monitor the floo network other than the specified panel? And why would she take the risk (she of the Quibbler banning and Educational Decrees and Dementor siccing) that someone would break into the office to use her fire for private conversations? Is she hiding something? Or has the "DU is a DE" speculation (and all these marathon Red Sox-Yankees games) finally gotten to my head? Meri From empooress at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 03:44:36 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Astronomy (was RE:David) In-Reply-To: <1098228039.37641.47767.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041020034436.98186.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116013 Hans suggests: > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the > offspring of David, the Bright morning star. > > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! >> Janet Anderson: >> I believe the morning star is the planet Venus (and >> that it's also the evening star). There is indeed a star called Sirius or the dog star, it is however, invisible to the naked eye. I would think perhaps this has more to do with JKR's choice of that name for that charecter especially since as an animagus he turns into a dog. Looking for some connection between out of context Bible passages and any of the Harry Poter books just seems to be to be rather a bit far-fetched. Empooress From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 05:26:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:26:20 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape:second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116014 LisaMarie wrote: > No question about the Mark: it is definitely a creepy, evil device of LV and I daresay it's purpose isn't solely as a paging device, IMO. I doubt LV put it there because he thought it looked cool. I think the DE had to do something truly *Dark* to receive it; I shudder to think what it must have been! > > They [the DEs] must have had some assurance that LV would, someday, return to power, as he finally did. > > LisaMarie, still trying *not* to imagine the application process of the Dark Mark! Carol presents her own theory regarding the Dark Marks: Apparently, the DE's Dark Marks faded but did not wholly disappear when Voldemort was defeated at Godric's Hollow. I think that's how the Death Eaters knew that he had been defeated but not killed. (It may even have been how Dumbledore knew, via Snape's Dark Mark.) The more fanatical DEs (notably Bellatrix and her crew) wanted to find LV and restore him to power. A few others fought the aurors and were arrested (and in a few case killed), but most pretended to have been under the Imperius Curse, protecting their own skins and just possibly hoping that Voldemort, for all his immortality spells and potions, would not return in their lifetime. But if the marks had faded altogether, Bellatrix et al. would not have gone looking for Voldemort to bring him back. And Snape, I'm guessing, would not have remained with Dumbledore at Hogwarts. If his mark had faded completely, he would have thought himself safe and free. But it hadn't disappeared, so Snape knew Voldemort was not destroyed, and being Snape, he aided Dumbledore and grudgingly taught potions, and watched and waited. Probably Snape's mark and all the others remained in that faded state for the ten years that Voldemort was an evil spirit possessing animals in Albania, maybe changing almost imperceptibly so that only a few of the more perceptive DEs (possibly Lucius Malfoy and certainly the ex-DE Snape) anticipated a comeback. Since the marks aren't mentioned in the first three books, we don't know whether they began to darken a bit when Quirrell brought LV back to England and shortly afterwards was possessed by him, but maybe Snape saw that his mark was darkening again and was on the watch. He may even have felt it burn when he was near Quirrell, which would have given him good reason to watch Quirrell closely. *If* Snape's mark darkened while LV was inhabiting Quirrell's turban, and I'm only guessing that it did, it would have faded again when LV was vaporized at the end of SS/PS. Outside Hogwarts, Lucius Malfoy may have been watching, too, and after hearing Draco's story of Harry and Quirrell, decided it was time to bring in Tom Riddle's diary. Surely, if the mark was changing, he, like Snape, would understand the significance. Whatever Malfoy's motives, I don't think his Dark Mark or even Snape's would have been affected by Diary!Tom. Snape's mark seems to have remained dormant (faded but not gone) throughout CoS and again in PoA (when Malfoy is temporarily out of the story)--at any rate, neither JKR nor Snape provides any indication of its existence, much less its great importance. (True, JKR is biding her time and is not ready to reveal the existence of DEs and Dark Marks, but I think that the marks are biding their time, too, almost as if they were sentient beings like Tolkien's Rings of Power.) In GoF, we learn the both Snape's and Karkaroff's marks are growing dark and ugly, an unmistakeable sign that Voldemort is gaining strength. By the end of GoF, when LV has been resurrected, Snape's is so hideous that Fudge is repelled by it. If he knows the Mark's significance, and he undoubtedly does, he ought to be persuaded by this incontrovertible evidence that Voldemort has returned, but being a perverse, blind, self-important fool (or worse--but we're not discussing Fudge here), he isn't. The Dark Marks have also summoned Snape and Karkaroff to the graveyard, but Snape remains at Hogwarts and Karkaroff has fled. Earlier in GoF, Snape's Dark Mark burns when the loyal DE Crouch!Moody refers to it. It burns again in OoP when Harry speaks Voldemort's name, as if it senses his disloyalty, as if it knows he has violated his oath of loyalty and will not return. So, what is the Dark Mark? Much more, as Lisa Marie says, than a "paging device," without question "evil and creepy." Like the Mark that Barty Jr. casts into the sky with his Morsmordre, it's a death's head with a snake coming out of its mouth, symbolizing both Salazar Slytherin and Voldemort. It's an indicator of Voldemort's life force, his strength and weakness, his waxing and waning; assurance to those who are loyal to him that he will be restored to power; a warning to "the one who has left and will not return" that the fight he has so long anticipated is about to begin. It's a pledge of lifetime service to the Dark Lord, "a spot that never comes off." Unless, maybe, the Dark Lord is finally destroyed and Snape, the ex-DE still branded with the symbol he has come to loathe, will at last be free. As for how the Dark Mark is placed on the arms of the DEs, we know that it's burned there, no doubt cruelly and painfully. My guess is that it's done through the Morsmordre spell, used by the insanely deluded Barty Jr. to advertise his loyalty and punish the "Death Eaters who walked free" and by the DEs in VW1 to mark the scene of their crimes. But unless Wormtail or another DE witness cast the mark after Voldemort was vanquished, it did not rise above Godric's Hollow to mark the Potters' fall. Carol, who was impressed and moved by Amanda's post at the beginning of this thread but thinks Snape will survive to fight VW3 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 06:40:21 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:40:21 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Paul wrote : > "1. Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has > when they think that another person is trying to take ... away from > them. ...(or).. they wish that they could have the qualities or > possessions that another person has. > > 1. Envy is the feeling you have when you wish you could have the > same thing or quality that someone else has. ... > > > From the above is quite clear that in GOF and in general Ron is > rather jealous than envious as a person." > Del replies : > I won't ceased to be amazed at how 2 people read exactly the same > thing and come to opposite conclusions :-) > > From what I can see from the definitions you've provided, Paul, I > see Ron as envious, not jealous. ...edited... > > In GoF in particular, Ron never says that he wishes he had been the > only one entering the Tournament. He only wishes Harry had *shared* > his secret about how to get past the Age-line with him. ...edited... > > Del bboyminn: Here is a link back to one of my discussions of this situation- From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sun Sep 8, 2002 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Ron: GoF: Betrayed or Jealous? Revisited. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43801 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43919 True, the book, through Hermione's words, leads us to believe Ron is jealous, and in the second post listed above, I speculate on how Hermione could have very easily reached that erroneous conclusion. But in the first post listed above, in the one and only time Ron is allowed to speak for himself, he tells very different story. I think it is clear from Ron's own statements that Del is right, Ron feels betrayed because he thinks Harry didn't include him, and I make that case in detail in the first post listed above. True Ron does have elements of envy and even some elements of jealousy, no one is denying that, but he's human, who wouldn't have those same feelings under the circumstances. But the key is not is Ron envious or jealous in the same sense that almost anyone would be, but the question is, is that what is driving his falling out with Harry in GoF. I still say when Ron is allowed to speak for himself, he does not speak of envy but betrayal of their friendship. Given that I feel that the elements of envy and jealousy that do exist in Ron are well within the range of what any normal person would, has, and does experience, I severly doubt that they are sufficient to drive Ron to intentionally betray Harry at some future time. His friendship and loyalty far out weigh any sense of envy. In that same vein, I think Ron's problems with money are also well within what would be normal for anyone under the circumstance. I've been poor, it's not fun. So, I seriously doubt that we will ever see Ron betray Harry for money. Just not going to happen. You heard it here first... well actually, you heard if way back when. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Wed Oct 20 06:44:42 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:44:42 -0000 Subject: About Ron (was Re: envy vs. jealousy?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116016 > Alla wrote : > " To me black envy not only means taking things from other person, but > also wishing bad things or expressing ill feelings toward the person > who has that thing, BECAUSE that person has it. > > I think Ron was doing PLENTY of that in GoF. I will find quotes later > tonight ( no book with me), if nobody else will" > > Del wrote : > I'd be interested in reading those quotes, because I can't remember > Ron wishing *ill* to Harry. I *can* remember Ron making sarcastic > remarks to Harry, but never wishing him ill. Ron never told Harry he > wanted him to lose or be hurt in the TWT. He never participated in all > the Harry-bashing. And when he realised that someone must have indeed > wished ill to Harry, he immediately sided by his friend again. > Dear Del I think that you are so wrong. In GoF Ron was unable to keep his jealousy at bay. I can't remember exact quotes and I don't have the books with me right now. But I remember that Ron was totally hostile towards Harry for the Tournament and towards Krum for Hermione. He was full of anger and bitterness. Especially in Krum's case Ron was so possessive and jealous about Hermione - something that he continued to do in OOTP - that he even verbally attacked, in a hideus way, his object of obsession after the Yule ball. In a lexicon I read that Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has when they think that another person is trying to take a lover or friend, or a possession, away from them. If Ron is not jealous then I am the President of US!!! Best Regards, Paul From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 07:11:47 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:11:47 -0000 Subject: Family Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "basilhummus" wrote: > > > Has it been posited by anyone that Petunia could in fact be Harry's > Secret Keeper? bboyminn: Well, others have already answered your question, but I'll add a litte more. Indeed Harry being a /kept/ secret (ie: Secret Keepers Charm) has been thought of by just about everyone at one time or another, but, again as others have pointed out, it's flawed by the fact that neither Harrry nor the place where he lives is a secret. If Harry were the /kept/ secret then he couldn't be found. I think this might have been what happened to his parents. In that case, it wasn't the house at Godrics Hollow that was the secret in the sense that Grimmauld Place can't be found because, among other things, it is the /secret/ location of The Order. Again, at 12 GP, the location is the secret. In the case of Harry's parents, I think THEY were the secret. Remember Flitwick's explanation in PoA, he said Voldemort could peek in the windows and he wouldn't be able to find Lily and James. In that case, I speculate that the people rather than the place were the /kept/ secret. Just a thought. Back to the main point, people find Harry both in and out of #4 Privet Drive, and people, magic and muggle, find the Dursley's house, that imples no Secret Keeper Charm applied to him or the location. > Carla: > > My husband wondered aloud whether this could be what compels Petunia > to continue to give Harry a place to call home. If Voldemort > gained "ultimate power" by killing Harry, it will not only bring the > wizarding world crashing down, but the muggle world as well. Her > housing of Harry could actually be the lynchpin that keeps both > worlds intact. Not to mention, that it seems as the the over-coddled > Dudley may also be part of this bargain in some way. > > With Greatest Appreciation, > Carla bboyminn: Now this is an interesting and original idea which Amy, in her reply (#115995), expanded on nicely. Looking at it from this perspective certainly could explain a lot about the Dursely and especially explain a lot of Vernon's over-the-top reactions. And of course, it's true, if Harry isn't protected, if Voldemort somehow manages to get rid of Harry, Voldemort will be unrestrained. There will be nothing standing between him and total anarchy in both worlds. I don't think Voldemort has any real plans to take over the muggle world. I think he sees it as far too inconsequential. Remember those of the radical pureblood mentality thing hunting, murdering, and torturing muggles is great sport. That, by extension, implies that once Voldemort gains power, he plans to repeal the Statue of Secrecy. It would be pretty hard for the rest of the world to keep up the pretense that the magic world didn't exist when hords of Death Eaters were hunting muggles for sport all over Britain. That man really is quite mad; hopelessly mad. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From mousepad at insightbb.com Wed Oct 20 06:00:09 2004 From: mousepad at insightbb.com (Mousepad) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:00:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Astronomy (was RE:David) References: <20041020034436.98186.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006901c4b66a$0e348c90$6101a8c0@hack9srv> No: HPFGUIDX 116018 > Hans suggests: > > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the > > offspring of David, the Bright morning star. > > > > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! Empooress: > I would think perhaps this has more to do with JKR's > choice of that name for that charecter especially since > as an animagus he turns into a dog. Looking for some > connection between out of context Bible passages and > any of the Harry Potter books just seems to be to be > rather a bit far-fetched. Actually, Sirius is the brightest star in the sky, and I do think that the Dog animagus form-Sirius name play was intentional. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/brightest_stars_030715-1.html Kate From saraqael2000 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 07:14:45 2004 From: saraqael2000 at yahoo.com (Saraqael) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:14:45 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116019 Carol wrote: > Who am I forgetting? Have they done Snape yet? (I'm > predicting he was born in the dismal month of November.) Neville's birthday is July 30th. > Please check to see if anyone else has responded yet before > answering. I don't want to start an avalanche of posts with > merely factual information. When I replied to your last post, the other answer had not yet been posted. I assume that my response was delayed since it was my first post to this list. --Saraqael From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Oct 20 09:11:35 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:11:35 -0000 Subject: Accio 2005 Guest speaker Announcement Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116020 Accio UK is delighted to announce Steve Vander Ark and Elizabeth Kay as two of its guest speakers for its Accio 2005 conference being held in Reading, UK. Steve Vander Ark Steve is the creator and editor of the Harry Potter Lexicon website(http://www.hp-lexicon.org), a comprehensive reference tool on the Potterverse extensively used by fans and even J K Rowling herself as she proved when she bestowed upon Steve's site one of her fandom awards. Steve is from Grand Rapids, Michigan (U.S.A.), where he works as a School Librarian. He is also director of his local community theatre as well as a freelance writer and columnist. Elizabeth Kay Elizabeth Kay (http://www.elizabeth-kay.co.uk/) is a poet, writer and teacher of Art and Creative Writing. She lives in Surrey. The Divide, her debut novel for children, was published to enthusiastic reviews and has sold over 150,000 copies worldwide, in countries as far afield as Japan, Finland, the USA and Canada. The sequel, Back to the Divide, was published in August '04 and is showing every sign of being even more successful than the first book. Elizabeth's publisher is Barry Cunningham of The Chicken House - known as the man who set up Bloomsbury's children's list and signed the original Harry Potter contract with J K Rowling. Elizabeth Kay was one of the first new writers he signed for The Chicken House. Accio UK is sponsored by HPfGU and is the first conference of its kind in the UK. To be held at Reading University from July 29th-31st 2005, it is an unofficial, non-profit making, friendly event that will bring together academics and adult Harry Potter fans to discuss all aspects of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. Planned events include presentations, panels, speeches, games, a feast, and informal discussions into the small hours. All meals are also included in the registration fees. It is recommended that you book prior to 31st October 2004 to take advantage of our early bird discount. An instalment plan is available. For further information please see our website: http://www.accio.org.uk. Details of how to register can be found here: http://www.accio.org.uk/registration.shtml This conference is an unofficial event and is not endorsed or sanctioned by Warner Bros., the Harry Potter book publishers or J.K. Rowling and her representatives. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Oct 20 10:11:44 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:11:44 -0400 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? Message-ID: <001601c4b68d$34789c20$0dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 116021 Carol said: "If I understand you correctly, "I'd best get this bike away" is the later reading (2000) and "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" is the original reading (1997), retained in the American edition. " DuffyPoo: Correct. I have a box set of the first three hardback books purchased the Christmas after GoF was published (2000). The PS/SS hardback says published in 2000 as well but I believe it is just a reprint of the original published in 1997. CoS and PoA say published in 1999. My box set of the first 4 paperbacks, all say published in 2000 and that's where *all* my edition changes for those four books are found. Before anyone asks why I have two sets of books, I was working on making myself a lexicon of sorts (before I found HPLexicon online) and the three biggest hardback books were splitting up the spine. I decided to buy, and ruin, a paperback set instead of my harbacks. ;) Carol said: "But the date, not the writing style, is what's important here: Yours is a later printing and seems to indicate an attempt by JKR to eliminate the discrepancy between Hagrid's two versions of the story, i.e., she's trying to make the British edition of PS agree with PoA. Unfortunately, she seems to have left in the line, "young Sirius Black lent it me," which makes the change to "I'd best get this bike away" rather pointless--a nice Hagridian line referencing a character we'll meet later is changed to a feeble and forgettable one without removing the idea the the motorbike was merely lent. Or did she also change the "lent it me" line in your edition, DuffyPoo?" DuffyPoo: Paperback (new 2000 edition) says "Borrowed it, Professor Dumbledore, sir," said the giant, cimbing carefully off the otorbike as he spoke. "Young Sirius Black lent it me." - word for word what is in the Hardback edition. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Oct 20 10:14:51 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:14:51 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] David In-Reply-To: <20041019193747.66424.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4176C73B.8511.AAC649@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 116022 On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:37, Hans Andr?a wrote: > > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of David, the > Bright morning star. > > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! Actually the bright morning star is most likely Venus, not Sirius - Venus has generally been given the appelation of morning star/evening star throughout history because it's inferior solar position to the Earth means it tends to be seen near sunset or sunrise, coupled with the fact that it normally the brightest object in the sky besides the sun and moon, means it was often the first 'star' to become visible at night, and the last 'star' to be visible at morning (actually technically speaking Venus is a daylight object - it can often be seen in the day if you know where to look.) 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 drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Oct 20 10:17:41 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:17:41 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Astronomy (was RE:David) In-Reply-To: <20041020034436.98186.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1098228039.37641.47767.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4176C7E5.5227.AD5CA5@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 116023 On 19 Oct 2004 at 20:44, Kim McGibony wrote: > There is indeed a star called Sirius or the dog star, > it is however, invisible to the naked eye. I would > think perhaps this has more to do with JKR's choice of > that name for that charecter especially since as an > animagus he turns into a dog. Looking for some > connection between out of context Bible passages and > any of the Harry Poter books just seems to be to be > rather a bit far-fetched. Actually Sirius - the Dog Star is the brightest star in the sky - Magnitude -1.46. I think you may have confused it with its companion star, Sirius B, often referred to as 'The Pup' which cannot be seen without a telescope. 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 gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 10:33:35 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:33:35 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages was:BIll Weasley as DADA? In-Reply-To: <1098229487.13946.20.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christopher Nehren wrote: Christopher Nehren: > The "language of magic" seems to be (for the most part, anyway) an > amalgamation of Latin, pseudo-Latin, and Aramaic. Consider all of the > different languages in just the areas surrounding Hogwarts: various > types of English, numerous Celtic and Gaelic dialects, and so forth -- > even some Teutonic influences in the earlier forms of what I'll call > English for lack of a better term. All of these different people have > collaborated and devised the usage of mostly Latin and some Aramaic (as > seen so far, of course -- no one can predict what will come in books six > and seven) for the purpose of using magic. Why Latin / Aramaic? That's a > whole thread in and of itself, though I believe that it has something to > do with the "ceremonious" nature of those languages, both from a > real-world perspective and from a literary perspective. Geoff: I think that there are real world parallels in this: the Roman Catholic church is one of them. From the earliest days, the language of this church has been Latin and much of its service structure is still in Latin. Again, in times past, scholars and scientists have corresponded and collaborated using Latin as a "lingua franca" to overcome language barriers. So it seems quite reasonable that the Wizarding World would have a common tongue to cover situations like this. To give a very personal example, many years ago I was involved in an annual school exchange with a school in Frankfurt-am-Main. On the first occasion in which I was involved, my German was a lot worse than it is now and one of the German staff spoke very little English. I have a memory of us standing in Trafalgar Square holding a conversation conducted largely in French and Latin!! Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 10:37:04 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:04 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "syroun" wrote: Syroun: > > Harry is not a non-emotive tree stump! > Geoff: I think, to ground this a little more in canon, what you are saying is that Harry's emotional range is somewhat greater than that of a teaspoon. :-) Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 10:44:21 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:44:21 -0000 Subject: Family Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: mhbobbin: > I love this theory. But here's my problem with it---characters do > find their way to the Dursleys home. Dudley's friends. Uncle > Vernon's guests (in CoS). Dobby. The Advance Guard of the Order. > Mrs. Figg. The Postman. The Milkman. The Weasleys through the > fireplace. Owls from the MInistry. There's probably a way around > this but I don't know what it is. > > Could the Dursleys former fireplace truly be on the Floo Network? > That seems odd, too. Geoff: Ah, but don't forget the circumstances... '"Er - yes - sorry about that," said Mr.Weasley, lowering his hand and looking over his shoulder at the blasted fireplace. "It's all my fault, it just didn't occur to me that we wouldn't be able to get out at the other end. I had your fireplace connected to the Floo Network, you see - just for an afternoon, you know, so we could get Harry. Muggle fireplaces aren't supposed to be connected, strictly speaking - but I've got a useful contact at the Floo Regulation Panel and hefixed it for me." (GOF "Back to the Burrow" p.44 UK edition) It's that Weasley guy up to his tricks again. No wonder the twins are so mischievious... :-)) Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 11:12:58 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:12:58 -0000 Subject: David In-Reply-To: <20041019193747.66424.qmail@web25104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: Hans: > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and the offspring of David, the > Bright morning star. > > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! > > And who were Sirius' friends? JAMES Potter, Remus JOHN Lupin, PETER > Pettigrew. Who were Jesus' disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane? James, > John and Peter! > > Who denied Jesus? Peter. Who betrayed Sirius and had him imprisoned? Peter! > > Doesn't this prove that Harry Potter is not only very similar to the > Alchemical Wedding, but also to the New Testament? I have tried to tell > anyone who would listen, time and time again, that Harry Potter is a > timeless road map to liberation, just like the Alchemical Wedding, the > Gospel of the Buddha, the Tao Teh Ching, the New Testament, etc. Geoff: I have remarked on numerous occasions that JKR, like Tolkien before her, has written a story where although it is not overtly Christian, the creators' personal faith has influenced the world view of their books. However, there are dangers in pushing the parallels too far. As a number of posters have indicated, the morning star isn't Sirius and the other point I question is your comparison of the two Peters. Peter Pettigrew betrayed the Potters. Simon Peter denied that he knew Jesus but the betrayal of Jesus to the authorities was carried out by Judas; these were far different events. Peter's was driven by fear and uncertainty, Judas' by greed. Peter was forgiven by Jesus later and went on to overcome these failings and become a great proclaimer of the Gospel of salvation - having had this granted at an earthly level already. So, in a sense, if JKR were using the story as an analogy of the Bible story, there would have to be two different people to represent Peter and Judas. But, I would agree with to her writers that the story line is not an exact parallel and ought not to be. It is not, as C.S.Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is, a straight allegory of the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus but a separate story but with a grounding in the views of the author. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 11:28:48 2004 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: David In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041020112848.11379.qmail@web12201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116028 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andra > > wrote: > > Hans: > > Revelation 22:16. I Jesus [...] am the root and > the offspring of > David, the > > Bright morning star. > > > > Who's the bright morning star? SIRIUS! > > > > And who were Sirius' friends? JAMES Potter, Remus > JOHN Lupin, PETER > > Pettigrew. Who were Jesus' disciples in the Garden > of Gethsemane? > James, > > John and Peter! > > *snip* Mezu: If you would really like to get technical, the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc. are all 1600s English names that were mistranslated in the King James Version of the Bible (names were only the small part *cough* thou shall not suffer a witch to live *cough* should be thou shall not suffer a poisoner to live). The original names are Greek, Latin, or Hebrew in origin and sound nothing like what we know today. Unfortunately, I do not have my Greek direct-translation with me (at work, d'oh) so I cannot give what the names should be. Just an example, Jesus is a corruption as well. If we were to take the most direct translation, he would be called Joshua. Big Difference! With the amount of research JKR did in so many other portions of her books, I doubt that she would use the names or the worst translation (Association of Biblical Scholars, 1999) of the bible like that. ===== "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 20 11:35:33 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:35:33 -0000 Subject: who is the hero? was DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116029 >>> Alla: > > > Here is what I think. I agree with Nora and Potiocat that books are > primarily about kids. I am also willing to place a bet that > Dumbledore incorrectly interpreted prophecy and Harry'solution will be something DD was not able to predict it. Boy, oh boy, how much I wish that the old fool will survive only to read about surprised expression on his face. Potioncat: Me too! Me too! Except I don't think DD is an old fool or a puppetmaster, just a wise old wizard doing the best he can. >>>Alla: > I partially agree with Kneasy. I will be dissapointed a bit, if the adults completely dissappear and I do care a lot about some of them, BUT they are already downgraded to suporting functions, I think. Potioncat: Me too again. It is Harry's story, and Harry is the Hero. It will be Harry, not Snape or Lupin or (your favorite adult here) who saves the day. But the adults in this story are strong characters. Without them, or with TV-style buffoons instead, this would be a weak fiction marketed to kids. One I'd read to my youngest, but not enjoy myself. (I also think it's very smart that the medium that must not be named chose strong adult actors for what are fairly small parts.) But, there is little chance that JKR will really tell me all I want to know about these characters. I want it all and then some. >>>Alla: > I am not as dissapointed as other people, who care more about the > characters other than Harry, because as long as Harry is front and > center I am very happy. Potioncat: I think whatever JKR does, it will work. It has so far. From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Wed Oct 20 13:16:21 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:16:21 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > mhbobbin wrote: > > > > If the male voice is someone other than James, it can't be a > > painting or someone in the 2-way mirror, it has to be someone who's > > physically there, and could have held off Voldy: > > > > 'Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off -' > > > > There can be a painting/mirror/something else witness too, of > > course, but the voice has to belong to someone who was there. > > > > Dungrollin > > Carol responds: > And who but James would say those words? We know that James put up a > brave fight and was killed by LV. (Note that if LV cast any spells in > that duel other than the AK, they didn't show up in the Priori > Incantatem, but that's another thread.) > I'm not ruling out a portrait or other nonhuman witness (I lean > toward Snape's Dark Mark as a clue, myself), but I agree that the > voice was human and it seems likely that it really was James's. (As I > said in another post, it couldn't have been Lupin's. He was the > suspected spy. The question, for me, is why Sirius didn't go to him > instead of running after Peter. But that would have ruined the story.) > > Carol kmc adds: In POA, Sirius tells the group in the shack that he saw their bodies. I don't have my books so I can't reference the chapter. James and Lily were killed at Gordic Hollow. (For those of you with body switching theories - James' body was at Gordic Hollow.) -kmc From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 13:39:31 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:39:31 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116031 Syroun wrote : "I feel things, very deeply and that is my core. That does not mean that I am mentally unstable, but I am known to cry at movies or even when I am watching TV, or listening to the radio and see or hear something that is compelling." Del replies : I'm like that too. That's probably even why I reacted so violently to Harry's anger : because it created an emotional response in me. Syroun wrote : "Harry feels very deeply the loss of his parents and more recently, the loss of Sirius. His situation is simply overwhelming emotionally and his reaction to it, in the abscence of parental control or adequate supervision, is expected. His ability to feel emotion and his propensity to react to it, or perhaps over-react, is seminal to his character; he will not change fundamentally, but his behaviour hopefully will become more deliberate and planned....otherwise he may not survive physically or emotionally. Isn't that the process of maturation for us all?" Del replies : I would agree, if Harry hadn't been so UN-emotional in the previous books. That's even why of the reasons I never really managed to be close to him : because up to OoP, he was so unemotional. It's not just that he was keeping his emotions inside ; I could have related very well to that. But it really seemed to me like he did not *have* strong emotions. He would flare up once in a while, but most of the time, he just went through the motions. In a word, he was very *reasonable*, which is totally unlike me. And then suddenly, in OoP, he becomes completely unreasonable and overly emotional. He's got reasons for that, for sure. But somehow the transition was not well done for me, and it all looked like a hiatus. It looked like we still had calm, self-controlled Harry at the end of GoF, and suddenly we had angry, irrational Harry at the beginning of OoP. It was too much of a jump for me. And the fact that nobody called Harry on that change didn't help, because it really made me feel like I was suddenly reading a story about a different Harry. Syroun wrote : " Harry is not a non-emotive tree stump!" Del replies : Well, no, but he did act like one most of the time before OoP. Why did that change ? Why did he suddenly change his way of coping with things, and most importantly, why was nobody in the books bothered with that ? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 13:53:49 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:53:49 -0000 Subject: About Ron (was Re: envy vs. jealousy?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116032 Paul wrote : "But I remember that Ron was totally hostile towards Harry for the Tournament and towards Krum for Hermione." Del replies : Oh but those 2 things are *completely* different !! Where Hermione is concerned, I totally agree that Ron is *jealous*. Not only does he (unconsciously) wish to have Hermione, but he also won't accept that anybody else gets her. This is jealousy all right : Ron wants Hermione just for himself. But I still argue that where Harry is concerned, Ron is only envious : he wants to have the same chance at being a Champion, but he never wished that Harry didn't become a Champion too. This is envy : Ron wants a chance at being a Champion along with Harry. Two very different things. Proof of that is the way those conflicts are resolved : as soon as Ron sees in what danger Harry is because he's a Champion, he flies to Harry's side and he forgets about his envious feelings. But his conflict with Krum over Hermione never gets completely resolved : only Krum's departure brings some relief to the situation, and even then he keeps being jealous of Hermione writing to Krum. Not the same emotion at all. Del From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 15:00:27 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:00:27 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Syroun wrote : > "I feel things, very deeply and that is my core. That does not mean > that I am mentally unstable, but I am known to cry at movies or even > when I am watching TV, or listening to the radio and see or hear > something that is compelling." > > Del replies : > I'm like that too. That's probably even why I reacted so violently to > Harry's anger : because it created an emotional response in me. > > Syroun wrote : > "Harry feels very deeply the loss of his parents and more recently, > the loss of Sirius. His situation is simply overwhelming emotionally > and his reaction to it, in the abscence of parental control or > adequate supervision, is expected. His ability to feel emotion and his > propensity to react to it, or perhaps over-react, is seminal to his > character; he will not change fundamentally, but his behaviour > hopefully will become more deliberate and planned....otherwise he may > not survive physically or emotionally. Isn't that the process of > maturation for us all?" > > Del replies : > I would agree, if Harry hadn't been so UN-emotional in the previous > books. That's even why of the reasons I never really managed to be > close to him : because up to OoP, he was so unemotional. It's not just > that he was keeping his emotions inside ; I could have related very > well to that. But it really seemed to me like he did not *have* strong > emotions. He would flare up once in a while, but most of the time, he > just went through the motions. In a word, he was very *reasonable*, > which is totally unlike me. > And then suddenly, in OoP, he becomes completely unreasonable and > overly emotional. He's got reasons for that, for sure. But somehow the > transition was not well done for me, and it all looked like a hiatus. > It looked like we still had calm, self-controlled Harry at the end of > GoF, and suddenly we had angry, irrational Harry at the beginning of > OoP. It was too much of a jump for me. And the fact that nobody called > Harry on that change didn't help, because it really made me feel like > I was suddenly reading a story about a different Harry. > > Syroun wrote : > " Harry is not a non-emotive tree stump!" > > Del replies : > Well, no, but he did act like one most of the time before OoP. Why did > that change ? Why did he suddenly change his way of coping with > things, and most importantly, why was nobody in the books bothered > with that ? > > Del Antosha: This strikes me as analogous to the standard high school English teacher line that Hamlet is 'incapapable of action' in spite of the fact that he plots, feigns madness, sets up traps, kills a man, leaps into his girlfriend's grave... But, of course, he doesn't kill the bad guy till the end. So he hasn't 'acted.' Sheesh. Harry IS emotional in the first four books--very emotional. It's just that, like many kids, he has no language or awareness of what he's feeling until it forces him into action. Anger and fear have caused him to use magic without meaning to, from his escapes from Dudley to blowing up Aunt Marge. He feels enormous concern (read empathy or, if you feel like it, love) for Ginny when she is taken by Tom Riddle in CoS, risking his own life rather than let her die. Finding the Mirror of Erised so fills him with a bittersweet mix of joy and sorrow that he is immobilized for a while. When Ron refuses to believe him in GoF, he is so furious and his sense of injustice (always strong in adolescents) so inflamed that he snubs one of his best friends for months--he does the same to Seamus, sadly, in OotP. When Ron starts talking to him again after the first task, it is that, rather than surviving the dragon, that most elates him. Cho reduces him to mush. (That may be hormones rather than emotion, if you want to get picky.) What's different in OotP? First of all, Harry is going through a really bad phase of the adolescent pricklies, when just about everything ticks him off; and second of all, some truly exciting, terrifying and devastating things happen to him. Here, his world has reached a relatively ordered place--magic and friends over here, Dursleys over there. But suddenly that wall is broken--Hermione and Ron aren't talking with him, in spite of the fact that, unlike CoS, he's receiving their letters; he's having terrifying dreams on a regular basis; Dementors attack in Little Whinging; Dumbledore's authority at Hogwarts is steadily eroded by Umbridge; many people at school think he's crazy, or worse, a liar; and whatever hormonal/emotional stuff has been going on with Cho comes to a crisis. He's maturing and, at the same time, his world is demanding a reaction from him NOW. My wife, who teaches teens, almost couldn't keep reading OotP after a few hundred pages: the teen angst got to her. The thing is, it is remarkable that JKR is following Harry (and his friends) as they make that transition into self-awareness that should be (but isn't always) adulthood. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 15:23:56 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:23:56 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116034 Antosha wrote : " Harry IS emotional in the first four books--very emotional." Del replies : I kinda disagree. Many of your examples are examples of times when *anyone* would have been emotional : when faced with slander or death for example. I agree there are times when Harry finally reacts like someone really emotional would *in my idea*. When he finds the Mirror of Erised for example, and he keeps going back to it three nights in a row, all night long. Or when he's betrayed by Hermione over the matter of the Firebolt in PoA. Those are times when he didn't have to react so strongly, and yet he did. I liked those times, even if they upsetted me. About OoP. Antosha, you explain very clearly why Harry should indeed be disturbed. My only problem is that Harry *starts the book* already disturbed ! He was NOT disturbed at the end of GoF, we had no sign that he was going to change so dramatically. And then we start OoP barely a month later, and suddenly Harry is being unfair to his friends, he's bullying Dudley, and he's being generally extremely moody and bad-tempered. This is not necessarily unrealistic, but it prevented me from getting into the book, because I felt it wasn't the same Harry anymore. It wasn't the Harry I left in GoF. I would have loved it if End-of-GoF!Harry had *evolved* into Angry!Harry throughout the first chapters of OoP. I would have followed him through the transformation, sharing his annoyance at being mistreated more and more. But I was given no such chance. Right from the beginning, Harry's temper is boiling and he's over-reacting to everything. I never got to jump into his head, and things only got worse as the pages went by. As I said in another post, this was *my* problem, I'm aware of that. But it does seem like I wasn't the only one having that problem (makes sense : I'm not *that* special ;-) Del From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Oct 20 16:21:27 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:21:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important References: Message-ID: <002f01c4b6c0$dc72bea0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116035 Antosha wrote : " Harry IS emotional in the first four books--very emotional." Del replies : About OoP. Antosha, you explain very clearly why Harry should indeed be disturbed. My only problem is that Harry *starts the book* already disturbed ! He was NOT disturbed at the end of GoF, we had no sign that he was going to change so dramatically. And then we start OoP barely a month later, and suddenly Harry is being unfair to his friends, he's bullying Dudley, and he's being generally extremely moody and bad-tempered. This is not necessarily unrealistic, but it prevented me from getting into the book, because I felt it wasn't the same Harry anymore. It wasn't the Harry I left in GoF. I would have loved it if End-of-GoF!Harry had *evolved* into Angry!Harry throughout the first chapters of OoP. I would have followed him through the transformation, sharing his annoyance at being mistreated more and more. But I was given no such chance. Right from the beginning, Harry's temper is boiling and he's over-reacting to everything. I never got to jump into his head, and things only got worse as the pages went by. As I said in another post, this was *my* problem, I'm aware of that. But it does seem like I wasn't the only one having that problem (makes sense : I'm not *that* special ;-) Del Kethryn now - The Harry that we left at the end of GoF was still in shock and, to a good bit, denial. Not denial as in 'I don't believe what I saw' but denial as in 'I am not ready to deal with this on any level' denial. Harry might have talked to Ron and Hermione about Cedric and Voldemort but, by the end of GoF, he was just starting to come out of it on the ride home. To me, his progression from shock and denial melded into anger rather seamlessly between the two books, especially since I tend to have rather lightening changes in my emotions as well. So, we go from "shocky and in denial" Harry to "really angry at the world" Harry in a matter of an offscreen month or so...not that big a leap for me to make considering the circumstances we can infer from previous encounters with the Dursleys regarding his home life. And no one likes to be kept in the dark and fed a lotta .... So, I don't think that Harry was overreacting. Well, he was, but that is an adult judgement. Coming from someone who used to be the Drama Queen (and still is, to some extent), Harry's behavoir is almost placid compared to some of the stunts I pulled and, to my everlasting shame, still do to this day. Of course, the last really major temper tantrum I had ended with me having to crawl around the bar looking for my wedding ring. I guess I empathize with Harry because of how close we are personality wise (odd since I am a girl *G*) but, god knows, if we had to live with each other, it would be WWIII in the house. Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 20 16:18:36 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:18:36 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > About OoP. Antosha, you explain very clearly why Harry should indeed be disturbed. My only problem is that Harry *starts the book* already disturbed ! He was NOT disturbed at the end of GoF, we had no sig that he was going to change so dramatically. And then we start OoP barely a month later, and suddenly Harry is being unfair to his friends, he's bullying Dudley, and he's being generally extremely moody and bad-tempered. < Pippin: Actually, JKR does warn us that Harry is not okay at the end of GoF. The last chapter begins -- --When he looked back, even a month later, Harry found he had few memories of the following days. It was as though he had been through too much to take in any more. The recollections he did have were very painful. -- That tells us that a month later, ie at the start of OOP, he was looking back on painful memories. Hagrid tells us too. --"You all righ'?" he said gruffly. "Yeah," said Harry. "No, yeh're not," said Hagrid. "Course yeh're not. But yeh will be." Harry said nothing.-- and a little farther down the page --Harry smiled back at him. It was the first time he'd smiled in days. -- In the last chapter he's described as "didn't care very much", having a "heavy heart", a "hot, sick swoop of anger in his stomach", "no pleasure at all", "spirits couldn't help but lift slightly","less painful" and feeling "a kind of ringing in his ears". He and his friends attack Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle five against three, and kick them when they're down, which foreshadows his bullying of Dudley. It's true he's at peace with Ron and Hermione, but he felt that "each of them was waiting for some sign, some word of what was going on outside Hogwarts". His feelings about Ron and Hermione at the start of OOP, when he thinks they have information that's being kept from him, are understandably different. Although we're told the last leg of the journey to King's Cross passed "pleasantly enough", Harry is aware that "time will not slow down when something unpleasant lies ahead." JKR is playing her usual game of leading us into false assumptions. Harry has been changed forever at the end of GoF, but he doesn't realize it yet, just as he can't see the thestrals yet. The reader is allowed to experience that denial right along with him, yet the signs that all is not well, though hardly obvious, are clearly in evidence. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Oct 20 16:39:06 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:39:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <009801c4b6c3$51a39710$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 116037 Del replies : I would agree, if Harry hadn't been so UN-emotional in the previous books. That's even why of the reasons I never really managed to be close to him : because up to OoP, he was so unemotional. It's not just that he was keeping his emotions inside ; I could have related very well to that. But it really seemed to me like he did not *have* strong emotions. He would flare up once in a while, but most of the time, he just went through the motions. In a word, he was very *reasonable*, which is totally unlike me. And then suddenly, in OoP, he becomes completely unreasonable and overly emotional. He's got reasons for that, for sure. But somehow the transition was not well done for me, and it all looked like a hiatus. It looked like we still had calm, self-controlled Harry at the end of GoF, and suddenly we had angry, irrational Harry at the beginning of OoP. It was too much of a jump for me. And the fact that nobody called Harry on that change didn't help, because it really made me feel like I was suddenly reading a story about a different Harry. Well, no, but he did act like one most of the time before OoP. Why did that change ? Why did he suddenly change his way of coping with things, and most importantly, why was nobody in the books bothered with that ? Del Sherry now I was very bothered with Harry's attitude in OOTP. In hindsight, I thought that much of it could have been him channeling a lot of Voldemort's anger and attitude. Sure, he had reasons, Cedric's death, being isolated, Dumbledore's withdrawal ... But even so it all seemed extreme to me. It was hard to hang on and like him for the whole book. In fact, not until the DA, did I start feeling more sympathy for him. When he was teaching the DA, he was much more likable, especially how he worked with Neville. It was a pretty abrupt change, now that you have caused me to think about it, and I'm with you wondering why nobody commented on it. Especially because he was so rude to his closest friends through much of the book. I do usually like Harry, though I admit he is not the most interesting character to me. But he's the hero, and for the most part I am on his side and feel sorrow for the things that happen to him. But to quote something the twins might say, he sure was acting like a git in that book! Sherry G Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 17:07:15 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:07:15 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116038 Del said: > I would have loved it if End-of-GoF!Harry had *evolved* into > Angry!Harry throughout the first chapters of OoP. I would have > followed him through the transformation, sharing his annoyance at > being mistreated more and more. But I was given no such chance. Right > from the beginning, Harry's temper is boiling and he's over-reacting > to everything. I never got to jump into his head, and things only got > worse as the pages went by. > > As I said in another post, this was *my* problem, I'm aware of that. > But it does seem like I wasn't the only one having that problem (makes > sense : I'm not *that* special ;-) > > Del Antosha: Well, I'm sure you *are* special. ;-) And I do see your point. I think the difficulty is the way that the books are constructed. At the end of GoF, just as at the end of OotP, Harry goes home still in a state of shock. As much as I know it was a cheap way out for JKR, it makes a certain amount of sense that he doesn't see the Thestrals yet. Then, as in all of the books after PS/SS, we get a lacuna, a gap, from late June until, in this case, early August. And during that "off stage" time, Harry has had a chance not only to absorb what has happened--he has become obsessed with reading the Daily Prophet, with trying to catch the news on the television--he's having nightmares about Cedric and the graveyard as well as what appear to be deeply troubling, Jungian dreams about a dark corridor (in fact, these turn out to be links with LV), and HE HAS NO OUTLET FOR HIS FEAR, since no one is talking with him. Add the normal teen angst and the probable irritating factor of a close mental link with the most evil wizard of all time, and voila, we discover Harry, already wound tighter than a top at the beginning of the book. JKR likes to end the books on a note of hope and redemption, but that doesn't make a very good place to START from, so inevitably, there's a bit of a disconnect between the end of one book and the beginning of the next. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 17:11:56 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:11:56 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116039 Pippin wrote : " Actually, JKR does warn us that Harry is not okay at the end of GoF." Del replies : Well, yes, but then Harry was never fine by the end of a book before. And yet he always managed to pull himself more or less together by the beginning of the next book. Pippin wrote : "JKR is playing her usual game of leading us into false assumptions. Harry has been changed forever at the end of GoF, but he doesn't realize it yet, just as he can't see the thestrals yet. The reader is allowed to experience that denial right along with him, yet the signs that all is not well, though hardly obvious, are clearly in evidence." Del replies : There's a huge difference between "things are not well, Harry has been changed forever" and "Harry will turn into a git in the next month". I knew Harry wasn't well, of course, but I never in the entire world would have expected him to turn into Angry!Harry all of a sudden like he did. What I expected was exactly the contrary : Silent!Harry, Leave-me-alone!Harry, I-don't-care!Harry. I did NOT expect a Harry who resents his friends for not telling him more (after all, Harry's habit is to *not* ask questions, right ?). I did NOT expect a Harry who turns his own frustration on his cousin. I did NOT expect a Harry who lashes at everyone. I did NOT expect a Harry who greeted his friends with yells and recriminations, and so on. And no matter how much I tried to accomodate, I was always left behind. It does get tiring and frustrating after a while, until I just stopped trying, and so also stopped caring. Ah well, not the right personality, I guess. Del From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Oct 20 17:12:44 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:12:44 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116040 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >> > Pippin: > Sherry and Renee, your posts were very moving. I am aware of > JKR's mother's illness -- my own sister suffers from MS. Renee: I'm sorry to hear this! (A classmate of mine died of it before the age of 30, and the husband of a friend suffers from it, but no doubt you know more about it than I do.) And I > agree with your premise. If the theory meant the book had to end > as you describe, with werewolves worse off than they were, or > the courage with which Lupin *appears* to endure his condition > discredited, it would be rubbish. > > I don't think it does. Harry is the hero, and he will make it his > business to see that doesn't happen. He will not only say that > it's unfair to make one person, good or bad, the representative of > an entire class of people, he'll prove it. > > I think JKR is sensitive enough and Harry is ingenious and > brave enough to resolve this, even if it means, say, that his > beloved godfather has to go down in WW history as the traitor. > > Pippin Renee: I really hope so, and I'm fairly confident he will (though I do hope Sirius will be vindicated, but that's a different matter). Even so, even a Lupin who is 'courted' by the Death Eaters - and perhaps for that reason loses the trust of Sirius & James - but overcomes the temptation to join them, makes for a better message than one who succumbs. Not to mention the fact that it makes Sirius' choice of Peter for a Secret Keeper more tragically ironic if he both distrusted the good guy and trusted the bad one. Perhaps it's also my sense of tragic irony that rebels against ESE!Lupin. Renee From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 17:17:37 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:17:37 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116041 Antosha wrote : "JKR likes to end the books on a note of hope and redemption, but that doesn't make a very good place to START from, so inevitably, there's a bit of a disconnect between the end of one book and the beginning of the next." Del replies : Agreed. Unfortunately, in my case, the bit of a disconnect between GoF and OoP was so great that it prevented me from ever reconnecting during my first reading :-( I know JKR cannot write with every kind of reader in mind, but it's a bit disappointing when you happen to be one kind that she overlooked. That didn't turn me off HP, though, as you can notice :-) Del From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 17:40:40 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:40:40 -0000 Subject: What was DU hiding? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > Since several people picked up on my Fred and George question at the > end of the last chapter discussion, thought I'd throw my other one > out there for seperate discussion, just cause I want to know what > y'all think. > Anyway, DU states in OP that her fire is the only fire in Hogwarts > that isn't being monitered by the MoM. Why is that? As loyal to the > Ministry as she is, what could she be saying that she doesn't want > anyone, even the people on her own side, to hear? Or are there other > ways to monitor the floo network other than the specified panel? And > why would she take the risk (she of the Quibbler banning and > Educational Decrees and Dementor siccing) that someone would break > into the office to use her fire for private conversations? Is she > hiding something? Or has the "DU is a DE" speculation (and all these > marathon Red Sox-Yankees games) finally gotten to my head? > Meri Amazing games, no? And an interesting question. DU as DE seems like the LEAST interesting choice, it seems to me. If all the bad guys are simply LV's lapdogs, then life is pretty simple. But if supposedly good or neutral folks can turn out to be that horrible--and DU is, it seems to me, the most despicable villain we've encountered so far; LV seems almost benign in comparison--then who knows what's going to happen? It seems most likely to me that DU's motivation at having her Floo untapped is a) a show of power (HAHA! I am the High Inquisitor, and I'm watching you, but no one dare watch me!) and a general rather than a specific paranoia. I just think she doesn't like the idea of people snooping on her, poor dear. Also, she is apparently filing confidential reports with Fudge on a regular basis, and doesn't wish these to be overheard, since, after all, DD has spies everywhere, perhaps even in the Floo Regulation office. Well, he DOES have spies everywhere. He certainly has fingers in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and the Dept. of Misuse of Muggle Artifacts. Who knows where else his tentacles reach! As US Senator Joe McCarthy showed us all, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 18:54:57 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:54:57 -0000 Subject: Godrics Hollow - What was the Secret? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116043 I've already commented on this in the "Family Secrets" thread, but I'll bring it up as a separate issue because it might help explain an inconsistency in the incident at Godrics Hollow. (See orginal comments in post# 116017) People have wondered how Hagrid could find the Potter house at Godrics Hollow if it was protected by the Secret Keeper Charm. Indeed Hagrid comments that just after he grabbed Harry, muggles started to appear on the scene. So, how did muggles find the place. The most common explanation for this is that the Charm was broken when Lily and James died, or perhaps when the AK Spell rebounded and blew up the house. Perhaps, it was not the location but the people who were the secret. I go back to what Prof. Flitwick said in the Three Broomsticks in PoA when Harry overheard him explain the Fidelius (Secret Keeper) Charm. He said... "... As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You_Know_Who could search the village for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" First I must acknowledge that Flitwick is making a generalization. He is giving Madam Rosmerta a description of how the Fidelius Charm works. He is using the Potters as an illustration, but he may not necessarily be speaking to their exact circumstances. But, none the less, if Voldemort or any secret /seeker/ could press their nose to the sitting room window and not find the persons hidden inside, that implies that it is the /people/ and not the /place/ that is the secret. We have always assumed that the Godrics Hollow situation was similar to the 12 Grimmauld Place situation where it is the location, the house, that is the secret. Admittedly, 12 GP has more protections than the Secret Keeper Charm, but it's also clear that it is indeed the house that is being kept secret. Side note: Dumbledore is Secret Keeper for The Order of the Phoenix, and is probably keeping many more secrets than just the location of Headquarters. Flitwick seems to imply that it is possible for the people, Lily and James, to be the objects of the Charm, and that while the /secret seeker/ might be able to find their house, he would never be able to find them. If Lily and James were the secret, and not the house at Godrics Hollow then that would explain a lot of the inconsistencies regarding people being able to find the Potter's house the night Voldemort attacked. It also has the additional benefit of protecting the Potters where ever they go. If at some point Godrics Hollow became too risky they could move to a new location and still be protected. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From erinellii at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 19:03:42 2004 From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:03:42 -0000 Subject: The McGonagall/Riddle Ship Explained In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116044 > Carol noted: > The problem with the theory that McGonagall actually *married* Tom > Riddle (aside from the difficulty of taking back her maiden name in > the conservative WW) Erin: Huh? The conservative wizarding world? As far as women's rights, I don't see it that way at all. And yes, I know that there have been huge debates about this issue, and I'm not trying to start one up again, but... just keep in mind that consevative (per women's rights) is a matter of opinion and there is nothing in canon that suggests a woman would have difficulty in resuming her maiden name if she wished to do so. > Carol continued: > is that, as far as we know, Tom Riddle (having > murdered his Muggle relatives the previous summer and being too old > for the orphanage and having no place to call home), seems to have > started out on his travels immediately. Erin: The exact quote is "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." Now, I admit that this does suggest his leaving *soon* after school, but it doesn't specifically say immediately. I think there's leeway in there for a couple of months of marriage with Minerva, especially if we allow for the idea that Dumbledore is still covering for Minerva by not mentioning the marriage. He's not actually lying, just leaving out a little. Carol again: At any rate, he had some > urgent reasons to disappear from public view and he wouldn't have > hung around with a plain-faced, sharp-tongued young wife who > disapproved of Dark Magic and his quest for immortality. Erin: Urgent reason? Like a fight with Minerva in which she threatens to expose his evil ways if he doesn't leave? Is young!McGonagall plain-faced? I know present-day McGonagall is stern, but that isn't really the same thing at all. Was she always sharp-tongued? Who knows *what* she was like as a young woman? In my version of McGonagall/Riddle, she doesn't know about the Dark Magic or the quest for immortality until right before they split up, so that wouldn't have been a factor at all in Tom's decision to hang around or not. Hey, I'm not sure how much I believe in the Ship myself, but I don't actually see anything in canon to rule it out... --Erin, who really wants McGonagall to be married to the Scottish!HBP From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 20 19:05:06 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:05:06 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116045 Renee: >Even so, even a Lupin who is 'courted' by the Death Eaters - and perhaps for that reason loses the trust of Sirius & James - but overcomes the temptation to join them, makes for a better message than one who succumbs. < Pippin: Oh, I expect ESE!Lupin will be offered a chance at redemption, but I wouldn't bet on him taking it. As for the message, Lupin resembles an Uncle Tom/Uncle Remus character, created with good intentions to counter a threatening stereotype. But Uncle Tom/Uncle Remus is now considered to be itself a negative stereotype, because in the zeal to make him unthreatening, he is also made childlike, powerless and so lacking in resentment as to appear incapable rather than forbearing of anger. The un-canonical Lupin so dear to fandom's heart, who felt Sirius was innocent all along but couldn't do anything about it, who didn't lead his friends to become animagi, who couldn't keep in mind that he hadn't taken his potion even after he was reminded, who was thinking purely of Neville's welfare when he allowed the boggart to take appear as GrannySnape, would, IMO, be such a negative stereotype...if he existed. I submit he doesn't. Renee: > Not to mention the fact that it makes Sirius' choice of Peter for a Secret Keeper more tragically ironic if he both distrusted the good guy and trusted the bad one. Perhaps it's also my sense of tragic irony that rebels against ESE!Lupin. < Pippin: Sirius rejects Peter's plea for mercy and forgives Lupin, who murders him. How ironic is that? Pippin From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Oct 20 19:14:55 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:14:55 +0100 Subject: Fudge Message-ID: <53C2E006-22CC-11D9-AB2A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116046 The name says it all. "Huh, typical politician then" is the standard reaction. It all depends on the quality of your politicians, I suppose. Because let's remember that Fudge *is* just a politician; he's not ruler, Head of State, Prime Minister or anything really important; he's a Minister running one Ministry that has various sub-sections that are staffed by wizards - not the most practical or efficient people in the world. To whom does the Minister and the Ministry owe allegiance? In the RW he would have to take an oath to the Crown, swearing to support her heirs and assigns - but somehow I don't see that green bowler hat trudging across Parliament Square. (Mind you, I did once posit that the Queen is Ruler of the WW - in England anyway - her remote ancestor was placed on the throne by Merlin, her children went to some weird school in Scotland and she only has to say one word and personages are elevated, bridges open and ships slide into the sea. Magic! You don't really think that thing is a sceptre, do you? Nah - it's an Ollivander special.) Fudge is a shining example of the Peter Principle - "In every hierarchy, each employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence; every post tends to be filled by an employee incompetent to execute its duties." He wanted the job, and got it, but he's no bloody good. But have you considered that that is exactly the reason why he did get the job? Another of my whimsical maunderings - Barty Crouch Snr. was efficient verging on brutal; the WW equivalent of a hanging judge - and hot favourite to be Minister. Appear before him charged with being, or associating with DEs and you might as well take your toothbrush with you, 'cos next stop would be Azkaban. And since Voldy had departed for an indeterminate vacation on the Costa del Adriatic, gnashing his non-existent dentures and scaring the hell out of the local rodentia, thus no longer offering DEs visions of a life of ease, swigging the odd Butterbeer during breaks in the arduous round of Muggle torturing, Elf flogging and other pursuits beloved of their ilk, this naturally was a cause for concern (and major bowel upsets) for those with their freedom at stake. To such as Malfoy it was all a bit of a frost. Only one thing to do, get rid of Crouch and replace him with someone a bit more, well, flexible, might be the word. And guess what? - they've got just the chap stashed away in a backroom at the Ministry. Ambitious, not too bright, amenable. So Barty Jnr is shopped along with a few DEs that are already under suspicion. Two possible outcomes - either Crouch goes easy on his son - in which case scream "Nepotism!" and give him the elbow, or - he'll go hard on his son, in which case start a whispering campaign about megalomaniac fanatics who'll end up throwing *everybody* in goal. Since Crouch was on the slide in the popularity stakes anyway, this is the way it turned out. Fudge is in - and almost immediately starts to wind down the DE witch-hunt (or wizard-hunt, or whatever). "War over, forgive and forget, heal the wounds, rehabilitated, blemish on a page of our history, brighter future," - all the usual political crap. Mission accomplished. Only one small snag - Fudge owes them, and one day they'll arrive with the bill. By dint of co-opting DD as unofficial (and probably unwilling) advisor, Fudge manages to cope quite well. Until young Potter grows up and enters Hogwarts. Coincidentally(?) it's about this time that dear, departed Voldy starts getting his act together. He makes a brief come-back tour - which is not an immediate success, that little toe-rag Potter being the Diptera in the unguent - again! But it's a sign that the Glorious Leader is still around and vaguely kicking. Right. Prevention is better than cure. Get rid of Potter. Best option - make it look like an accident. How? Well, there's this prisoner in Azkaban; something funny about him and the Potters. Spring him, let loose the Dementors, ostensibly to catch him, but in fact they're ordered to nail young Potter instead, and Bilius is your uncle. Fudge is put to work. Nearly succeeds, too. Ah, well. Maybe next time. Because there will be a next time. Voldy is stirring, believing that third time's a charm. Unfortunately he's developed this obsession about Potter - puts him right at the top of his "to do" list. But this is to be just a warm-up, a gentle work-out before really flexing his wand and taking over the lot. Fudge is presented with the second part of the bill. Deny that Voldy's returned. Mock Potter, DD, anyone who says otherwise. Purge the Ministry, take over Hogwarts, isolate and emasculate anyone who doesn't toe the line. Voldy needs to consolidate, he needs a bit of time, time to gather his old buddies, time to burrow deep into the system. And if there's one thing bureaucrats understand, it's delay. Delay is the deadliest form of denial, so the old saying goes - and Fudge does his best for those that own him. It ain't enough. Almighty cock-up at the Ministry. It's not Fudge's fault - but guess who'll get hammered anyway - from both sides. Kneasy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 19:16:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:16:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116047 > Pippin: snip. > The un-canonical Lupin so dear to fandom's heart, who felt > Sirius was innocent all along but couldn't do anything about it, > who didn't lead his friends to become animagi, who couldn't > keep in mind that he hadn't taken his potion even after he was > reminded, who was thinking purely of Neville's welfare when he > allowed the boggart to take appear as GrannySnape, would, > IMO, be such a negative stereotype...if he existed. I submit he > doesn't. Alla: I don't understand. Why such Lupin would be a negative stereotype? A victim of prejudice, chronically ill person, who managed to keep his humanity despite beign a flawed human being. Who , contrary to Snape managed to resist the temptation to join Evil, even if such evil promised hima better destiny. Really, I don't know why you consider such character to be a negative one. And of course he was thinkinhg about Neville's wellfare. Well, mainly, anyway. :o) From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Oct 20 18:01:39 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:01:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00d301c4b6ce$e3130810$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 116048 Del replies : Agreed. Unfortunately, in my case, the bit of a disconnect between GoF and OoP was so great that it prevented me from ever reconnecting during my first reading :-( I know JKR cannot write with every kind of reader in mind, but it's a bit disappointing when you happen to be one kind that she overlooked. That didn't turn me off HP, though, as you can notice :-) Del Sherry Del, I really struggled with OOTP the first time through. My worst reactions were to Umbrige, and I had to stop reading once or twice for a while, because I was so upset by some of her actions and some of Harry's behavior. However, the second read through was better, and I expect the third will be even better. OOTP was a much darker book than even GOF had been, and it was difficult to get through it at first. I know the war has begun now, but I sure hope we won't see more of angry hostile Harry or abusive umbrige. I don't know if I could read another whole book like that again. I hadn't found this group at the time OOTP first came out, and I sure wish I could have read the posts from that time. Sherry G From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 20:24:47 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:24:47 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: <002f01c4b6c0$dc72bea0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kethryn" wrote: > Del replies : > > > > ... Antosha, you explain very clearly why Harry should indeed > be disturbed. My only problem is that Harry *starts the book* > already disturbed ! ... barely a month later, and suddenly Harry is > being unfair to his friends, he's bullying Dudley, and he's being > generally extremely moody and bad-tempered. This is not necessarily > unrealistic, but it prevented me from getting into the book, because > I felt it wasn't the same Harry anymore. ... > > Kethryn now - > > The Harry that we left at the end of GoF was still in shock and, to a good bit, denial. ... To me, his progression from shock and denial melded into anger rather seamlessly between the two books, .... So, we go from "shocky and in denial" Harry to "really angry at the world" Harry in a matter of an offscreen month or so...not that big a leap for me to make considering the circumstances we can infer from previous encounters with the Dursleys regarding his home life. And no one likes to be kept in the dark and fed a lotta .... bboyminn: First to Del's point that "...I felt it wasn't the same Harry anymore ...". You are right, he is not the same Harry any more, and he can never be the old innocent, having keen adventures with Ron, Harry ever again. He has been kidnapped, tortured, almost killed, seen an innocent fellow student killed because of Harry's choices, and seen Voldemort come back to life. It's a whole new world now, and like it or not, it's a whole new Harry; how could he possibly not be profoundly changed by such events. Indeed, it is innocents lost, and OotP is the transitional phase between innocents lost and adulthood gained. Harry now, as of the end of OotP, has no choice but to grow up. A tremendous weighty burden has been laid on his shoulders, and he can either crumble and die, or grow up and carry on. Of course, the hero will grow up and carry on, but that's an extremely tough transition to make in anyone's life. Further, Harry is completely isolated and alone at the Dursleys. The boy who challenged and escaped Voldemort more times that any living person, and in his mind, is thrown to the side and left to rot. At Hogwarts, Harry had his friends around him to give him comfort. Even if he doesn't talk to them about what happened, having them there gives him a sense of safely and security. But after school, he is essentially cast out on a desert island; no support, no reassurance, no friends, no information, just isolation, nightmares, fear, worry, and nothing but his disturbed thoughts to keep him company. Consider the events after they visit Mr. Weasley in the hospital. Look at how fast Harry thought desent into irrational or distorted hyper-rationalized thinking. To Mr. and Mrs. Weasley he is a hero, but in a matter of minutes Harry has convinced himself that he is a murdering monster that is a threat to everyone around him. By that time in the story, Harry emotions have been further amplified by Umbridge and Snape. But it gives us a clue as to how Harry's mind must have been working when he was dumped at the Dursleys without the slightest consideration for his fragile emotional state. Left alone in total isolation with no company or emotional support, anyone's thinking would have desended into the depth of dispare and anger inside of a month. Without anyone to lend perspective to his emotional trama and turmoil, it's no wonder his blood was boiling. Further, his anger was amplfied by a sense that Ron and Hermione were together, and that things indeed were going on, but those /things/ were being intentionally kept from Harry. In addition, the first chapters of OotP do describe how Harry go into that state. No support, resistance from the Dursleys, no information, no contact with anyone, empty pointless letters that hint a what he is missing, force to hide in the dirt to catch a bit of the TV news. Given a month to stew in these /juices/, how could anyone not be angry and frustrated. The worst part is that it didn't have to be that way. What harm would have been done by telling Harry if he had any problems to go to Mrs. Figg? If he knew she was a Squib or a friend of Dumbledore's, Harry would have at least had someone to talk to. In addition, would it have killed them to set up a meeting with Ron and/or Hermione? What harm would afternoon tea at Mrs. Figgs cause? None, and the safe human contact would have done Harry a lot of good. This is my frustration with the events, and I suspect, ever growing on a daily basis, Harry experienced the same frustration. They left an emotionally tramatized kid in total isolation to stew in his own emotional juices, and then they wonder why he is angry and frustrated. I'M ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED, it I had a chance, I'd kick Dumbledore's butt from here to Sunday and back. > Kethryn continues: > > So, I don't think that Harry was overreacting. Well, he was, but that is an adult judgement. ... I guess I empathize with Harry because of how close we are personality wise (odd since I am a girl *G*) but, god knows, if we had to live with each other, it would be WWIII in the house. > > Kethryn bboyminn: It should be clear by now that I'm in sync with Kethryn which is slightly disconcerting because Del and I are frequently of similar minds. I see Harry's transition as realistic, but unsettling. I'm frustrated to see Harry so frustrated, when I can clearly see that it didn't have to be that way. If anyone in the book had given it a seconds thought, they would have made arrangements for Harry to have some kind of support and guidance through those first few very tramatic weeks when, as any rational person would have realized, Harry's emotions are overwhelming him. Seriously, right now my blood is boiling just thinking about it. Given that, how could Harry's blood NOT be boiling when he was the one who had to live it. Just a thought; a frustrating thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 20:26:37 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:26:37 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > snip. > > > The un-canonical Lupin so dear to fandom's heart, who felt > > Sirius was innocent all along but couldn't do anything about it, > > who didn't lead his friends to become animagi, who couldn't > > keep in mind that he hadn't taken his potion even after he was > > reminded, who was thinking purely of Neville's welfare when he > > allowed the boggart to take appear as GrannySnape, would, > > IMO, be such a negative stereotype...if he existed. I submit he > > doesn't. > > > Alla: > > I don't understand. Why such Lupin would be a negative stereotype? > A victim of prejudice, chronically ill person, who managed to keep > his humanity despite beign a flawed human being. > Who, contrary to Snape managed to resist the temptation to join > Evil, even if such evil promised hima better destiny. Really, I > don't know why you consider such character to be a negative one. > > And of course he was thinkinhg about Neville's wellfare. Well, > mainly, anyway. :o) Hmm, I think I like my Momus gear. White tie, tails, top hat--what is there not to like? I can play announcer with it on, too... Ladies and gentlemen, we have a thematic disagreement. In the left corner, we have Pippin's venerable (and oft-defended and explicated) ESE!Lupin theory. Here, Lupin should be read as a weak creature, representing the failure of will. He's resented and ostracized by the wizarding world--and he gets his revenge, falling deeper and deeper into cycles of evil. That niceness? Really just a front--'Uncle Remus', if you will. He's a skilled manipulator and overweeningly self-interested, and has the crime of murder and betrayal on his hands. In the right corner, we have a more...orthodox reading of Lupin. This Lupin is the victim of disease and the monthly stripping of his humanity, but is redeemed by his genuine gratitude to those who have helped him, and fights for the white hats. He embodies being able to stay a genuinely decent person despite all the crap that life has dealt him. He's not terribly expressive, but that's because he's used to having to deal with things alone. Coming up, hopefully in...maybe, 8 months or so, IF we're lucky--a battle to the death for which one is actually real! Place your bets now, 'cause one of these Lupins is going to end up on the GARBAGESCOW! -Nora is, herself, not a betting woman--with one exception (you know who you are) From yutu75es at yahoo.es Wed Oct 20 20:44:27 2004 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa hagrid) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:44:27 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godrics Hollow - What was the Secret? References: Message-ID: <001e01c4b6e5$9c44ff30$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 116051 Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) wrote: > > Flitwick seems to imply that it is possible for the people, Lily and > James, to be the objects of the Charm, and that while the /secret > seeker/ might be able to find their house, he would never be able to > find them. > > If Lily and James were the secret, and not the house at Godrics Hollow > then that would explain a lot of the inconsistencies regarding people > being able to find the Potter's house the night Voldemort attacked. > Me (fridwulfa): I quite agree with you. But I must add something, if it were the people, and not the house, the objects of the Charm, then the Secret was not James and Lily, but James, Lily and Harry. After all, it was the baby who Voldemort wanted to find the most, not his parents. So Peter betrayed James and Lily, but he betrayed Harry as well. Cheers, Fridwulfa From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 20 20:50:21 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:50:21 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Antosha wrote : > "JKR likes to end the books on a note of hope and redemption, but that > doesn't make a very good place to START from, so inevitably, there's a > bit of a disconnect between the end of one book and the beginning of > the next." Del: > Agreed. Unfortunately, in my case, the bit of a disconnect between GoF > and OoP was so great that it prevented me from ever reconnecting > during my first reading :-( Geoff: I think you are overlooking some factors. At the beginning of OOTP, Harry has just turned 15. Some folk have commented that he makes a sudden transition from being fairly placid to being angry. Looking back on my own teenage years, I see nothing wrong in this. Often, guys from the age of 11 upwards are sometimes angry at the world around them or the way that people treat them but may feel that they are not strong enough emotionally (and perhaps physically) to take on parents or teachers or friends and have the matter out. It's also a bit of the English habit of not wanting to make a fuss. Even at my advanced age [ :-) ] I sometimes find myself boiling about something and debating whether I want to go further. Can I be bothered? Might things go physical? Will I finish up looking stupid? So even now, I sometimes internalise my anger. Harry has had to do this for years with the Dursleys. He also seems to be a natural for getting on with most folk. But at the beginning of OOTP, things are catching up on him. He is beginning to develop the adolescent habit of questioning his surroundings and to push against the "constraints" of society if he disagrees with them or fails to see their relevance. He is physically able to confront Dudley. He has also gone through one hell of an experience in the previous year Remember that it can take a while for the reaction to a death to surface. My wife's brother died suddenly just over a month ago. I am just beginning to analyse my feelings having been involved in organising the transport of various family members to the funeral in Toronto (while I stayed behind) and I still haven't sorted out my feelings. When my mother died 20 years ago, I took about six months to really start approaching a closure. There is then the severing of contact over the summer holidays which has left him feeling isolated and perhaps forgotten. He is expecting things to happen in terms of Voldemort and his return - but nothing seems to. Why isn't something happening? Why am I getting no information? This did really happen didn't it? I didn't imagine it? I have spells like this over things when I expect results like - yesterday... No, Del, speaking as a mere male, I don't see a discontinuity in Harry reactions as I can identify with him quite easily. It is rather like the "compassion" thread a week or so back; I could understand perfectly how Harry was thinking. I remember being rather surprised that the majority of comments were coming from female contributors who felt that they were getting a handle on the subject and weren't seeing it from a male angle (that's not meant to be sexist). I hope you will soon return to supporting our young hero.... He needs all the friends he can muster. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 21:07:29 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:07:29 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116053 Steve/bboyminn wrote : " First to Del's point that "...I felt it wasn't the same Harry anymore ...". You are right, he is not the same Harry any more, and he can never be the old innocent, having keen adventures with Ron, Harry ever again." Del replies : You got me wrong, Steve. I never wished Harry not to evolve, quite the contrary in fact. What I meant is that I felt OoP-Harry was an entirely new boy. It's like when they change the actor who plays a recurrent character in a show between two seasons : it's still the same character, but it's just not the same thing anymore, and it takes a long while to get used to the new actor and to stop regretting the old one. That's how I felt : that OoP was still about a boy named Harry, but this boy wasn't the one I had come to know. He didn't react the same way, he did things that IMO the Harry I knew wouldn't have done *even under the same circumstances* !! Steve/bboyminn wrote : "In addition, the first chapters of OotP do describe how Harry go into that state." Del replies : No, they explain *why* he went into that state. When the book begins, Harry has *already* changed. We don't see Harry morphing into the new one ; when the new season begins, the actor has already been changed. Steve/bboyminn wrote : "It should be clear by now that I'm in sync with Kethryn which is slightly disconcerting because Del and I are frequently of similar minds." Del replies : Ah bah, we can't *always* agree, can we :-) ? And in fact, we don't really disagree anyway. Steve/bboyminn wrote : "I see Harry's transition as realistic, but unsettling." Del replies : I see it as completely realistic too, *now*. But because we didn't actually get to see Harry going *through* the transition, I never managed to get into Harry's new skin, on my first reading. And I agree with you that it was criminal to leave Harry so alone, when so much could have been done. And I have a question. I don't remember Harry writing to Sirius, and more especially I don't remember him being angry at Sirius for not telling him anything. How come ? Del From amycrn4230 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 21:20:18 2004 From: amycrn4230 at yahoo.com (amycrn4230) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:20:18 -0000 Subject: Fudge In-Reply-To: <53C2E006-22CC-11D9-AB2A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116054 Kneasy: The name says it all. "Huh, typical politician then" is the standard reaction. It all depends on the quality of your politicians, I suppose. Because let's remember that Fudge *is* just a politician; he's not ruler, Head of State, Prime Minister or anything really important; he's a Minister running one Ministry that has various sub-sections that are staffed by wizards - not the most practical or efficient people in the world. To whom does the Minister and the Ministry owe allegiance? In the RW he would have to take an oath to the Crown, swearing to support her heirs and assigns - but somehow I don't see that green bowler hat trudging across Parliament Square. (Mind you, I did once posit that the Queen is Ruler of the WW - in England anyway - her remote ancestor was placed on the throne by Merlin, her children went to some weird school in Scotland and she only has to say one word and personages are elevated, bridges open and ships slide into the sea. Magic! You don't really think that thing is a sceptre, do you? Nah - it's an Ollivander special.) Fudge is a shining example of the Peter Principle - "In every hierarchy, each employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence; every post tends to be filled by an employee incompetent to execute its duties." He wanted the job, and got it, but he's no bloody good. But have you considered that that is exactly the reason why he did get the job? Another of my whimsical maunderings - Barty Crouch Snr. was efficient verging on brutal; the WW equivalent of a hanging judge - and hot favourite to be Minister. Appear before him charged with being, or associating with DEs and you might as well take your toothbrush with you, 'cos next stop would be Azkaban. And since Voldy had departed for an indeterminate vacation on the Costa del Adriatic, gnashing his non-existent dentures and scaring the hell out of the local rodentia, thus no longer offering DEs visions of a life of ease, swigging the odd Butterbeer during breaks in the arduous round of Muggle torturing, Elf flogging and other pursuits beloved of their ilk, this naturally was a cause for concern (and major bowel upsets) for those with their freedom at stake. To such as Malfoy it was all a bit of a frost. Only one thing to do, get rid of Crouch and replace him with someone a bit more, well, flexible, might be the word. And guess what? - they've got just the chap stashed away in a backroom at the Ministry. Ambitious, not too bright, amenable. So Barty Jnr is shopped along with a few DEs that are already under suspicion. Two possible outcomes - either Crouch goes easy on his son - in which case scream "Nepotism!" and give him the elbow, or - he'll go hard on his son, in which case start a whispering campaign about megalomaniac fanatics who'll end up throwing *everybody* in goal. Since Crouch was on the slide in the popularity stakes anyway, this is the way it turned out. Fudge is in - and almost immediately starts to wind down the DE witch-hunt (or wizard-hunt, or whatever). "War over, forgive and forget, heal the wounds, rehabilitated, blemish on a page of our history, brighter future," - all the usual political crap. Mission accomplished. Only one small snag - Fudge owes them, and one day they'll arrive with the bill. By dint of co-opting DD as unofficial (and probably unwilling) advisor, Fudge manages to cope quite well. Until young Potter grows up and enters Hogwarts. Coincidentally(?) it's about this time that dear, departed Voldy starts getting his act together. He makes a brief come-back tour - which is not an immediate success, that little toe-rag Potter being the Diptera in the unguent - again! But it's a sign that the Glorious Leader is still around and vaguely kicking. Right. Prevention is better than cure. Get rid of Potter. Best option - make it look like an accident. How? Well, there's this prisoner in Azkaban; something funny about him and the Potters. Spring him, let loose the Dementors, ostensibly to catch him, but in fact they're ordered to nail young Potter instead, and Bilius is your uncle. Fudge is put to work. Nearly succeeds, too. Ah, well. Maybe next time. Because there will be a next time. Voldy is stirring, believing that third time's a charm. Unfortunately he's developed this obsession about Potter - puts him right at the top of his "to do" list. But this is to be just a warm-up, a gentle work-out before really flexing his wand and taking over the lot. Fudge is presented with the second part of the bill. Deny that Voldy's returned. Mock Potter, DD, anyone who says otherwise. Purge the Ministry, take over Hogwarts, isolate and emasculate anyone who doesn't toe the line. Voldy needs to consolidate, he needs a bit of time, time to gather his old buddies, time to burrow deep into the system. And if there's one thing bureaucrats understand, it's delay. Delay is the deadliest form of denial, so the old saying goes - and Fudge does his best for those that own him. It ain't enough. Almighty cock-up at the Ministry. It's not Fudge's fault - but guess who'll get hammered anyway - from both sides. Amy here: I love to read your ramblings Kneasy, but you say "It ain't enough", and I want to ask "what next?" Sure, he had stupid little Fudge eating outta his hands for a while...he basically has had everyone eating outta his hands for a while...but I think the table is a turnin' and he better pull out his big guns for the next go around. LV that is. The way I see it, he is playing his own chess game, and Fudge was but a wee little pawn...That Potter kid has already outed him to his DE's that he is not a pure-blood himself...now, that might not have sunk in to them right away, but you know there is something fishy about that Potter kid...he has managed to make LV look like a total phony on many occasions so far, and has also made pretty good work of his followers too. I mean they got poo-poo'd on in the MOM by some kiddied in the DA. Uh oh...Malfoy is in jail...oooh, this should have been easier...I thought it was in the bag....guess not....Malfoy is thinking....this ain't where I want to be, and I have been listening to a part mudblood? Hmmmmmm....So, there will undoubtedly be more Fudge's along the way...maybe in the form of Ludo Bagman? That Umbridge woman? who knows, but I am interested to see if LV can really pull his stuff together and fight the big fight himself, or just end up looking like he got "Pottered" on! :) Personally...I think something smells rotten! But.....that is just IMO! Cheers! Amy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 21:21:22 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:21:22 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116055 Geoff wrote : " At the beginning of OOTP, Harry has just turned 15. Some folk have commented that he makes a sudden transition from being fairly placid to being angry. " snip the rest, because it would be too long to quote it all :-) Del replies : Geoff, you don't understand what I meant. I wasn't trying to say that it was unnatural for Harry to evolve the way he did. What I'm trying to explain is that, because the change occured off-screen, and because I'm nothing like Harry, it didn't MAKE SENSE to me. To me, it was as big a leap as suddenly having a Black Harry or a thin and nice Dudley for example. It wouldn't make sense, you would go "Duh !?", right ? That's what happened to me : Angry!Harry made me go "Duh !?" because his transformation is not natural *for me*, it's something I need explained. But JKR did *not* explain, she just said "well, that's how he is now", and by so doing she lost me. If the change had happened on-screen, if I had seen Harry evolve into Angry!Harry, I would probably have accepted and understood it much better. But instead of that, I had to forget *years* of knowing a certain Harry, and I was supposed to instantly accept a completely new and totally bewildering (to me) Harry. I couldn't. Not in a couple of days. That's why I never got into the book the first time through. Del From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Oct 20 21:31:45 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:31:45 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116056 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > Oh, I expect ESE!Lupin will be offered a chance at redemption, > but I wouldn't bet on him taking it. Renee: Neither do I, because there is no such person as ESE! Lupin :p. But even if there was - no, a traitor of such magnitude, who callously turned against the first people (after his parents) who accepted him for what he was and took great risks to support him, wouldn't have the right frame of mind to redeem himself, I think. > As for the message, Lupin > resembles an Uncle Tom/Uncle Remus character, created with > good intentions to counter a threatening stereotype. But Uncle > Tom/Uncle Remus is now considered to be itself a negative > stereotype, because in the zeal to make him unthreatening, he > is also made childlike, powerless and so lacking in resentment > as to appear incapable rather than forbearing of anger. > The un-canonical Lupin so dear to fandom's heart, who felt > Sirius was innocent all along but couldn't do anything about it, > who didn't lead his friends to become animagi, who couldn't > keep in mind that he hadn't taken his potion even after he was > reminded, who was thinking purely of Neville's welfare when he > allowed the boggart to take appear as GrannySnape, would, > IMO, be such a negative stereotype...if he existed. I submit he > doesn't. Renee: No, he certainly doesn't. But it's a mistake to think that defenders of Lupin can only try and prove him a good guy by disregarding canon, pulling his teeth and turning him into an Uncle Remus. (Assuming that's what you were saying.) If your Lupin is the opposite of the caricature above, he strongly resembles mine - except for the conclusion you draw that such a person must have chosen to follow Voldemort. The opposite of childlike, powerless and incapable of being angry isn't evil. And the message is not, that if you reject empowerment because the one promising it entertains dubious ethics, you automatically subject yourself to the prejudices of the opposite party, confirm to their standards, and become an Uncle. What I reject is the notion that Lupin had no other choice than between toothlessness and a deadly bite, and that as canon definitely doesn't show him to be toothless he must inevitably have opted for deadly. If Snape can be cruel and vindictive and still be on Dumbledore's side, Lupin can be irresponsible and secretive and still be on Dumbledore's side. > > Renee: > > Not to mention the fact that it makes Sirius' choice of Peter for a > Secret Keeper more tragically ironic if he both distrusted the > good guy and trusted the bad one. Perhaps it's also my sense of > tragic irony that rebels against ESE!Lupin. < > > Pippin: > Sirius rejects Peter's plea for mercy and forgives Lupin, who > murders him. How ironic is that? > Renee: It wouldn't even be ironic if it were canon, and not conjecture. Whatever Lupin's status, Peter still remains a traitor; the real tragedy lies way back. (By the way, Sirius might have had mercy on Peter if Peter had asked him forgiveness - which he never does.) Renee From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Oct 20 21:45:40 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:45:40 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > > Ladies and gentlemen, we have a thematic disagreement. > > In the left corner, we have Pippin's venerable (and oft-defended and > explicated) ESE!Lupin theory. Here, Lupin should be read as a weak > creature, representing the failure of will. He's resented and > ostracized by the wizarding world--and he gets his revenge, falling > deeper and deeper into cycles of evil. That niceness? Really just a > front--'Uncle Remus', if you will. He's a skilled manipulator and > overweeningly self-interested, and has the crime of murder and > betrayal on his hands. > > In the right corner, we have a more...orthodox reading of Lupin. > This Lupin is the victim of disease and the monthly stripping of his > humanity, but is redeemed by his genuine gratitude to those who have > helped him, and fights for the white hats. He embodies being able to > stay a genuinely decent person despite all the crap that life has > dealt him. He's not terribly expressive, but that's because he's > used to having to deal with things alone. > > Coming up, hopefully in...maybe, 8 months or so, IF we're lucky--a > battle to the death for which one is actually real! Place your bets > now, 'cause one of these Lupins is going to end up on the GARBAGESCOW! > Renee: Sorry, but you're not on. :) We may not find out in Book 6. In fact, we may not even find out in book Seven. I wouldn't be surprised if the adherents of the ESE!Lupin theory will still be able to maintain they were right at the end of the series: ESE!Lupin, though unable to prevent Voldemort's demise despite his clever machinations, has succeeded in remaining undetected and goes on pretending to be the nice guy while secretly plotting to take over the Wizarding World and establish a werewolf dictatorship. Renee From manicpotter at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 19:42:00 2004 From: manicpotter at yahoo.com (Brenda) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: <00d301c4b6ce$e3130810$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <20041020194200.53807.qmail@web61105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116058 Sherry Gomes wrote: "...I sure hope we won't see more of angry hostile Harry or abusive umbrige." I have to admit that this side of Harry is one of the things that most attracted me about OOTP. I remember thinking to myself during my first reading that finally we were seeing the *real* side of being a hero and really getting inside Harry. -Brenda From legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 14:26:37 2004 From: legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk (legobaty29) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:26:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's animagus; invisibility In-Reply-To: <20041016004817.64351.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116059 kim reynolds wrote: > Your idea about the patronus being the animal form of the protector/father figure makes sense to me, though there's a slight problem because I don't think all wizards/witches neccessarily have animagus abilities (someone please correct me if they know otherwise), and so their children's patronuses(?) would have to besome other animal. Or, for example, in muggle-born Hermione's case, her otter patronus definitely can't be based on her parent's animagus. > Nevertheless, your idea that DD's animagus is a phoenix is still very interesting, considering that he might be able to come back to life if he died when in the form of a phoenix...! Legobaty: Hi Kim, Legobaty here. I wasn't quite suggesting that everyone's patronus is their parent's animagus, but rather that the patronus always shows itself to be a protector of some sort. In Harry's case I think his father as a stag is his patronus because the thought of his father brings hope into Harry's life, and strength, so the patronus reflects that which makes you strong / brings you comfort. The patronus seems always to be an animal so I guess that's why it's the stag and not a representation of his father in his human form. Although I don't know what strength Hermione would get from an otter! Maybe it's a comfort because she really likes them, like Jo Rowling. I like your idea that DD could come back to life like a Phoenix if killed! Legobaty From shallowdwell at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 15:01:19 2004 From: shallowdwell at yahoo.com (shallowdwell) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:01:19 -0000 Subject: Curse of the Truth (was:Re: the Dark Arts Job) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116060 imamommy wrote: > Just a thought: The DADA job seems to always reveal people for what they truly are. In each instance the consequences came to the professors because of their actions. > 1. Quirrel Had LV on the brain. Was revealed, and destroyed by the extraction of said dark lord. > 2. Lockhart Was truly a gutless near-squib, who happened to be good at memory charms. Was revealed, and found himself on the wrong end of a backfiring memory charm. > 3. Lupin Werewolf. Secret revealed. > 4. Crouch!Moody Evil imposter. Revealed, got smoochy with Dementor. > 5. Umbridge Sneaking, conniving, backbiting, power-hungry witch. Revealed, and I don't think she'll be climbing any more political ladders after a wild night with the centaurs. Plus, backed the wrong horse (Fudge). > If anything,I think perhaps Dumbledore hires (or allows people to be hired) people to reveal them. Possibly he has put a charm/curse on the job. I'm not sure where this fits in with the ESEDumbledore theories (I don't personally subscribe to them) but if this is the case I am curious about his methods/motives. Andrea: Ooo, well spotted, and I really like the idea of the curse being self- revelation. And none of these previous characters could stand up to the revelation (with the possible exception of Lupin, who at least had the grace to resign before he was fired or shouted down by the wizarding world. Now to extend it, what happens when Snape gets the DADA job? Why the answers so many of us have been eagerly waiting for! We get to really figure out who he is and what makes him tick. (I doubt it will be pretty-- but just maybe he'll have what it takes to hold out in spite of what is revealed.) Anyone else notice that in the HBP fax JKR is recorded declining to answer a question about whether there will ever be a DADA teacher who lasts more than a year? She said it would give too much away. Now I suppose its possible she just wants to keep people always in suspense about the fate of the current prof. But I'm crossing my fingers that Snape will be the curse-breaker. Especially if this self-revelation thing holds water. That way, we get one year to reveal Snape's true character and one year more or less (I figure) to see if being forced to work together (without DD's intervention) can reconcile who Snape really is to Harry, and vice versa. Andrea From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 20 22:32:42 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:32:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116061 Renee: > > Not to mention the fact that it makes Sirius' choice of Peter for a Secret Keeper more tragically ironic if he both distrusted the good guy and trusted the bad one. Perhaps it's also my sense of tragic irony that rebels against ESE!Lupin. < > > Pippin: > Sirius rejects Peter's plea for mercy and forgives Lupin, who > murders him. How ironic is that? > Renee: >It wouldn't even be ironic if it were canon, and not conjecture. Whatever Lupin's status, Peter still remains a traitor; the real tragedy lies way back. (By the way, Sirius might have had mercy on Peter if Peter had asked him forgiveness - which he never does.)< Pippin: He never gets a chance. Sirius roars him into silence and tells him he should have died, then raises his wand to carry out the sentence. But I do find it extremely curious that Peter, who is supposed to know a spell that will kill thirteen people at once, merely stuns Ron and runs away. No one knew he was there, Sirius was present to take the blame just like before...why not blow them all up, leave Lupin's wand in Sirius's maimed hand, and run for it? > Renee: > > Sorry, but you're not on. :) We may not find out in Book 6. In fact, > we may not even find out in book Seven. I wouldn't be surprised if the adherents of the ESE!Lupin theory will still be able to maintain they were right at the end of the series: ESE!Lupin, though unable to prevent Voldemort's demise despite his clever machinations, has succeeded in remaining undetected and goes on pretending to be the nice guy while secretly plotting to take over the Wizarding World and establish a werewolf dictatorship.< > Pippin: LOL! No, I expect ESE!Lupin to be outed in Book 7, probably in the final chapters. I expect him to die at the hand (literally) of redeemed Peter P, who will no doubt perish himself in the task. ESE!Lupin is a mystery plot theory, not a textual subversion except insofar as it is subversive to try and guess the outcome of a mystery story while it is still in progress, and I will cheerfully abandon it to AU fanfiction if it doesn't pan out. I am waiting, as I have been since my initial ESE!Lupin post, for someone to show me that it's canonically impossible for Lupin to do what I've accused him of doing, and whenever someone raises such an objection, I've revised that part of the theory. But the more I search the text, the more clues turn up. Believe me I am not such an inventive person as to have imagined all this on my own -- but JKR is. I make no promises, but I think I will be happy to turn the LYCANTHROPE flying hedgehog* loose to scavenge on the GARBAGESCOW if I'm completely wrong. Which is entirely possible . Pippin *Message 39562 From red_rider4 at lycos.com Wed Oct 20 18:45:44 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (Hester Griffith) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:45:44 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's job Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116062 Sorry if this has already been discussed ad nausium, but I'm fairly new and this just occurred to me. What is Hagrid's job? When he first introduces himself to Harry he states that he is "Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts." What does this mean? We know he looks after the grounds and animals, including the forbidden forest. We also know he had Harry's Gringotts vault key(where is it now? I only assume Dumbledore has it). What other keys would he keep? Wouldn't make more sense for Filch to keep the keys to Hogwart as he needs access for his caretaking responsibilities? Could this be part of why Filch is so nasty? Or are there other keys? Or is it something like a secret keeper and access to Hogwarts is somehow tied into Hagrid? Any ideas? Hester From orly_w at hotmail.com Wed Oct 20 16:50:28 2004 From: orly_w at hotmail.com (grebniew2004) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:50:28 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116063 delwynmarch wrote: > About OoP. Antosha, you explain very clearly why Harry should indeed > be disturbed. My only problem is that Harry *starts the book* already > disturbed! He was NOT disturbed at the end of GoF, we had no sign > that he was going to change so dramatically. And then we start OoP > barely a month later, and suddenly Harry is being unfair to his > friends, he's bullying Dudley, and he's being generally extremely > moody and bad-tempered. This is not necessarily unrealistic, but it > prevented me from getting into the book, because I felt it wasn't the > same Harry anymore. It wasn't the Harry I left in GoF. Hmmm... In all the discussions of teenage angst and Harry's seemingly sudden anger, we forget that he is not the only one maturing in these books. After the first four books, I too found Harry to be a rather flat character, compared with Hermione and Ron. If anything, his emotional explosion into OotP signified to me JKR's progress as a writer. It also showed her need to bring the emotional consequences of Harry's life into focus. Harry must ask the questions JKR needs to answer in the last two books, in order to complete the story and provide us with (the many) missing details. The Big-O, without a collapsible roof From syroun at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 19:29:42 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:29:42 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116064 Antosha: > This strikes me as analogous to the standard high school English > teacher line that Hamlet is 'incapapable of action' in spite of > the fact that he plots, feigns madness, sets up traps, > kills a man, leaps into his girlfriend's grave... But, of course, > he doesn't kill the bad guy till the end. So he hasn't 'acted.' > Sheesh. Syroun replies: Actually, Hamlet becomes a victim of his own procrastination. That is his tragic flaw, and I strongly question if Harry has any similarity to Hamlet, at all. On the other hand, I agree with your assessment of Harry - he always has been, and always will be an emotive person. Antosha continues: > Harry IS emotional in the first four books--very emotional. It's > just that, like many kids, he has no language or awareness of what > he's feeling until it forces him into action. Anger and fear have > caused him to use magic without meaning to, from his escapes from > Dudley to blowing up Aunt Marge. He feels enormous concern (read > empathy or, if you feel like it, love for Ginny when she is taken > by Tom Riddle in CoS....Cho reduces him to mush. (That may be > hormones rather than emotion, if you want to get picky.) Syroun adds: I agree but I tend to see these as an emotive reaction, all fundamentally defined through love or hate. Antosha continues: > My wife, who teaches teens, almost couldn't keep reading OotP > after a few hundred pages: the teen angst got to her. Syroun writes: I agree with your wife...I find OOTP very dark. It leaves me with a feeling of impending doom. I have read it twice and the effect has not lessened. It only makes me fear what my reaction will be to 6 and 7. Antosha continues: > The thing is, it is remarkable that JKR is following Harry (and > his friends) as they make that transition into self-awareness that > should be (but isn't always) adulthood. Finally, Syroun writes: I think that part of the attraction that many feel for the HP series, is that we can so easily liken it to our own life experiences. We relate to it on a personal level and for me, as a parent, I find it important that children (of the proper age) can read these books and watch what these kids are going through and find, in the end, that they survive despite their unfortunate families, bigotry and misguided societial norms, and even thrive despite the odds. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 23:35:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:35:57 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: <20041020194200.53807.qmail@web61105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116065 Brenda: > I have to admit that this side of Harry is one of the things that most attracted me about OOTP. I remember thinking to myself during my first reading that finally we were seeing the *real* side of being a hero and really getting inside Harry. > Alla: Yep. The stress FINALLY got to Harry. :) I remember talking to very intelligent charming young lady at the Convention Alley, who either just turned 16 or was about to be 17, I am not sure. She told me that to her and her friends Harry's behaviour was EXTREMELY realistic and she would behave exactly as Harry did if she was under such tremendous stress (I am paraphrasing the conversation, of course). I always cared about Harry's character, but I (as other poster) used to think that he was lacking depth prior to OOP. I don't think so anymore. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 23:41:42 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:41:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116066 > Renee: > > Sorry, but you're not on. :) We may not find out in Book 6. In fact, > we may not even find out in book Seven. I wouldn't be surprised if > the adherents of the ESE!Lupin theory will still be able to maintain > they were right at the end of the series: ESE!Lupin, though unable > to prevent Voldemort's demise despite his clever machinations, has > succeeded in remaining undetected and goes on pretending to be the > nice guy while secretly plotting to take over the Wizarding World > and establish a werewolf dictatorship. > Alla: Renee, you and Nora are both absolutely hilarious. "Has succeeded in remaining undetected..." :o) I think I want to start the campaign "Lupin for the Headmaster", if he is alive at the end. :). Seriously though, I consider "ESE!Lupin" to be the strongest of all subversive theories (Sorry, Pippin, but I do consider it to be subversive reading), BUT I do think that it is possible that serious blow will be given to it in book 6,when we discover that Lupin is HBP. There must be a reason why JKR stressed that he is half-blood, right? :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 23:45:54 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:45:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116067 > >> Pippin: snip. > > I am waiting, as I have been since my initial ESE!Lupin post, for > someone to show me that it's canonically impossible for Lupin > to do what I've accused him of doing, and whenever someone > raises such an objection, I've revised that part of the theory. Alla: Oooo, Pippin, if THAT what takes for you to give up the theory, then I am sure it will be alive till the end of book 7 :o). You want VERY high burden of proof. OF COURSE, it is possible for Lupin to do all what you accused him of doing. The maximum we can rebut with is to show that ALTERNATE interpretation of canon is more LIKELY to be proved correct. Pippin: But > the more I search the text, the more clues turn up. Believe me I > am not such an inventive person as to have imagined all this on > my own -- but JKR is. Alla: I hope that JKR's imagination will bring her to different end result though. :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 21 01:13:35 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:13:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > snip. > > > The un-canonical Lupin so dear to fandom's heart, who felt Sirius was innocent all along but couldn't do anything about it, who didn't lead his friends to become animagi, who couldn't keep in mind that he hadn't taken his potion even after he was reminded, who was thinking purely of Neville's welfare when he allowed the boggart to take appear as GrannySnape, would, IMO, be such a negative stereotype...if he existed. I submit he doesn't. > > > Alla: > > I don't understand. Why such Lupin would be a negative stereotype? A victim of prejudice, chronically ill person, who managed to keep his humanity despite beign a flawed human being. > Who , contrary to Snape managed to resist the temptation to join Evil, even if such evil promised hima better destiny. Really, I don't know why you consider such character to be a negative one. > > And of course he was thinkinhg about Neville's wellfare. Well, > mainly, anyway. :o) Pippin: It's a negative stereotype because it deprives Lupin of the full scope of his humanity. In order to show that he's harmless, he's made out to be too weak to help his friends, and too irresponsible to be trusted, and yet, he's also supposed to be noble, wise and true . Some people ::looks around innocently:: have said they can't wait to see Harry take a bite out of Snape --- school etiquette, Voldemort, and consequences be hanged. But Lupin is supposed to have been too noble to have entertained any such notion. Harry started a subversive organization which got Dumbledore sacked, and then found both he and his organization had been tricked into co-operation with Voldemort. Harry was extremely reluctant to admit that Voldemort might be fooling him, even when his friends told him so. But I'm told Lupin would be too smart to let himself be used and too wise to let himself be trapped. Harry thought Dumbledore was so disappointed with him that he didn't care about him any more. He rebelled against Dumbledore's instructions, though Dumbledore has done everything for him. But I'm told Lupin would never turn against someone who'd made it possible for him to come to school. Lupin is expected to be nobler, smarter, wiser and more faithful than Harry himself, in other words. And if he isn't, I'm told, it validates of all the nasty things that have been said about werewolves. Heaven help poor Lupin, it would have been easy to make him feel that he was a big, bad werewolf and goodness was beyond his reach. In one way, yes, the 'orthodox' vision of Lupin is inspiring. As long as there aren't any real werewolves (sorry, Grey!) , we can view him as a metaphor, an idealized example of how people rise to deal with illness and tragedy. But imagine having to live up to such an image! Imagine feeling that if you showed the same human weaknesses that Harry does, you'd be proving that you were a monster. No, I don't think that such an image is positive in real life. Not at all. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 01:33:06 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:33:06 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116069 > Pippin: snip. >> Some people ::looks around innocently:: have said they can't wait > to see Harry take a bite out of Snape --- school etiquette, > Voldemort, and consequences be hanged. But Lupin is > supposed to have been too noble to have entertained any such > notion. Alla: LOL! I wonder who those people could be ;) You mean, Lupin is supposed to be too noble to netertain the notion to take a bit out of Snape? Nope, of course not, not in my book. :) But yeah, he is supposed to actually BITE Snape. Pippin: > Harry started a subversive organization which got Dumbledore > sacked, and then found both he and his organization had been > tricked into co-operation with Voldemort. > Harry was extremely reluctant to admit that Voldemort might be > fooling him, even when his friends told him so. But I'm told Lupin > would be too smart to let himself be used and too wise to let > himself be trapped. > > Harry thought Dumbledore was so disappointed with him that he > didn't care about him any more. He rebelled against > Dumbledore's instructions, though Dumbledore has done > everything for him. But I'm told Lupin would never turn against > someone who'd made it possible for him to come to school. > > > Lupin is expected to be nobler, smarter, wiser and more faithful > than Harry himself, in other words. And if he isn't, I'm told, it > validates of all the nasty things that have been said about > werewolves. Heaven help poor Lupin, it would have been easy to > make him feel that he was a big, bad werewolf and goodness > was beyond his reach. Alla: Pippin, let's take a breath and could you go a bit slower for me (again, please, please this is not a sarcasm, I think I got confused with your argument again). I don't think your comparison of Lupin with Harry is valid at all in this situation. Yes, Lupin is supposed to be smarter than fifteen year old child. But the argument is that even if he was approached by Voldemort he was strong enough to resist the temptation at the end. Yes, Harry felt abandoned by Dumbledore, who I submit did not do as nearly well as he was supposed to do for Harry, so I think Harry's feelings are totally valid. Even so, Harry did not turn against Dumbledore. Neither did Lupin, as far as we know, did not he? Yes, he did not tell him about Sirius. He was afraid to lose Dumbledore trust,as Lupin says. Why is it impossible? Poor guy wants to be liked too much. Boy, if you only knew, Pippin, how much I can relate, to that flaw of his character. I sincerely hope that I am not an evil person despite this flaw of my character. Pippin: > In one way, yes, the 'orthodox' vision of Lupin is inspiring. As long > as there aren't any real werewolves (sorry, Grey!) , we can view > him as a metaphor, an idealized example of how people rise to > deal with illness and tragedy. But imagine having to live up to > such an image! Imagine feeling that if you showed the same > human weaknesses that Harry does, you'd be proving that you > were a monster. No, I don't think that such an image is positive > in real life. Not at all. Alla: Imagine to live up to that image? What image? Lupin is allowed to make mistakes, as long as he realises that there is a line, which decent person ( not an angel , but just a decent person ) is not supposed to cross. I really truly don't think that it is too much too ask without turning Lupin in the servant of Voldemort. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 01:54:46 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:54:46 -0000 Subject: Godrics Hollow - What was the Secret? In-Reply-To: <001e01c4b6e5$9c44ff30$8000a8c0@casa> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fridwulfa hagrid" wrote: > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) wrote: > > > > > > > Flitwick seems to imply that it is possible for the people, Lily and > > James, to be the objects of the Charm, and that while the /secret > > seeker/ might be able to find their house, he would never be able to > > find them. > > > > If Lily and James were the secret, and not the house at Godrics Hollow > > then that would explain a lot of the inconsistencies regarding people > > being able to find the Potter's house the night Voldemort attacked. > > > > Me (fridwulfa): > > I quite agree with you. But I must add something, if it were the people, and > not the house, the objects of the Charm, then the Secret was not James and > Lily, but James, Lily and Harry. After all, it was the baby who Voldemort > wanted to find the most, not his parents. So Peter betrayed James and Lily, > but he betrayed Harry as well. > > Cheers, > Fridwulfa mhbobbin: Uh-oh. If it was Harry as well, then we are back to the original question. Why is Harry suddenly no longer covered by the Fidelius Charm, allowing Hagrid to find him without having information directly from the Secret Keeper. Mhbobbin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 02:10:30 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:10:30 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116071 I had been thinking. As some posters probably know, I don't find Voldemort to be a very convincing villain. Oh, sure , I hate what he stands for , because JKR tells us so, but as a character I don't have strong feelings about him. I believe that JKR writes grey or good guys with "partially evil personalities" MUCH more convincingly that she writes villains. Do you guys find that JKR's villains or I should qualify, Death Eaters are scary? Personally, I find Umbridge or Snape to be MUCH scarier people than Voldemort ever managed to be. I find Graveyard scene to be quite chilling, but that is because I think that Harry's suffering is masterfully conveyed. Voldemort is still rather cartoonish there. Bellatrix Lestrange I could find scary upon proper reflection, I guess, because she is sooo crazy and because we finally saw WHAT she did to Longbottoms, but besides her, I don't know. Thoughts? Alla From legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 20 12:51:26 2004 From: legobaty29 at yahoo.co.uk (legobaty29) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:51:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ginny/Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116072 I haven't found any previous references to this but please tell me everyone else thinks Harry and Ginny will get together! IMO she is a young Lily Potter - red hair, feisty (in OotP she really comes out of her shell). Don't shout at me if this topic has been covered in the past :O) From Snarryfan at aol.com Wed Oct 20 22:19:29 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:19:29 -0000 Subject: Question to the psys. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116073 I'm not really want to restart the Snape/abuse thread, but I wanted to know something. I think Snape has a limit in his sadist streak. I love him but, yes, he's a sadist still learning how life work, or waiting Voldie's death to begin. I think (only based on the two times he stop someone to hurt Neville in OOTP) that he'll never accept that someone physically hurt a child. And that he doesn't consider verbal abuse like abuse, rather like a 'stop whining, I lived the same stuff and I'm still alive' stuff. Jo said that Snape could be worse that what we saw with the 'good' impulse (now, how the DADA job could do that...) and well, I think he could have do worse in the pensieve scene. Is someone else had the feeling that Snape shouted to Harry to go out as far as possible to prevent himself to do more ill ? That he thought "I'll kill hi...stop, POTTER. OUT. NOW!!!" Anyway, my question (which had probably nothing to do with my post) is : Could one hate something in a person without realizing that one do it too? Could Snape doesn't tolerate physical abuse without realizing that he's border or over the line himself? Christelle, who want to know what could happen to the poor guy who would try to hurt one Snape's student. Yeah, I'm thinking a Slytherin. From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 00:15:19 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:15:19 -0000 Subject: Godrics Hollow - What was the Secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116074 Steve wrote: > If Lily and James were the secret, and not the house at Godrics Hollow > then that would explain a lot of the inconsistencies regarding people > being able to find the Potter's house the night Voldemort attacked. > > It also has the additional benefit of protecting the Potters where > ever they go. If at some point Godrics Hollow became too risky they > could move to a new location and still be protected. Tammy replies: I've always thought that the secret was more complicated than just the location at Godric's Hollow, or that Lily and James were hiding from LV. It seems to me that the "secret" should be something more along the lines of "Lily and James are hiding from LV at xxx in Godric's Hollow" which would then somehow protect all inside the house (including Harry) and it would also protect Lily and James when/if they left the house. As for Hagrid and everyone else being able to find the house, I had always presumed that since the secret was obviously the fact that Lily and James were hiding from LV, and LV found them, it negated the charm, thus allowing everyone to find them. -Tammy From jlawlor at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 02:38:48 2004 From: jlawlor at gmail.com (James Lawlor) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:38:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Godrics Hollow - What was the Secret? In-Reply-To: References: <001e01c4b6e5$9c44ff30$8000a8c0@casa> Message-ID: <96773c880410201938491936e9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116075 Fridwulfa: > > > > I quite agree with you. But I must add something, if it were the > people, and > > not the house, the objects of the Charm, then the Secret was not > James and > > Lily, but James, Lily and Harry. After all, it was the baby who > Voldemort > > wanted to find the most, not his parents. So Peter betrayed James > and Lily, > > but he betrayed Harry as well. > > > > Cheers, > > Fridwulfa > > mhbobbin: > > Uh-oh. If it was Harry as well, then we are back to the original > question. Why is Harry suddenly no longer covered by the Fidelius > Charm, allowing Hagrid to find him without having information > directly from the Secret Keeper. > James: In thinking about it, I'm inclined to think that the Potters were the object of the secret as well. Mainly, Flitwick's statement and it's (pretty much) utter inconsistency with the Fidelius Charm's action in Grimmauld Place (considering that no one could even peek in the windows without knowing the secret). Also, there's another quote (I'm thinking maybe from McGonnogal, possibly in PoA as well? I don't know really) that Lily and James were "living as muggles" in Godric's Hollow. Generally muggles don't live in houses that disappear. Now, why *would* Hagrid be able to find Harry? Of course, perhaps he and Dumbledore were in on the secret (and possibly others). Perhaps the secret was that "no one would know who is living in the house" (and thus, with no house, no secret). But another very workable explanation is that Lily cast the spell, and she was dead (thus rendering the spell inactive). After all, there can't be that many people who can cast the spell - it's supposed to be very complex and whatnot. Now we have evidence of three people that would be able to cast it: Dumbledore (because he's Dumbledore!), Flitwick (since he's the charms professor, so it stands to reason he's an expert in the field), and Lily (with her wand suited to charm work - and that has to be important somehow considering we now have the connection with James's Transfiguration-oriented wand and animagi). Obviously, Dumbledore or Flitwick can't have cast the spell, or that unravels the plot of PoA (unless you are an ardent MAGIC DISHWASHER supporter - but I'm not - this situation would require Dumbledore to have pretty much knowingly sacrificed the Potters as well as Sirius, and I don't believe he'd do that for a minute). I think that's enough rambling for now, but that explanation works for me. - James Lawlor jlawlor at gmail.com From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Thu Oct 21 03:12:40 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:12:40 -0500 Subject: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy OWLs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116076 I thought I'd share some interesting observations I was making tonight with the list, in case any one here wants to take them and run with them for any theories, ideas, adding to "FLINT" or "blooper" lists or whatever. I'm in Astronomy in college right now, so I became curious about Harry's astronomy OWL more than I had before. As part of our course, we have access to a very nice program that lets you chart the sky at any date and time for any place on the globe. So, out of curiosity, I set it for Scotland (well, the whole UK is covered when it's set for Scotland, so it's kind of a fail-safe for this purpose) and ran through the dates of June 5-16, 1995 at 11:00 PM (when their Astronomy practical exam started) and 12:00 AM (approximately when the attack on Hagrid started). By using the calendar and the information in the book, I determined that the Astronomy practical exam would have likely been on Wednesday, June 14 (barring errors in the calendar as we've seen before; I think I've found a couple in this section of the book, but I'll need to do a more detailed look to be sure). OotP, CH 31, p.718 (American Paperback Edition): "When they reached the top of the Astronomy Tower at eleven o'clock they found a perfect night for stargazing, cloudless and still. The grounds were bathed in silvery moonlight, and there was a slight chill in the air." This would be fairly accurate. The moon would be just past full, having been full on the 12th, and was rising several degrees above the horizon. However, there would have still been a slight sheen of blue/purple on the horizon from the sun having set just a little while previous. OotP, CH 31, p.718 (American Paperback Edition): "Half an hour passed, then an hour..." "As Harry completed the constellation Orion on his chart, however, the front doors of the castle opened directly below the parapet where he was standing..." Orion would not have been visible. On this date (and for quite a while surrounding this date) Orion was rising during the daylight hours, approximately 7:00 AM. Prominent constellations that would have been visible for Harry would have been Virgo, Leo (very nicely sat on the horizon), Pegasus, Ophiuchus and the circumpolar constellations. OotP, CH 31, p.719 (American Paperback Edition): "Harry put his eye back to his telescope and refocused it, now examing Venus." Venus was also not visible. Venus was the "Morning Star" during this time, rising around 3:00 AM. OotP, CH 31, p.720 (American Paperback Edition): "Harry looked down at his own and noticed that he had mislabelled Venus as Mars. He bent to correct it." Probably should have left it. ~_^ Mars was visible during this time, shining nicely at Leo's feet. :) Just some trivia for everyone to work with. I haven't decided if I've got a PRACTICAL use for it myself, more so just a curiosity. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 03:15:27 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:15:27 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > And I have a question. I don't remember Harry writing to Sirius, and > more especially I don't remember him being angry at Sirius for not > telling him anything. How come ? > > Del Hey! I think I can answer these (to my satisfaction, if not yours, at least)! :) We aren't told that Harry writes to Sirius, but it's implied, I suppose. At least, Sirius' letters to Harry are referred to in the first chapter: 'Sirius, at least, seemed to understand how Harry was feeling. Admittedly, his letters were just as empty of proper new as Ron and Hermione's, but at least they contained words of caution and consolation instead of tantalising hints: /I know this must be frustrating for you ... Keep your nose clean ad everything will be OK ... Be careful and don't do anything rash ...'/ --OoP ch. 1 As for Harry not being angry at Sirius, we go into the territory of my personal opinion. First of all, he seems to have appreciated Sirius' letters better than Ron's or Hermione's. Why? It's hard to say from the snippets we get in the book, but apparently R & H's lacked any overt acknowledgement of how Harry must have been feeling included with the we'll-tell-you-all-when-we-see-you (whenever that would be). Second, by the time he saw Sirius, he had already unloaded on Ron and Hermione. (And yes, they didn't deserve being unloaded on, but frankly I don't think getting yelled at was such a horrible thing for them to take for the sake of their friend.) By the time Harry saw Sirius, he'd had some release. But not least, I think it may have to do with how he relates to Sirius. I think since that night in the Shrieking Shack, Harry has always seen himself as taking care of Sirius to some extent. He may turn to Sirius for helpful advice, but he would never unload on him the way he can with Ron and Hermione. Annemehr From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 03:22:10 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:22:10 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116078 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: snip. >> Second, by the time he saw Sirius, he had already unloaded on Ron and > Hermione. (And yes, they didn't deserve being unloaded on, but frankly > I don't think getting yelled at was such a horrible thing for them to > take for the sake of their friend.) By the time Harry saw Sirius, > he'd had some release. Alla: Agreed. Those three had done a lot for each other. (I seem to remember Harry rushing to save Ron's sister from the Chamber of Secrets, for example. I bet I can predict what Del's answer will be to that one. :o)) Ron was also ready to die for Harry several times. I also don't see anything horrible in Ron and Hermione listening to Harry vent his anger at the world. None of the adult gave Harry the possibility to vent. At least his friends were there for him From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 03:52:45 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:52:45 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I had been thinking. As some posters probably know, I don't find > Voldemort to be a very convincing villain. Oh, sure , I hate what he > stands for , because JKR tells us so, but as a character I don't > have strong feelings about him. Meri now: I can agree with that to some extent. LV is the big baddie. The mind behind it all, and barely any of the muscle. He's evil pure and simple. He wants to rule the world, conquer death, yada yada yada. (Though I don't just hate what he stands for because JKR tells us so, I disagree with what he stands for cause he's plain wrong ;)) One thing that always bothered me (and sorry to get a bit OT here) is that some people seem to like to compare LV to Star Wars' Darth Vader. But I don't see that. What we know about Darth Vader is that he is redeemed in the end, and while that can surely happen with LV (and while they also seem to have similar backgrounds) I would more easily compare LV to Star Wars' Emperor, or Lord of the Rings' Sauron. He pulls the strings, and he is, at this point in time, fairly uncomplicated. He knows what he wants, the Dark Side (or whatever) has possessed him and there's v. little chance of conscience coming to haunt him. > I believe that JKR writes grey or good guys with "partially evil > personalities" MUCH more convincingly that she writes villains. Meri: I would definately agreee with this as well. While there are moments when LV can be seen as scary (I was never scared of him myself, but then again I was sixteen when I read GoF!) it is his minions that are really frightening. Because lets face it, we haven't all (hopefully none of us) encountered an LV, but surely we've met people like the Malfoys (racists) or DU (tyrannical bueraucrats). The minions are always at least a little scarier because they're the ones doing the dirty work. > Do you guys find that JKR's villains or I should qualify, Death > Eaters are scary? Meri: Well, I was pretty freaked out during that MoM battle scene, but I don't have any excuses for that, I was nineteen at the time! > Personally, I find Umbridge or Snape to be MUCH scarier people than > Voldemort ever managed to be. Meri: Quite so. > I find Graveyard scene to be quite chilling, but that is because I > think that Harry's suffering is masterfully conveyed. Voldemort is > still rather cartoonish there. > > > Bellatrix Lestrange I could find scary upon proper reflection, I > guess, because she is sooo crazy and because we finally saw WHAT she > did to Longbottoms, but besides her, I don't know. Meri: Like I said above, the minions are the ones that are frightening, and also interesting. I always thought that Denethor and Boromir in LotR were far more compelling vilians than Sauron, just because they were so human, just like I can care about Darth Vader's fall and redemption. I just can't see LV having a Vader like redemtion scene, but then again JK has surprised us before! Meri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 03:57:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:57:42 -0000 Subject: Occlumency again (Was: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116080 Alla wrote: > > I think that Dumbledore genuinely wanted to protect Harry,albeit > unsuccesfully, because he put such task on Snape's shoulders, due to > having too much faith in Snape's "latent good qualities." Carol responds: Hi, Alla. Welcome back. I think DD also had too much faith that Harry would practice occlumency despite his dislike of Snape and underestimated Harry's desire to get past the door in his dream, both of which interfered with the Occlumency lessons, as did Sirius' suggestion that Snape might be trying to harm Harry. The Occlumency lessons were a failure all the way around, but IMO no single person is to blame. It may also be that Snape perceived that the connection to Voldemort was getting dangerous and used Harry's venture into the Pensieve as a reason (excuse) not to remume the lessons. I'm not saying that Snape wasn't genuinely furious at Harry's invasion of his privacy, which must have undone any improvement in Snape's perception of Harry resulting from the revelations in GoF, but if Snape had felt it necessary or profitable to resume the lessons, I think he would have done so out of duty to Dumbledore and the Order, no matter how much both he and Harry hated it. And if DD had ordered him to do so, he would have had no choice in he matter. Clearly, though, the lessons *weren't* helping and Harry was getting closer and closer to the door in his dreams. Snape must have reported the Pensieve incident to Dumbledore, and they must have agreed that the lessons should not be resumed. Dumbledore says that he should have understood that Snape's injury was too deep to heal, but I don't think that's his real reason. At any rate, he clearly has not stopped trusting or relying on Snape. I have a feeling that Snape is teaching Occlumency as it was taught to him. What other method could he have used? If DD had taught the lessons, he would probably have used the same tactics. The only difference would have been that the student trusted the teacher. Unfortunately, Voldemort's invasion of Harry's mind undermined that trust and made it impossible for DD to teach him. And it was that invasion that made the Occlumency lessons necessary in the first place. So Snape, the only available candidate to take over for Dumbledore, uses the only methods available, telling Harry to let go of his anger and use the same tactics to fight the Legilimency spell that he had used to fight the Imperius Curse. He could not tell Harry *how* to let go of his anger or *how* to resist Legilimency. Harry had to learn to do it himself, through trial and error and practice (which Harry admits he was unwilling to do). Anyway, I think DD's putting too much faith in Snape's "latent good qualities" is only one reason among many why the lessons failed, or at least were of no help to Harry. They did, OTOH, provide some very important information to Snape and Dumbledore about Voldemort and the MoM, and they did, whether Snape and Harry realized it or not, provide them both with a lieele insight into each other's minds. So, althought they failed in their intended purpose and ultimately may have done more harm than good, at least they weren't a total waste. Carol, with apologies for the rambling post From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 03:59:23 2004 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:59:23 -0000 Subject: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy OWLs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lady Macbeth" wrote: > snip> I'm in Astronomy in college right now, so I became curious about Harry's > astronomy OWL more than I had before. As part of our course, we have access > to a very nice program that lets you chart the sky at any date and time for > any place on the globe. > > So, out of curiosity, I set it for Scotland (well, the whole UK is covered > when it's set for Scotland, so it's kind of a fail-safe for this purpose) > and ran through the dates of June 5-16, 1995 at 11:00 PM (when their > Astronomy practical exam started) and 12:00 AM (approximately when the > attack on Hagrid started). > > By using the calendar and the information in the book, I determined that the > Astronomy practical exam would have likely been on Wednesday, June 14 > (barring errors in the calendar as we've seen before; I think I've found a > couple in this section of the book, but I'll need to do a more detailed look > to be sure). (major snips) mhbobbin: You are cracking me up. Are you avoiding homework or something? I love this post. NOt to negate your fine over-analysis, But I will suggest that the mysteries in the story that relate to the Astronomy Class might not be in the skies. Why have we never seen an Astronomy Class? A class taking place at midnite has to be interesting. Why is the Astronomy Tower off-limits except for classes. And Would we like to know more about a Professor with the name of Sinistra? I still don't understand how/why Harry confuses the planets? ARe there any theories about that detail? mhbobbin Would From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 04:12:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:12:12 -0000 Subject: About Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116082 Del wrote: > > I personally don't believe in Jealous!Ron. Ron wasn't jealous in > GoF, he was hurt, because he felt Harry had betrayed him by not sharing with him how to get past the age line. > > > > If you look all over the rest of the books, you'll see that > jealousy is most definitely *not* one of Ron's traits. A bit of envy sometimes, but never jealousy. > > > Alla: > > Hi, Del! > > Personally, I do believe in jealous Ron in GoF. Especially because I > remember JKR specifically saying in one of the chats that she > portrayed Ron as jealous. > > If you acknowledge that Ron could be envious sometimes, then envy is > a feeling that often goes together with jealosy. Carol notes: Might it be that JKR herself is using "jealousy" (as a teenager would) to mean "envy"? Maybe we need to do another dictionary definition post to make sure that everyone is using "jealousy" in the same sense. And there's also the point that it's Hermione, not Ron himself, who describes Ron's behavior in GoF as jealousy. I think he resents being left out and "lied" to (or, as Del says, he feels betrayed). Another thought: Harry has decided not to tell Ron what "Moody" has suggested about someone putting his name in the Goblet of Fire in order to get him killed. Harry thinks it would sound melodramatic. Yet Hermione believes him immediately when he gives her that same information. Wouldn't Ron, after all they've been through together, have believed him, too? And whatever envy or "jealousy" he felt, if any, would have dissipated, as it does when Ron knows that Harry has to face a dragon. Look at his reaction whenever Harry tells him his scar hurts. Carol, who also doesn't believe in jealous!Ron From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Oct 21 03:51:33 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:51:33 -0400 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) Message-ID: <001901c4b721$41bee5d0$1502a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> No: HPFGUIDX 116083 Pippin: > Oh, I expect ESE!Lupin will be offered a chance at redemption, > but I wouldn't bet on him taking it. As for the message, Lupin > resembles an Uncle Tom/Uncle Remus character, created with > good intentions to counter a threatening stereotype. But Uncle > Tom/Uncle Remus is now considered to be itself a negative > stereotype, because in the zeal to make him unthreatening, he > is also made childlike, powerless and so lacking in resentment > as to appear incapable rather than forbearing of anger. There may be an idealized vision of Lupin in which he is too good to be resentful, but there's no evidence of that Lupin in canon. Lupin's suggestion to Neville of how to humiliate Snape's boggart is a perfect example of how Lupin could exact revenge against Snape despite his relative powerlessness. But Revengeful!Lupin doesn't lead to ESE!Lupin. Just look at the Twins, who reserve their most devastating stunts for those who, in Harry's words, "really deserve it," yet no one believes they are evil. Why would Lupin betray James, one of the friends who gave him the best times of his life, and who saved Lupin from possible catastrophe when he pulled Snape back in the tunnel? Even if he distrusted Sirius after the prank, there was no reason for him to betray James. My attraction to Lupin's character is not because he is perfect or because he is idealized, but because his flaws flow naturally from his hardships. He has lived a life of quiet desperation, punctuated only by a short interlude of adolescent foolishness. It is natural for him to cling desperately to his few opportunities, to convince himself that he doesn't have to reveal his adolescent mistakes when to do so might cost him a desperately needed job. It is not right, however, and had Sirius actually been a DE, his decision might have cost Harry his life. Lupin's failure to confess to Dumbledore in PoA calls to mind the old adage, "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Lupin did nothing, and the consequences would have been tragic had everyone not been mistaken about Sirius. He didn't rein in Sirius when he was prefect, either, and thereby allowed evil -- in the form of Sirius' and James' merciless bullying of Snape -- to flourish. JKR has shown us many forms of evil. Voldemort represents one extreme manifestation of evil. The Death Eaters with their penchant for torturing powerless Muggles who are unable to defend themselves represent another form. Fudge and his need to retain power at all costs represents a third form of evil. And Lupin represents something very different. His condition makes him very sympathetic, and rightfully so, but his unwillingness to jeopardize his rare opportunities for friendship and employment for the greater good is a unique form of evil. It would be really pointless if he turned out to be just another DE, but a glimpse of the desperate straits our attitudes force upon the disabled (mental or physical) and the Hobson's choices they have to make, is something different altogether, and unique among the characters in HP. Debbie wondering why those who can control their emotions are always first on the suspect list [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 04:50:40 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:50:40 -0000 Subject: Wizards at Large. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116084 Steve/bboyminn wrote: > Wizards might live among muggles, but that doesn't mean they live > with them; among them but not a part of them. Just as some Chinese > are IN London, but not PART of it. > > So, seeing wizards out and about in Surrey and nearby, while not > common, is still reasonable and possible. > > > Bookworm responded: > They might be about in Surrey, but they would have to make a point > of visiting Little Whinging. > > > If, as another poster mentioned, it is likely the Dursleys walked to > the local shops, then whoever the bowing wizard is, it probably > wasn't a coincidence that he ran into Harry in the shop. He would > have traveled, if only from the next town, to visit Little Whinging. Carol notes: Just a small point. We know that the bowing wizard is Dedalus Diggle. Harry sees him in the Leaky Cauldron in SS/PSand says something like, "You bowed to me in the street!" And we know that Dedalus Diggle is a member of the Order and that he lives in Kent, so you're certainly correct that his running into Harry in Little Whinging is no coincidence. It's the tiny wizard who hugged Vernon Dursley who's identity is disputed, but given the squeaky voice and the fondness for violet, I think it's quite likely that they're one and the same. (Otherwise, I agree with you.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 05:11:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:11:31 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116085 > Sigune wrote: > Crouch does point it out himself as well - sorry, I forgot about that line: > "'Snape has been cleared by this council,' said Crouch coldly. > 'No! shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains which bound him to > the chair. 'I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!'" (GoF Ch. > 30 The Pensieve, p. 513 British ed.) > That is when DD rises to re-state that he has given evidence on the > matter, in view of Karakaroff's vehement insistence. I had the > feeling, reading this, that he thought his fellow Wizengamot members > might need some reminding - that Snape could do with some extra > defending. > > What keeps puzzling me - but I have little knowledge of the workings > of law and court - is that Snape is 'cleared'. The word suggest to me that he is proved not guilty, whereas he clearly has been a Death > Eater. Does anybody know what kind of status spies have, that is, are they 'cleared' of crimes committed because they made 'good' use of > their experiences in the end? Even so, I think a verdict of 'not > guilty' is a bit rich, but maybe that's just me. Carol responds: I think it means that charges were dismissed before the case went to trial. Sort of a plea bargaining, protected witness arrangement. (Someone please correct me if I'm interpreting it incorrectly.) Certainly, the recent reference to Snape by some poster (I forget who) as an "ex-con" is incorrect. He was never convicted and evidently never even charged. That would explain, in part, why his name did not appear in the papers like those of Malfoy, Macnair, Nott, et al., who *were* tried and found not guilty by reason of Imperius. Carol From geekessgoddess at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 03:02:20 2004 From: geekessgoddess at yahoo.com (Freud) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:02:20 -0000 Subject: Harry, his emotions, and why he ends up with Ginny Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116086 Regarding Harry and his emotional state....when Harry yelled at Ron and Hermoine it seemed quite wonderful to me. They are the closest thing he has to real family, and most people will show their worst side to their family, especially brothers and sisters because of the "family is safety" factor. The fact that he actually was willing to show them his anger was an indication that he did feel safe with them. I honestly don't know how anyone can expect Harry to be nicer or to behave differently than he does after the horrendous experiences he has had. It is amazing that he has the emotional control he does. Harry takes abuse again and again and still rises above it. After the Dursleys, Umbridge and Snape, and the Malfoys, Death Eaters and Voldemort, jealous and envious peers, the lack of normal privacy and the continual public humiliation he endures on a daily basis - wouldn't most people crack up completely? And when he does finally find a person who could technically be considered "real family" - it turns out to be a prison fugitive on the run who can't provide a proper home for Harry. (But notice Harry was eager to live with him anyway!) Honestly - how much is Harry supposed to take without going bonkers? Harry is so used to abuse that I think it has actually become his comfort zone. For example, Harry actually allowed Umbridge to torture him. Why? This is the kid who defeated Voldemort! Yet he allows this crazy teacher to torture him? He could have blown her out the window too! But he didn't. It is chilling that Harry refused to reveal this abuse to an appropriate person who could have stopped it. Mcgonagall for example. But is is also very typical of an abused mindset to take abuse and not reveal it. Harry tells himself he would rather prove to Umbridge he could endure it rather than ask for help. But this isn't a "healthy" mental response - I felt so sad for Harry when he allowed her to treat him that way. My heart really went out to him in that situation. I think his friend Ron dropped the ball somewhat by not getting Harry some real help with Umbridge. I like Ron, but there are times when I think he should take action and he just doesn't. Harry is so used to being denied comfort and security that he actually feels nomal when he is being tortured in some way. I personally think this is why he doesn't ask for help in this situation or many others. I also think this is why he lets his friendship with Ron deteriorate the way it did. Harry endures more pressure than any normal person could possibly endure in his life. And he doesn't have reliable adult role models who remain emotionally close to him to guide him. When he has grown close to someone and relied on them they vanish, or they distance themselves or behave very "teacher-ish" with him, or simply stop talking to him. Snape really ticks me off. Harry was actually forced to be in a situation where Snape got to see the real Harry up close and personal, but Snape gives him no credit at all. Snape actually SAW the many ways that Harry was belittled and abused, and he STILL feels compelled to ridicule him in class. What is wrong with that man? After his own trials as a teenager, Snape ought to know better. All these people in the forums who make excuses for Snape and even worship Snape - wake up -please! How does becoming a bully erase the pain of being bullied? Snape, in my opinion, is nothing more than an insensitive, cowardly jerk who hides behind Dumbledores skirts. DD is his only chance for survival. DD has patience for misfits. Voldemort does not. Sooo....since the adults in his life are crazier or more pre-occuped than he is, this leaves Harry completely on his own. Harry has to parent himself most of thetime and he does a better job with it than most adolescents would do. I do find it annoying how no one in his life seems to understand how utterly depressing it is for him to return to the Dursleys, a place where he has no love or respect at all. I think there will have to be an interesting confrontation with Petunia this time. He knows that she has information about his mother she hasn't revealed, and she knows he is old enough to hear her story. I doubt he will put up with "Aunt" Petunia keeping secrets much longer. Unless SOMEONE in the story makes a MAJOR attempt to intervene in his life and get him some permanent emotional support, Harry will have no choice but to withdraw and become even more hostile in the final two books. I am puzzled by Hagrid. He used to be very good for Harry. But he has been so involved in his own bizarre endeavors...he seems to have lost his fire. i can't believe he didn't find a home for Buckbeak himself rather than letting someone from the ministry come to chop off the animals head. there have been other erratic behaviors... for example, getting sabotaged as a teacher by Malfoy, then letting it erode his confidence and his teaching, imprisioning a giant into the forest; lol...he has been of little help to Harry at all lately. What happened to Hagrid? He used to be someone that Harry could turn to. Now he is the one who is doing crazy things and expecting Ron, Harry and Hermoine to sanction these actions. For a giant, he seems to be a big child. Harry has such high stakes to contend with in his life and he has learned that he can endanger someone by being close to them. For this reason, I think he will withdraw from Ron and Hermoine, and it will take a very determined and persistent person to get past his outer shell. This may be the year that Ginny may make some headway with him. She doesn't seem to back off easy and Harry isn't thinking about her "that way" because he still has the "she's my friends little sister" image going on. Thats the only kind of person I can see her getting close to Harry, and I think she will win his heart,but he won't clue into it for a long time. By Tabekat in Beaverton, Oregon, who closely identifies with Harry, having grown up with a family of Dursleys herself. Where was Hagrid when I needed him? lol.... >From Muggle.Net - 100 ways to annoy Voldemort: 94. Tell people he's 'really just a big softie' 95. Psychoanalyze him. Conclude that he is 'mildy depressed' and 'a bit of a control-freak'. From paul_terzis at yahoo.gr Thu Oct 21 05:28:15 2004 From: paul_terzis at yahoo.gr (paul_terzis) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:28:15 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ginny/Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116087 > legobaty29 wrote: > > I haven't found any previous references to this but please tell me everyone else thinks > Harry and Ginny will get together! > > IMO she is a young Lily Potter - red hair, feisty (in OotP she really comes out of her shell). > > Don't shout at me if this topic has been covered in the past :O) Don't worry legobaty29. Nobody will shout at you, after all we are all friends in this group. You are right this subject is completely analysed but there is no consensus. There are those who follow the Ron/Hermione or Harry/Ginny ship, and us who follow the Harry/Hermione ship. My advice to you is keep your beliefs no matter what the others may say. JKR is unpredictable writer. At the end you may be right and I wrong or vice versa. Who knows? Cheers Paul From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 05:49:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:49:48 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116088 Syroun asked: > > < Do we really know that {Dnape was a spy for Dumbledore and not a member of the Order]?> > > Sigune answered: > > Well, 1) we know from OotP that he's not in the group photo of the > > Order Moody shows Harry; > Syroun responded: > which proves nothing... Carol notes: It may not *prove* anything, but it can't be discounted as *evidence.* And we do know that he was a spy for Dumbledore, unknown to Sieius, who also didn't know that Snape had been a Death Eater. It seems clear, as you admit yourself in the response to item 2, that he did not keep up with the professional progress of his adolescent enemy. If Snape had been in the Order, Sirius would have known about it. Sigune wrote: > 2) Black is surprised to hear Snape is at Hogwarts in PoA, which > > suggests he didn't know what Snape was up to around the time of > GH; > Syroun answered: > not necessarily. It just shows that he was did not keep up on the > professional progress of his adolescent enemy then or while in > prison. If he was not privy to the everyday goings-on at Hogwarts, > it would not be hard to imagine. We have no exact information on how > long Snape has been at Hogwarts, do we? Carol responds: Actually, we do know how long he's been at Hogwarts. He tells Umbridge in OoP that he's been teaching for fourteen years. (I can find the quote if you need it.) The only question is whether Snape began teaching at the beginning of term (September 1) or after Godric's Hollow (October 31), just before Sirius was sent to Azkaban. Either way, Sirius didn't know that Snape had been a teacher at Hogwarts all those years. > > > 4) if Snape knew Moody as a fellow Order member, he would have no > > reason to be so nervous around Fake!Moody in GoF, and he might > > have suspected he was facing an impostor when Moody kept lashing > > out at him. > > again, not necessarily. Snape may have had a similar past with Moody > as he had with Sirius, James, Lupin, et. Al. and may not have felt > comfortable around him beause of that. It seems that few HP > characters actually react to Snape as a old chum - why should Moody > be any different? It is actually most likely that the fake Moody > treated Snape exactly the same way that the real Moody would have, > otherwise everyone would have questioned Moody's behaviour towards > Snape as patronizing or pandering. The Moody character suspects > others as a general outlook; why should Snape be any different? Carol responds: The real Moody, watching Karkaroff's hearing in the Pensieve scene, reacts with suspicion when Dumbledore states that Snape is "no more a Death Eater than I am." He clearly doesn't like Snape and may well have been the one who arrested him. If Snape were in the Order, I doubt that he would have reacted the same way. He would have had evidence, personal experience, of Snape's loyalty. (IMO, Snape's activities as a spy make it essential that he *not* associate with any Order members and that he reports only to Dumbledore. DD doesn't want the Order members to know what Snape is doing and doesn't want LV or the Death Eaters to suspect Snape of disloyalty. He's already risking his life. Why put him in greater peril?) Carol, who agrees with Sigune that Snape was not in the original Order From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 06:32:49 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:32:49 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116089 I (Carol) wrote: > > I don't know what I want, exactly, except that I don't want Harry motivated by the petty and ignoble desire to punish or get even, whether the enemy (or perceived enemy) is Snape, Draco, or Voldemort. We saw that ignominious motive with Sirius Black's vicious crusade to murder Peter Pettigrew. What chance Black had to grow and develop as a character occurred only because his quest for vengeance failed and Harry prevented him from tainting his soul with murder. dzeytoun responded: > Well, first of all I'm not sure we did see Sirius grow and develop > much as a character. Carol again: True. I should have said "what *little* chance he had." dzeytoun: > Secondly, I think a good case can be made that not killing Pettigrew was a foolish mistake taken at the behest of a > naive and overly sentimental child. Without Peter, Voldemort would > not have been able to inact the ceremony in the graveyard. Yes, he > might have been able to return, somehow, but it is nevertheless the > fact that Harry's mercy led to Voldemort's return, and thus to > Sirius' death. Thus Sirius' soul remained "clean" at the expense of > his life. Which was better? To live after killing a traitor who > richly deserved it, or to die with clean hands leaving your godson > torn and in pain from his part in your death? Would Pettigrew's > death have been a greater evil than that of Sirius? These are > religious questions, I admit, and not ones on which we will ever > reach consensus. Nevertheless, the arguments for punishing this > character or that are extremely complex, and different opinions can > easily be justified using similar moral systems. But most of all we > should probably remember we are dealing with a book primarily > valuable for its entertainment value, not some modern annex to the > King James Bible. Carol responds: I'm not a particularly religious person and am certainly not trying to interpret the books in relation to the King James Bible. What I'm trying to do, with some difficulty thanks to real or apparent inconsistencies in the books, is to have the characters act in accordance with JKR's own morality as it appears in the books. She has said (admittedly in interviews rather than in the books themselves) that Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness." He, as we've been told since SS/PS, is "too noble to use" some of his own powers. IOW, too noble to use the Dark Arts, including illegal spells--or murder. And the Killing Curse, Avada Kedavra, is an Unforgiveable Curse. that is JKR's distinction, not mine. To take a life, to torture, to deprive another person of self-determination: those are the three curses she has chosen to present as thoroughly evil, as requiring evil will to cast, as corrupting the user. (See Voldemort, Barty Crouch Jr., Bellatrix Lestrange to see what a person who casts these spells becomes.) To return to Sirius (and Lupin): Harry may have been protecting them on the "sentimental" grounds that his father would not have wanted them to commit murder, and I admit he knows nothing at this point about the Killing Curse, but he instinctively realizes that they would have been guilty not of killing someone in self-defense but of murdering, two against one, an unarmed man. And the fact that that man was the betrayer of his own parents was immaterial at that moment. It was wrong to murder him, whatever he had done. You don't, in a civilized country with laws intended to protect the people, take the law into your own hands. You don't perform an act of vengeance that lowers you to the level of the person you're killing. You allow the person a trial, (theoretically) impersonal justice in a court of law. Harry didn't want their consciences to be stained. (Or their souls, which is a term JKR does use--the Dementors suck the *soul* out of a person and deprive him of an afterlife.) I have no idea how the sins ("wicked deeds," if you prefer) a person commits are dealt with in the afterlife in the WW, but I do know that JKR and her sometime spokesman Dumbledore, approve of Harry's action here. He has prevented his father's friends from doing an evil deed that would ruin their lives (not that Sirius's isn't already ruined) and makeit impossible for them to live in peace with themselves ever again. To be sure, Sirius at this point is very nearly deranged and has been trying for months to commit this very murder. Had he succeeded, he would probably have found that vengeance is not sweet. It is only the prelude to having his soul sucked by a Dementor. That, I'm sure, is exactly what he expects. He thinks that his vicious quest, and his miserable life, are over. As for Lupin, equally willing to kill his former friend for betraying the Potters and framing Sirius, it's hard to understand his motivation. Solidarity with Sirius? Or is he once again afraid to stand up and do the right thing? Evidently, he has to be shown what's right by a thirteen-year-old boy. And what of his future? Endless guilt and remorse or a soul corrupted by the AK so that he, like Barty Jr. and the young Tom Riddle, is on his way to becoming irredeemably evil? At best, a lonely existence in Azkaban with Dementors for company and his own monthly transformations into a werewolf with no wolfsbane potion to soothe the pain. What would Pettigrew's death have accomplished, besides a momentary satisfaction of the lust for vengeance? Granted, Pettigrew got away and through him Voldemort was restored, but that was not a necessary consequence of Harry's mercy. Pettigrew was chained and got away only because Lupin turned into a werewolf. What Pettigrew did afterwards is not what mattered. What mattered is that two grown men did not murder another man in front of three children, setting them a terrible example by indicating that vengeance and murder are acceptable solutions. We might as well throw away the law and let the DEs and their enemies fight an endless series of feuds, one murder spawning another till the WW drwons in a pool of blood. Carol, who still can't figure out *what* Lupin was thinking From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 05:39:06 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:39:06 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116090 Hester writes: > Sorry if this has already been discussed ad nausium, but I'm fairly > new and this just occurred to me. > > What is Hagrid's job? When he first introduces himself to Harry he > states that he is "Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts." What > does this mean? We know he looks after the grounds and animals, > including the forbidden forest. Or are there other keys? > Or is it something like a secret keeper and access to Hogwarts is > somehow tied into Hagrid? Any ideas? There was a thread on this earlier, starting here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113154 I don't think the group ever reached any consensus, but, of course, there are some great theories and information. Hope this helps. Beatnik From emhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 21 00:49:17 2004 From: emhutch at sbcglobal.net (Elizabeth Morgan) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:49:17 -0000 Subject: Digest Number 3044 OOP spoiler In-Reply-To: <20030625165341.42430.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116091 Catherine McK wrote in #63558: > Well, Percy was certainly brave in defying the opinions of his > large, close family, who subsequently cut him off completely, > and sticking to the position he believed was right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I would be more likely to agree with you if most of the wizarding world didn't think like Fudge. After all, while I believe that defying your family is one of the hardest things you can do, it's surely easier if you're surrounded (ministry job, anyone?) by like- minded people. Eilis- delurking for the very first time in her life! ...How ever so thrilling. From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 21 07:29:33 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:29:33 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116092 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > >Granted, Pettigrew got away > and through him Voldemort was restored, but that was not a necessary > consequence of Harry's mercy. Pettigrew was chained and got away only > because Lupin turned into a werewolf. It wasn't a necessary consequence, but it *was* a consequence. And therefore causal effect and responsibility has to accrue to Harry's push to save Pettigrew's life. Now, however, if we want to REALLY get into inconsistency here is the place for it. JKR has indicated time and again that the HP saga is about choice. Yet here she introduces a seemingly inescapable prophecy -- i.e. Trelawney's prediction that "the servant returns to his master." So, seemingly, Harry's choice was not a choice at all. Pettigrew was predetermined to live. Or perhaps Harry was predestined to make a particular choice. Either way, the inconsitencies start flying thick and fast and the philosophical issues get murky, to say the least. What Pettigrew did afterwards is > not what mattered. Well, that depends on your point of view, doesn't it? It is entirely possible to argue from a consistent moral position that what Pettigrew did afterwards *very much* matters. From a utilitarian standpoint, for instance, the wise and moral decision would have been to cut the rat's throat when they had the chance. What mattered is that two grown men did not murder > another man in front of three children, setting them a terrible > example by indicating that vengeance and murder are acceptable > solutions. We might as well throw away the law and let the DEs and > their enemies fight an endless series of feuds, one murder spawning > another till the WW drwons in a pool of blood. And yet that in effect is what is happening anyway, isn't it? I mean, not to sound sarcastic, but I highly doubt that Voldemort is going to get handcuffed and taken off to a jury trial. No, they are going to kill him and probably many of his followers, using whatever method they end up using (evidently love of some sort), because that is the kind of situation they are in. I fail to see how killing Peter would have been materially different, although I grant that it *may* have been emotionally different. But emotion, at least in theory, has little to do with law, and its place in morality is very dependent on your own interpretations. I also don't think we are likely to see some sort of reconciliation between the different factions of wizarding society in the end. In fact they seem to have tried that at the end of the last war, and JKR seems to be clearly stating it was an enormous mistake. One faction of the wizarding world IS going to end up with their foot on the throat of the other faction. Once again, that's just the kind of situation they are in. Quibbling over the death of one traitor seems rather irrelevant in the face of all the death and destruction that is looming (at least in part due to said traitor's actions). A final question for the mill. How should the wizarding world relate to Harry's decision to free Pettigrew? Many I dare say would have the opinion "D--n you to H--l! Thanks to your soft conscience and care for your friends' souls my husband/daughter/son/friend has been tortured and murdered! What gives you the right to ease your conscience at the expense of our suffering? If one murder could have avoided a war, it would have been well worth the price!" Now, I'm not really arguing that point, but MANY people would, and I have to admit that it is a fairly consistent and workable way of looking at things. Also JKR isn't at all consistent on the whole issue of ends justifying means. Dumbledore, the epitome of goodness, did abandon Harry to a loveless and abusive home, after all (although I grant that probably isn't the way JKR wants us to see it). Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 07:33:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:33:57 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116093 Dharma wrote: > > > I'd just like > reiterate something that others have hinted at, or said in the past > on this topic. At 15, the Hogwarts kids are 2 years away from going > into the adult world. There does not seem to be much in the way of > delayed adolescence in the Wizarding World. By the time we see James hexing Snape, they very well could have had some very adult sense of morality. Their views on pureblood supremacy really could have been intellectually and morally very important at that time. > > They were only 2 years away from being expected to participate fully > in the adult world. At the time the Marauders and Snape are 15 years- old violence is increasing, and they are facing going out into that world. Why wouldn't any of the older students have an opinion about this situation? James may have initially been popular for other > reasons, but his stance against the Dark Arts could have impacted how > others perceived him as well. Carol responds: Unfortunately, we don't see James demonstrating any such maturity or social concern. Instead, we see him joking about the werewold answer on the exam, playing with a snitch, and "entertaining" the bored Sirius by hexing Severus. If he were so concerned with opposing the doctrine of pureblood supremacy, you would think that he would express these views. Instead, all we have is his reaction to Severus's angrily calling Lily a Mudblood, probably the first term that comes to his mind under the circumstances. There's no indication that pureblood ideology is of concern to either boy. As for his opposition to the Dark Arts, the only canon evidence for this view is a statement made by Sirius twenty years later that James hated the Dark Arts. There is no indication in the Pensieve scene itself that James is opposed to the Dark Arts and associates them with Severus. James's stated, canonical reason for bullying Severus is "because he exists." Any other reason is purely speculative--at least until Book 6 or 7 provides the missing evidence. And if James were so concerned with the upcoming battle against Voldemort (which again is not mentioned in this scene), shouldn't he take his DADA exam seriously? Instead, he is tracing the letters LE on his exam book. His mind is not on the subject that ought to be of great concern if he is already, at fifteen or sixteen, concerned with the battle against Voldemort. He's preoccupied with the girl he has a crush on. And as far as schoolwork is concerned, his efforts so far have been focused on Transfiguration, not so he can fight Voldemort or even so that he can do well on his OWLs, but so that he and his friends can transform themselves into animals and run around with a werewolf. (That, just possibly, could account for McGonagall's memory of him as a brilliant student. She remembers him in her classes. She never saw him in any other class.) And if Severus is so enamored of the Dark Arts, and again it's Sirius who says that he was, why is he so intent on his exam in *Defense Against* the Dark Arts? Clearly he knows the subject inside out; his answers to the questions are so detailed that he has to write in a minuscule hand to get them in. Clearly he cares about the subject (and his mark in it) or he wouldn't be obsessively studying the exam sheet when the test is over. The adult Snape's desire to teach DADA is not some whim. He cares about and knows about this topic. It would be very surprising if he did not get an O ("outstanding") on both his OWL and his NEWT. An intense fascination with DADA is a very odd trait in a future DE, and yet there it is. It's Severus, not James (or Sirius) who's studying the one subject that the future opponents of Voldemort must master in order to fight him. Dharma wrote: > I agree that Snape might not have been loyal to Voldemort, but the > perception that he supported the Dark Arts, could have impacted the > way people viewed him. Even if some of the students did not agree > with James' bullying behavior, they may have held a negative general > view of Snape as well. We don't know why they were looking > apprehensive. It is significant to me that only Lily is willing to > confront James. > > Is the student body generally afraid of James? That could be, but > then why is he consistently described as popular and not intimidating or overly aggressive? As an adult, even Snape describes James arrogant but not as a generally aggressive individual. The exception might be "The Prank," which would depict James a manipulative rather than physically intimidating Which leads me to other thoughts Are the apprehensive students not interested enough in Snape's safety to risk entering a conflict with James, who is a very talented young Wizard? Carol responds: I think you've answered your own question here. The student body may or may not agree with James, but he's popular as an athlete and they don't want him to hex them. Lily says that he hexes people for fun and James doesn't deny it. Later, in GoF, Sirius says that James stopped hexing other people, but not Severus Snape. Severus, of we can trust what Sirius says of him, already knew more curses than most seventh-years when he entered Hogwarts. Maybe James, on his way to growing up and becoming the heroic figure he seems to be at Godric's Hollow, stopped hexing people weaker than himself--that is, most of the Hogwarts students. But he didn't stop hexing Severus--either because he still disliked him "because he exists"--or just possibly because Severus was the one person who could, and would, fight him back. Regardless of his motivations or the reasons for his popularity, I know of no canon evidence that James was regarded as a hero for his opposition to the Dark Arts or to the Slytherin pureblood ideology. Athe evidence, as we now have it, indicates that he was merely an "arrogant little berk" who liked attention, hexed other people for fun, ruffled his hair to make it attractively windblown. Whatever grudge they bore against Severus Snape (and when Lily asks James what Severus has done to them, he has no good answer), he and Sirius caught Severus off-guard and fought him two against one. If that's the high moral ground and these fifteen- or sixteen-year-olds are preparing to go out into the world and defend their views by bullying those who disagree with them or are less physically attractive, then heaven help the WW. Carol, who wonders how a kid obsessed with DADA ended up on the side of the DEs, at least for a little while From emhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 21 01:05:28 2004 From: emhutch at sbcglobal.net (Elizabeth Morgan) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:05:28 -0000 Subject: The Voice in Little Harry's Head was replies to: 1500-some posts In-Reply-To: <149.35ec8eaf.2ea594e7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116094 Amber wrote in #115869: > I believe someone (I think it was Kneasy in one of his What Really Happened at Godric's Hollow posts) posited the theory that Voldemort did not try to AK Harry (one flash of green light in Harry's vision, not two) but instead tried to possess him, activating Lily's protection but leaving behind the extra powers like parseltongue but also Tom Riddle's soul. (Saying that the pain in Harry's scar comes from TMR's soul trying to reunite with the rest of Voldemort, which certainly makes the prophecy more sinister, but I digress.) What I'm trying to say is, what if the voice in Harry's head is Tom Riddle? >>> OOOOOOOO! I love it! I adore it! I writhe in delight! As creepy and heartbreaking as it would be, (can anyone think of a way to fufill the prophecy /without/ killing Harry? Please?) if it turned out this way in canon I, for one would not be at all disappointed. Eilis- who loves SelfSacrificing!Harry From spoonmerlin at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 07:46:06 2004 From: spoonmerlin at yahoo.com (Brent) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:46:06 -0000 Subject: Are TWO People Carrying the Soul of TR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > Now, in light of the Soul-of-Tom theory, what if we now have TWO vessels carrying the > human part of the LV construct? Not to spill into a SHIP conversation, but what if it is some > sort of connection--magical or otherwise--between Harry and Ginny that heals this soul > and allows it ("the other" of the prophecy) to destroy LV? > > Just a thought. I haven't really considered all of the ramifications.... I know this is a bit far fetched but what if the love between Ginny and Harry is what ends up defeating LV. Like Harry falls for Ginny and she is in some mortal danger or is attacked by LV. Then Harry goes to sacrifice himself to save her and the act of love triggers the soul parts to leave them and make LV fully human and killable. Like no one can kill LV fully as long as the pieces of his soul are scattered without taking the ones that have it with him, but when he gets them back then he can be killed. This would explain the questions JKR posed of why LV didn't die and why DD didn't try and kill him if he knows this. I know he risks himself to save her in CoS but he wasn't in love with her it was out of friendship with Ron more then anything else. Brent From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 08:22:48 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:22:48 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I have been thinking about the dynamics in the relationships of > folks who attended Hogwarts as members of Slytherin House. We can > assume that members of other houses have normal feeling and > relationships with their friends, spouses, children, etc. Of course, > the Ravenclaws might seem a bit aloof because of their high > intelligence and *thinking type* personality, but basically they are > capable of love and feeling of affection like all the rest. But > what of the Slytherins? I was watching a skating show today where a > couple was acting as two sinister characters and the dynamics > between them made me think of Bella and her husband. I am thinking > that when two Slytherin marry it must be like 2 snakes. Each with a > certain cold respect for the other, a mutual understanding of like > personalities. A member of any other house could never find > happiness with a Slytherin, because the Slytherin would eat them > alive, so to speak. Others would be too sensitive, heart on sleeve > types, for a Slytherin. Any thought? > > Tonks_op Carol responds: Of course, we have no canon to support us here because we see very little of the relationship between the Lestranges or their relatives, the Malfoys, so everything we say here is speculative. To begin with the Malfoys, whom we see together briefly in GoF: They are both reasonably attractive people (Narcissa, we're told, would be pretty if she weren't sneering) and they seem to hold the same Slytherin values, considering themselves better than other families because of their wealth and "aristocratic" blood. They are something like the English gentry of the nineteenth century--it's okay to make money as long as you don't do so by *working.* (I wonder how Narcissa is managing without her house elf--surely she has some "hired help" if no new elf is available.) Kreacher is loyal to Narcissa, who clearly shares the Black family values, and she and Lucius evidently work together to use Kreacher information against Sirius and Harry. The only sign of disagreement between them is Lucius's desire to send Draco to Durmstrang to learn the Dark Arts, and he is overruled by, or gives in to, Narcissa's desire to keep her darling boy (whom she sends sweets at school) close to home. Lucius, in contrast, is less permissive and concerned with Draco's marks and with his behavior in public--he must not *appear* to dislike Harry Potter. But there's no indication that Narcissa opposed Lucius's intention to use Tom Riddle's diary to wreak havoc at Hogwarts and somehow bring actual harm to Harry. The whole family, according to Dobby, consists of "bad Dark wizards." The ideal Slytherin family, evidently--happy in their own evil way. The Lestranges are another matter. Clearly the Lestrange brothers are purebloods or Bellatrix wouldn't have married one of them (or, alternatively, she'd be burned off the Black family tree). All we know about the Lestrange brothers is that, like Bellatrix, they were members of a Slytherin gang and later became Death Eaters, both of them helped Bellatrix Crucio the Longbottoms, both of them were silent during the sentencing, both went with her to Azkaban and later broke out with her, and both fought in the DoM against Harry and his friends, only to be arrested again. Bellatrix and her husband Rodolphus were paired together by Lucius Malfoy, and it *appears* that Rabastan later joined them when his own partner was incapacitated. It's as if Bellatrix has two loyal followers, one of whom is married to her, and the other, his brother, can't give up his part in the trio. Bellatrix was once beautiful in her sultry, sinister way, and she seems to have been the oldest sister, an heiress, probably to some of the Black family wealth, so maybe there was some competition between the brothers to marry her. Yet she seems to be the leader of the trio, sometimes regally haughty and sometimes shrewish. They seem to be in awe of her, particularly Rabastan, who isn't married to her and yet sticks to her (and his brother) like glue. This is a very strange relationship. I don't see any romantic love in it, and there are no children. (Azkaban cooled their ardor, possibly.) And Bellatrix, as we know, is insanely and fanatically devoted to the not wholly human Voldemort. Are the others equally devoted or do they simply do her will? Bellatrix says that you have to *mean* a Crucio, and these men Crucio'd the Longbottoms, along with Bellatrix and Barty Jr. Perhaps they're fanatics, too? Not two but three cold-blooded snakes, held together by a hatred of Muggles and Muggleborns and the hope for power in a new order, where purebloods are the ruling aristocracy and all others do their will or die? I just don't know, but it strikes me as strange, and perhaps significant, that there are two Lestrange brothers. Why not just give Bellatrix a husband? Why bring in Rabastan? Carol From ilana_lydia at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 08:36:44 2004 From: ilana_lydia at hotmail.com (Ilana Lydia) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:36:44 -0700 Subject: What JKR Finds Important References: <1098202701.69126.87799.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116097 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, everyone! I see I'm in the minority with my suspicions --but that's alright. Del voiced some of my concerns in his posts, particularly his first reply to mine which talked about Harry's out of control behavior towards his friends. I agree that it was in these passages, where Harry was yelling at Ron and Hermione for the umpteenth time with no provocation that I had to put the book down and take a break from reading it because it became too uncomfortable emotionally for me to proceed. I also agree that Grieving!Harry was much easier to sympathize with than Angry!Harry. It's odd, because I simultaneously found myself liking OOP the most, and finding it the most difficult book to get through. The words "depth" and "emotional resonance" have come up with this installment-I think that holds true. I found it happening for me especially with POA on, but by the time we hit OOP, I felt Harry had grown up for good. Annemehr wrote- "The claustrophobia, I felt too. Actually, I think it was effective writing, because it was what Harry was feeling -- the world closing in on him, his options, preferences, and emotional supports removed. As I said, I think this is what is going to force him to grow up as he must. As for how clearly the story unfolds -- you have a point. It can get better after repeat readings;" Ilana responds- I'm glad you pick up on the claustrophobia. It felt much more intense than in the other four books. We're always in Harry's head, and Harry is always a thoughtful, reactive kind of guy, but somehow in OOP we're in a pressure cooker now. The book was clearer the second and third time through, as you say. I felt, however, that there was deliberate distortion of the storyline based on Harry's emotional states at the time. I was frustrated because I wasn't getting the whole story. Legobaty writes- "JKR could have been creating distance between the reader and Harry, so in the event of his possible death at the end of the series, we could be able to see the story as a series of events that happened to a certain character, rather than the WRONG series of events that happened to OUR hero, but I think it's more likely that JKR wassimply describing a Harry as he is in the fifth book - 15, moody (hormones!), under incredible pressure and starting to really feel it and struggle to accept his lot." Ilana responds- You've spelled out one of the possibilities I was hinting at, but didn't want to name-yes, JKR could have been using distance to help remove us a little from Harry in the eventuality of his death. I do see you're point, though-and it sounds like most tend to agree with you here-age and stress and circumstances do account for a lot of what we saw. Legobaty wrote- "One last point - if Harry is the one who dies at the end of book Seven, who's to say we need to distance ourselves from him? We may find out with him what the "next great adventure" is over the other side..." Ilana responds- Excellent! I'm up for that! I think JKR may be hinting towards that with the veil, too. And if you're going to tee off the radical right, why not do it all the way? ; ) I apologize to anyone else who I did not specifically respond to-I'm not ignoring you! I'm responding via digests, and I took crummy notes. So Sherry, Del, Kethryn, Annemehr, and Legobaty-thanks for writing-and anyone I missed-thanks to you too. Ilana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 09:02:57 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:02:57 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" wrote: > > Hester writes: > > > > What is Hagrid's job? When he first introduces himself to Harry > > he states that he is "Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts." > > What does this mean? ... Or are there other keys? > > Or is it something like a secret keeper and access to Hogwarts is > > somehow tied into Hagrid? Any ideas? > Beatnik: > > There was a thread on this earlier, starting here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/113154 > > I don't think the group ever reached any consensus, but, of course, > there are some great theories and information. Hope this helps. > > Beatnik bboyminn: I you follow that link, you'll find a pretty indepth analysis, and post by several people. That thread (above) is an off-shoot of another thread and it splits into a couple other discussion. Overal, it's quite long. The short version- Keeper of Keys - This is real. I has historical and modern day significants. Hagrid is the /keeper/ of the castle. Filch on the other hand is the /caretaker/; a glorified janitor, and is primarily responsible for the interior of the castle. Hagird is the custodian/manager/controller of the castle which includes the main building (interior & exterior) and all of the out building. As Keeper of Keys, he holds the Master Set of Keys to the castle (interior and exterior) and all other building, and the gates. Look at this logically, even modern Windsor Castle, home of the Queen, has to have some person who is in charge of managing everything about the castle, it's ground, gardens, farm & fields, etc.... The Queen and the Prince aren't around all the time, and somebody has to manage things while they are gone. In this book, that's Hagrid. Although, a real life castle like Windsor, probably has many assorted managers, I suspect those managers manage other staff, but some one has the ultimate responsibility for the well being of the castle. Again, in this book that's Hagrid. Grounds Keeper- Again, Hagrid is responsible for the grounds, farms, fields, forests, shrubs, lawns, gardens (vegetable & flower), etc... related to the castle of Hogwarts. GameKeeper- Hagrid manages all the animals domestic and wild that are associated with the castle and it's grounds. Since the Prince of Wales owns many farms, and those farms certainly have large forests, he needs someone to managed both the livestock and the wild game on his land. Generally, people aren't allowed to hunt on Prince Charles's land, or the Queen's land. In the good old days, that would get you shot or hanged. That's an important job in managing a real-life castle, and Hogwarts, while fictional, still needs that job done; Hagrid's the man. Does that help? Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 10:20:41 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:20:41 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I had been thinking. As some posters probably know, I don't find > Voldemort to be a very convincing villain. Oh, sure , I hate what he > stands for , because JKR tells us so, but as a character I don't > have strong feelings about him. > > Do you guys find that JKR's villains or I should qualify, Death > Eaters are scary? > For once we agree. Villain!Voldy is a bumbling incompetent - but unfortunately he has to be or Harry couldn't possibly win. Most unsatisfactory; the Evil Overlord curse strikes again. Mind you, it could be that you'll find that there are a surprising number of fans that are quite happy with Voldy the way he is; that was my impression reading the responses to two posts (108316 & 109355) that had a disgruntled look at Voldy's actions and his attitudes respectively. And most readers expect Harry to win in a fairly conventional way. I'm not sure that I do myself - and that isn't my standard "end the series with bodies littering the scenery" whimsy speaking, it's a hope that JKR will surprise and intrigue us at the end and might even come up with something that will keep us discussing what HP is all about for a long time to come (see post 101614 - "Which way?") Maybe my personal expectations are set too high, but I can always hope. Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 10:24:37 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:24:37 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116100 annemehr wrote: "Second, by the time he saw Sirius, he had already unloaded on Ron and Hermione. (And yes, they didn't deserve being unloaded on, but frankly I don't think getting yelled at was such a horrible thing for them to take for the sake of their friend.) By the time Harry saw Sirius, he'd had some release." Alla answered : "Agreed. Those three had done a lot for each other. (I seem to remember Harry rushing to save Ron's sister from the Chamber of Secrets, for example. I bet I can predict what Del's answer will be to that one. :o)) Ron was also ready to die for Harry several times. I also don't see anything horrible in Ron and Hermione listening to Harry vent his anger at the world. None of the adult gave Harry the possibility to vent. At least his friends were there for him" Del replies : As we keep saying, we all bring our own emotions into the story. Unfortunately, yelling at me is one of the worst things you can do to me and to our relationship. I cannot deal with anger and verbal abuse, especially when undeserved. Yelling at me for no good reasons (no fault of my own) will systematically cause me to withdraw and stop trusting you and supporting you. What Harry did to his friends throughout OoP is almost unforgivable in my eyes. Had I been Hermione, I might not have stayed by his side, no matter how much he needed me. I can take a lot of things from my loved ones and my friends, but yelling is a big No-no, maybe the biggest one. Del From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 21 10:26:22 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:26:22 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds important Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116101 Geoff Bannister wrote: I remember being rather surprised that the majority of comments were coming from female contributers.....who weren't seeing it from a male angle. By coincidence, this is exactly the point my hasband and I were discussing this morning. We were both surprised that Jo, having no teenage sons and no brothers should be able to describe so accurately the turmoil that teenage Harry is going through. We have a thirteen- year-old who seems to have changed overnight from a sweet and thoughtful little boy into a gangling monster, with much less excuse than poor Harry. Hopefully both of them will get over it in time! Sylvia (who wonders if you have Harry Enfield's Kevin the Teenager in America. So accurate it is painful to watch) From tinainfay at msn.com Thu Oct 21 10:41:07 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:41:07 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ginny/Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116102 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "legobaty29" wrote: > > > I haven't found any previous references to this but please tell me everyone else thinks > Harry and Ginny will get together! > > IMO she is a young Lily Potter - red hair, feisty (in OotP she really comes out of her shell). > > Don't shout at me if this topic has been covered in the past :O) I sure hope they do end up together but I wanted to let you know about Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them (on the home page, scroll down). Once there you'll find a section that discusses various romantic pairings. There are a number of posts (with their numbers so you can read the threads). Lots of interesting reading at FP&WtFT! ~tina From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 21 10:48:37 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:48:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116103 Carol wrote: This is a very > strange relationship. I don't see any romantic love in it, and there > are no children. (Azkaban cooled their ardor, possibly.) And > Bellatrix, as we know, is insanely and fanatically devoted to the not wholly human Voldemort. Potioncat: Do we know they didn't have children? Just because we haven't heard about any doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly, I wouldn't think there would have been opportunity at Azkaban. > I just don't know, but it strikes me as strange, and perhaps > significant, that there are two Lestrange brothers. Why not just give Bellatrix a husband? Why bring in Rabastan? > Potioncat: Yes they are strange. Another family that lives up (down?) to its name. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 11:33:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:33:05 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116104 >> Del replies : > As we keep saying, we all bring our own emotions into the story. > Unfortunately, yelling at me is one of the worst things you can do to > me and to our relationship. I cannot deal with anger and verbal abuse, > especially when undeserved. snip. Alla: Of course, Del. We all read books differently and when we discuss it, our views clash. Otherwise, there would be no fun at all. :) I am fine with yelling, especially when it comes from my "equals". I HATE yelling from the bosses or, if Iwere younger from the teachers. You know, when those in authority abuse it. My friends have no authority over me, therefore I have no problem letting them vent, especially since I know that sometimes I need to vent myself. I am not saying mind you that yelling is my favourite form of communication :) But once in a blue moon, especially if my friend is in distress, I see nothing wrong with it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 21 11:36:59 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:36:59 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116105 Carol wrote: snip > > And if James were so concerned with the upcoming battle against > Voldemort (which again is not mentioned in this scene), shouldn't he take his DADA exam seriously? Instead, he is tracing the letters LE on his exam book. His mind is not on the subject that ought to be of great concern if he is already, at fifteen or sixteen, concerned with the battle against Voldemort. Potioncat: I don't think we can judge too much by test taking skills. I assumed James had finished the test and was passing the time. Some students are more concise than others. (Which of course is different from finishing early because you didn't know anything.) Carol: He's preoccupied with the girl he has a crush on. And as far as schoolwork is concerned, his efforts so far have been focused on Transfiguration, not so he can fight Voldemort or even so that he can do well on his OWLs, but so that he and his friends can transform themselves into animals and run around with a werewolf. (That, just possibly, could account for McGonagall's memory of him as a brilliant student. She remembers him in her classes. She never saw him in any other class.) Potioncat: Well, he is 15. I can say as a mother of a 15 year old...never having been one myself...they know everything and they are invincible. Aren't we told somewhere that James was the top student? I mean more than McGonagall saying he was the brightest student? Or have we all presumed that from several comments in canon? But you bring up a good point. The teachers don't know everything that we do. Draco is careful not to challenge Harry near a teacher, just close enough that Harry would get caught if he retaliated. And Fred and George get away with a lot of misdeeds. I wonder how much of James' behavior McGonagall knew about. Carol: > And if Severus is so enamored of the Dark Arts, and again it's Sirius > who says that he was, why is he so intent on his exam in *Defense > Against* the Dark Arts? Clearly he knows the subject inside out; his answers to the questions are so detailed that he has to write in a minuscule hand to get them in. Clearly he cares about the subject (and his mark in it) or he wouldn't be obsessively studying the exam sheet when the test is over. The adult Snape's desire to teach DADA is not some whim. He cares about and knows about this topic. It would be very surprising if he did not get an O ("outstanding") on both his OWL and his NEWT. An intense fascination with DADA is a very odd trait in a future DE, and yet there it is. It's Severus, not James (or Sirius) who's studying the one subject that the future opponents of Voldemort must master in order to fight him. Potioncat: He is taking it very seriously. I'll bet that Severus did the same in all his tests. He seems a lot like Hermione. I wonder how close in marks he and James were? As far as DADA vrs Dark Arts goes, I would think DADA would be an important part of Dark Arts. Afterall, if you want to learn Dark Arts, you want to learn how to defend against them as well. And, for that matter, Dark Arts are a part of DADA. It could have been the closest to Dark Arts that Severus could get at Hogwarts. I hope we get the full back story to Snape joining the DEs and whether he really was up to his eyeballs in Dark Arts at 11. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 21 11:47:49 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:47:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116106 > > catkind: > I have a question, I hope it's not one of potioncat's FAQs: > > What exactly does McG mean to do about helping Harry to succeed? > She shows in fact no sign of helping Harry with his Potions work, > and Harry certainly doesn't sound like he's improved enough to get > the Outstanding Snape is looking for in his NEWT students, even if > the exam does go better than he expected. > > It would be hideously unprofessional if she were to try to make an > exception for Harry, on the other hand I can't see Snape > volunteering, or Harry proceeding without Potions. > > The only way out I can see is for there to be a new Potions teacher next book. Perhaps Snape can finally be given the DADA job? I'm getting bored of constantly having new characters in it, and it would be a lot of fun to see how Snape gets on with Harry in his best subject. Potioncat: There are some interesting assumptions in our group, so I'd like to send out a challenge. What is the answer to this? Do you think Harry could get an "O" in Potions in a way that wouldn't have us rolling our eyes? Snape fans don't want him in DADA (come to think of it, neither do his foes.) The assumption is that if a person teaches DADA they must come to a bad end at the end of the book. So, would JKR be arrested if someone lasted to the following book? Would we be on the edge of our seats waiting for the ax to fall...and could there be a satifying resolution to a happy ending for the DADA teacher? (Be it Snape or Alberforth or person of your choice) What would be a good and resonable way for Harry to take Potions? And, BTW, McGonagall wasn't convinced Harry would get an E on Transfigurations. How do you think it will work out? From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 12:14:34 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:14:34 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116107 Alla wrote : " I am not saying mind you that yelling is my favourite form of communication :) But once in a blue moon, especially if my friend is in distress, I see nothing wrong with it." Del replies : Well, I don't really see anything wrong with it either, except when people obviously abuse it or enjoy it, which Harry wasn't doing. I know that Harry's reaction is a normal one, that many teenagers react that way, and that it was in fact healthy for him to yell and vent. I know that, but I can't deal with it. I can't take it. As I said many times already, this is *my* problem, but it is a big one. I actively avoid people who get too easily angry in RL, so having to put up with Angry!Harry was (and still is) a real ordeal. But JKR writes her story, not mine :-) Del From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 12:18:02 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:18:02 -0000 Subject: Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amycrn4230" wrote: > I love to read your ramblings Kneasy, but you say "It ain't enough", > and I want to ask "what next?" Sure, he had stupid little Fudge > eating outta his hands for a while...he basically has had everyone > eating outta his hands for a while...but I think the table is a > turnin' and he better pull out his big guns for the next go around. > LV that is. > The way I see it, he is playing his own chess game, and Fudge was but > a wee little pawn...That Potter kid has already outed him to his DE's > that he is not a pure-blood himself...now, that might not have sunk > in to them right away, but you know there is something fishy about > that Potter kid...he has managed to make LV look like a total phony > on many occasions so far, and has also made pretty good work of his > followers too. I mean they got poo-poo'd on in the MOM by some > kiddied in the DA. Uh oh...Malfoy is in jail...oooh, this should have > been easier...I thought it was in the bag....guess not....Malfoy is > thinking....this ain't where I want to be, and I have been listening > to a part mudblood? Hmmmmmm....So, there will undoubtedly be more > Fudge's along the way...maybe in the form of Ludo Bagman? That > Umbridge woman? who knows, but I am interested to see if LV can > really pull his stuff together and fight the big fight himself, or > just end up looking like he got "Pottered" on! :) Personally...I > think something smells rotten! > Could well be; for the sneaky, devious mind anything is possible. How about another little twist? When Fudge ascended to glory in the Ministry, and assuming that it was the remaining DEs who helped to get him there, who was the mastermind for this dastardly plot? Sure as hell it wasn't Voldy, he wasn't around and very few expected him to come back. Wanna place bets on Malfoy? So is/was Fudge there to further Voldy's agenda - or Malfoy's? - which might not be the same thing at all. There is that pointed remark in the Graveyard - "Lucius, my slippery friend...[...] your exploits at the QWC were fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed towards finding and aiding your master? [...] I expect more faithful service in future." Lucius has already made one power-play - TR's diary. He must have known that the diary would cause mayhem, why else slip it into Ginny's books? And it looked for a while as if DD would be out on his ear, Hogwarts closed down, all with the connivance of the Ministry, leaving Malfoy pulling all the strings. And it appears that Diary!Tom is a different entity to Voldy (JKR won't let on what would have happened if D!T had been successful in draining the life force from Ginny - something we'll find out later, she says) My own theories regarding Possessed!Tom are compatible with this; D!T is Tom pure and simple, Tom before his mind was invaded, but Voldy is Tom plus Sally essence. The first Malfoy might be able to manipulate and influence - he's only a spiteful schoolkid after all; the second? No chance. Too powerful. While the cat's away, the mice will play. And Malfoy is playing a very dangerous game. He would much prefer that he was the puppetmaster behind the Minister, all it costs is cash - than go through all this tedious fighting stuff. After all, you can lose a war and the consequences might be a bit too permanent for his liking. Get outed (as he was in PoA) and you're still on your feet and you can try again when nobody's looking. Above all Malfoy is the survivor type. Before the end I expect him to make overtures towards DD, maybe even in the next book if it looks as if Voldy is going down the tubes or his own safety is in jeopardy. Would you trust him? "The smiler with the knife under his cloak." Bagman. Oh, yes. I fully expect that creep to turn up again, if only to get his just desserts. But he may turn up as a dangerous agent of the enemy. How would it be if he distracted Ron by offering to get him taken on as a player by the Chuddley Cannons? With Harry, Hermione and perhaps DD being against it? Could cause quite a split. Kneasy From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 12:33:39 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:33:39 -0000 Subject: Correction: post 116108 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116109 Silly me. for "..(as he was in PoA)" please substitute "..(as he was in CoS)" Sorry about that. Kneasy From garybec101 at comcast.net Thu Oct 21 12:36:21 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:36:21 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116110 > Lupinlore wrote; A final question for the mill. How should the wizarding world relate to Harry's decision to free Pettigrew? Many I dare say would have the opinion "D--n you to H--l! Thanks to your soft conscience and care for your friends' souls my husband/daughter/son/friend has been tortured and murdered! What gives you the right to ease your conscience at the expense of our suffering? If one murder could have avoided a war, it would have been well worth the price!" Now, I'm not really arguing that point, but MANY people would, and I have to admit that it is a fairly consistent and workable way of looking at things. Lupinlore Becki Responds; But Harry did not make the decision to *free* Pettigrew. He just didn't want Lupin and Black to "become murderers". That is not the same as giving Wormtail any slack. He wasn't falling for Pettigrews feeble attempts at remorse. He had every intention to see him get justice, by turning him over to the proper authorities. And by doing that, he also gives Sirius a chance to get cleared. Unfortunately, none of them had the foresight to see that Lupin was going to change into the werewolf, but that is not Harry's fault. But I guess that wouldn't really matter. somehow, someway, Pettigrew was going to get away, we have that prophecy to thank for that. Becki From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 21 13:01:11 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:01:11 -0000 Subject: Question to the psys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116111 evita2fr wrote: > Anyway, my question is : > > Could one hate something in a person without realizing that one do > it too? SSSusan: Of course. It's called projection. One takes a characteristic or fault of one's own and projects it onto another/others. Standard class of defense mechanism. Siriusly Snapey Susan From amycrn4230 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 13:04:39 2004 From: amycrn4230 at yahoo.com (amycrn4230) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:04:39 -0000 Subject: Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: ...for the sneaky, devious mind anything is possible. How about another little twist? When Fudge ascended to glory in the Ministry, and assuming that it was the remaining DEs who helped to get him there, who was the mastermind for this dastardly plot? Sure as hell it wasn't Voldy, he wasn't around and very few expected him to come back. Wanna place bets on Malfoy? So is/was Fudge there to further Voldy's agenda - or Malfoy's? - which might not be the same thing at all. There is that pointed remark in the Graveyard - "Lucius, my slippery friend...[...] your exploits at the QWC were fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed towards finding and aiding your master? [...] I expect more faithful service in future." Lucius has already made one power-play - TR's diary. He must have known that the diary would cause mayhem, why else slip it into Ginny's books? And it looked for a while as if DD would be out on his ear, Hogwarts closed down, all with the connivance of the Ministry, leaving Malfoy pulling all the strings. And it appears that Diary!Tom is a different entity to Voldy (JKR won't let on what would have happened if D!T had been successful in draining the life force from Ginny - something we'll find out later, she says) My own theories regarding Possessed!Tom are compatible with this; D!T is Tom pure and simple, Tom before his mind was invaded, but Voldy is Tom plus Sally essence. The first Malfoy might be able to manipulate and influence - he's only a spiteful schoolkid after all; the second? No chance. Too powerful. While the cat's away, the mice will play. And Malfoy is playing a very dangerous game. He would much prefer that he was the puppetmaster behind the Minister, all it costs is cash - than go through all this tedious fighting stuff. After all, you can lose a war and the consequences might be a bit too permanent for his liking. Get outed (as he was in GoF) and you're still on your feet and you can try again when nobody's looking. Above all Malfoy is the survivor type. Before the end I expect him to make overtures towards DD, maybe even in the next book if it looks as if Voldy is going down the tubes or his own safety is in jeopardy. Would you trust him? "The smiler with the knife under his cloak." Bagman. Oh, yes. I fully expect that creep to turn up again, if only to get his just desserts. But he may turn up as a dangerous agent of the enemy. How would it be if he distracted Ron by offering to get him taken on as a player by the Chuddley Cannons? With Harry, Hermione and perhaps DD being against it? Could cause quite a split. Kneasy Amy here: So...I'll give you good odds on Malfoy too, but there's that sticky situation with everyone in the WW now knowing he is a deatheater. Mind you, he is still the one with the money, so what unsuspecting little wizard will he connive into doing his dirty work this time? I still think it will sink in that he is following a big mean wizard with dirty blood, and that won't set well...who knows...maybe Malfoy will get LV somehow for HP, and then the real villain will be Malfoy...I doubt it, but thought I'd throw it out there...back to my point...I just don't see LV having the following he once had. 1. He has been foiled one too many times by a kid. 2. He has been outed as afore mentioned. 3. Everyone knows there is still this white haired guy out there who cares for HP, and who LV still fears. Now,,,this will either really put a thorn in his (LV's) side, and he'll get it going himself, but as you said, he doesn't do his own master planning (or didn't) because he was incapacitated, (having an out of body experience), OR, what? I don't know, but I think Malfoy's money will fund it, or he'll try to get Malfoy Jr. in on the action in the hopes that he will live up to his Father's expectations, but...alas, he won't. He just doesn't have it in him... I guess I have come up with exactly nothing except a few haphazard guesses, and a lot of run-on sentences, but hey it's been fun! :) and oooh, I like your theory about Ron getting offered a Quidditch position...that would be a hard one for him to pass up, but personally, I hope he sees the light before he really loses his head....literally. :) - Amy From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 21 13:24:46 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:24:46 -0000 Subject: Question to the psys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116113 - Christelle wrote: snip> > I think (only based on the two times he stop someone to hurt Neville in OOTP) that he'll never accept that someone physically hurt a child. And that he doesn't consider verbal abuse like abuse, rather like a 'stop whining, I lived the same stuff and I'm still alive' stuff. Potioncat: I don't remember Snape preventing someone from hurting Neville. Can you jolt my memory? But I think you're right. I don't think Snape thinks what he does is so bad. > Christelle: > Is someone else had the feeling that Snape shouted to Harry to go out as far as possible to prevent himself to do more ill ? That he > thought "I'll kill hi...stop, POTTER. OUT. NOW!!!" Potioncat: Yes, I do too. And along the same line, I think his ignoring Harry in Potions (after the Pensieve) is a similar behavior. > Christelle: > Could one hate something in a person without realizing that one do it too? Potioncat: For Snape I think the speech about "fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves" is a prime example. Was there a reader who didn't see Snape in that description? Also, I think young Severus was like Hermione in many ways and may explain why he treats the way the does. (Then again, it might not) And I even think the quip Sirius makes about Severus knowing so much Dark Arts but James hated Dark Arts may be a similar situation. > >>Christelle: > Christelle, who want to know what could happen to the poor guy who > would try to hurt one Snape's student. Yeah, I'm thinking a Slytherin. Potioncat: I would not want to be Fred and George if Snape ever found out they shoved Montague into the vanishing cabinet...whether he deserved it or not. From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Thu Oct 21 13:46:47 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:46:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy OWLs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116114 mhbobbin wrote : You are cracking me up. Are you avoiding homework or something? I love this post. NOt to negate your fine over-analysis, But I will suggest that the mysteries in the story that relate to the Astronomy Class might not be in the skies. Lady Macbeth replies: Actually, for once, I'm NOT avoiding homework. LOL We have to do a final project for my class, and I'm thinking of analyzing the astronomy behind Harry Potter - not just his class, but character names, the centaurs' references to the stars, etc. mhbobbin wrote: Why have we never seen an Astronomy Class? A class taking place at midnite has to be interesting. Lady Macbeth replies: LOL Actually, Harry probably doesn't find it all that interesting. The mathematics are probably a bit difficult for him, and unless he has an unusual fascination with the skies (which his dislike of Divinations suggests he doesn't even have that much interest) the stars and planets would not be all that interesting. LOL It's not an unusual time of night for Astronomy. My class runs from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM, but that's because some of the students on our campus are Youth Options students (from the local high schools) and high schoolers aren't allowed to work or have classes after 10:00 PM on week days. Quite frequently our professor has expanded the practical lessons that involve the telescopes into the late-night hours - 10:00 PM to 3:00 AM, because that's the best viewing time. mhbobbin wrote: Why is the Astronomy Tower off-limits except for classes. And Would we like to know more about a Professor with the name of Sinistra? Lady Macbeth replies: Good questions on both of those! Sinistra's name may refer to the science/measurement aspect more than a subjective aspect of her name. Our observatory on campus is open to the public every third Thursday all winter for public viewing sessions, and it's open to Astronomy students as long as we go and tell the professor we want to use it. It's locked up the rest of the time mostly for the safety of the telescopes. mhbobbin wrote: I still don't understand how/why Harry confuses the planets? ARe there any theories about that detail? Lady Macbeth replies: If he weren't paying attention to detail, it'd be a relatively easy mistake to make. I noted that Jupiter was actually the most prominent object in the sky that night, which is what most people mistake for Venus. Mars shines with a bright red lustre because of the color of its surface while Venus alternates between bright yellow and white depending on how the sun is hitting it. Jupiter likewise appears white, but mostly because of its huge distance from Earth; the color bands are lost to the naked eye, but can be seen even with moderate telescopes. Had he been looking at Jupiter through the telescope, he would have also likely seen one or more of the Gailean Moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto - the four that he should have known for his Astronomy theory exam earlier in the day), so he would have been able to identify that one readily. On a side note, from an ASTROLOGICAL approach, I found the fact that agressive, warrior Mars was in Leo that night very interesting, considering that a former Gryffindor (Hagrid) and the Head of Gryffindor (McGonagall) were both attacked that night. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 21 14:01:37 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:01:37 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I had been thinking. As some posters probably know, I don't find Voldemort to be a very convincing villain. Oh, sure , I hate what he stands for , because JKR tells us so, but as a character I don't have strong feelings about him. > Hmm...well, if I understand the argument you've been making on the Lupin as metaphor thread, then it's no wonder you don't find Voldemort scary, because his greatest power is one that you don't acknowledge. You said, I believe, that there is a line decent people won't cross. IMO, the scary thing about Voldemort is that he's very good at getting decent people to cross that line. As Sirius says, "he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves."--GoF 27. Like Sauron's ring, he has the power to corrupt people of strength and good purpose. Look at Ginny. She didn't know what she was doing at first but she knew the Diary was dangerous when she threw it away. Yet she stole it back, willingly putting herself into the power of Slytherin's Heir. Her belief that no decent person could be made to do what she'd already done made her think no decent person could forgive her. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 14:15:43 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:15:43 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116116 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > IMO, the scary thing about Voldemort is that he's very good at > getting decent people to cross that line. As Sirius says, > "he can control people so that they do terrible things without > being able to stop themselves."--GoF 27. Like Sauron's ring, he > has the power to corrupt people of strength and good purpose. > > > Look at Ginny. She didn't know what she was doing at first but > she knew the Diary was dangerous when she threw it away. Yet > she stole it back, willingly putting herself into the power of > Slytherin's Heir. Her belief that no decent person could be made > to do what she'd already done made her think no decent person > could forgive her. > Alla: Good point. I actually find Tom Riddle to be quite scary, more scary than Vodemort. I don't feel that they are one and the same. What he did to Ginny was horrible , but from the writing I don't feel that Voldemort can do the same, even despite him actually possessing Harry at the end of OOP. I don't think that Ginny was really doing anything WILLINGLY in CoS, despite her saying to the contrary. I think Tom messed up with her head a lot. I think there is a line decent people won't cross ON THEIR OWN. Threats of torture or threats to their loved ones, or possession do not count. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Oct 21 14:33:04 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:33:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004801c4b77a$e12ccfc0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 116117 Meri: Like I said above, the minions are the ones that are frightening, and also interesting. I always thought that Denethor and Boromir in LotR were far more compelling vilians than Sauron, just because they were so human, just like I can care about Darth Vader's fall and redemption. I just can't see LV having a Vader like redemtion scene, but then again JK has surprised us before! Meri Sherry now: I agree. I never thought Voldemort was anything like Vader. Vader had a loving home till he was ten and then went to study to become a Jedi. His anger took over, when he was an adult, and his mother was kidnapped tortured and died. Very different circumstances from Tom Riddle/Voldemort. I see Voldemort almost like a force of evil, as sauron, rather than particularly evil himself. Yes, I know Sauron was evil, but his followers were deadly. He's not scary in any way to me, except in what his minions will do for him. I find him the most boring character in the whole series. I am not one bit interested in what made him go bad. I don't care if he's ever redeemed. The less book time given over to Tom's poor childhood and making excuses for him because of that, the happier I'll be. The deatheaters are scary, because they actually do things, torture, murder, betrayal. If there's a puppet master, it's Voldemort, but he's not a very clever or smart one, except in knowing how to use the weaknesses of others to get them to do his will. Sherry G From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 15:18:22 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:18:22 -0000 Subject: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy OWLs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116118 wrote: > > > Orion would not have been visible. On this date (and for quite a while > surrounding this date) Orion was rising during the daylight hours, > approximately 7:00 AM. > Venus was also not visible. Venus was the "Morning Star" during this time, > rising around 3:00 AM. Neri: Thanks for this (over) analysis, Lady Macbeth :-) . Taking the job of JKR's lawyer in this matter, I have a simple explanation: Wizard telescopes are magical, and can see stars and planets below the horizon! Either that, or Harry got a T in his astronomy OWL... Neri From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 15:42:45 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:42:45 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Do you guys find that JKR's villains or I should qualify, Death > Eaters are scary? DEs yeah, Voldemort, no. However, I think Tom Riddle was scary. Very scary. And here, IMHO, is why: No one thinks that they're evil. Evil is too nebulous a trait to yourself in a serious way. It's a trait that we apply to Others, 'Others' with a capital 'O', as in not us, not connected with us, not of us... Insiders and Outsiders. We fear the unknown and, since we know and understand ourselves, we fear "Outside". But when we're given a character with traits you can relate to, we start to understand them and they stop being "Other". We understand. It doesn't mean we like or empathizing, just that we can't discount their humanity anymore. And we really want to de-humanize what we hate, evil, what isn't Us. De-humanizing something makes it "safer", since it means it couldn't apply to Us. But by linking it so something we can understand, it sneaks it under our defensive radar. I'm not sure I'm making a damn bit of sense--we're out of coffee, so my brain is decaffeinated. But I think JKR is drawing a line between in-group/out-group mentality, de-humanizing and bigotry. --Frugalarugala, who truly hopes that the series ends with something to do with finding the Tom Riddle in the self-de-humanizing Voldemort. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 21 16:00:26 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:00:26 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: <001901c4b721$41bee5d0$1502a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116120 Debbie: > There may be an idealized vision of Lupin in which he is too good to be resentful, but there's no evidence of that Lupin in canon. Lupin's suggestion to Neville of how to humiliate Snape's boggart is a perfect example of how Lupin could exact revenge against Snape despite his relative powerlessness. But Revengeful!Lupin doesn't lead to ESE!Lupin. Just look at the Twins, who reserve their most devastating stunts for those who, in Harry's words, "really deserve it," yet no one believes they are evil. Pippin: We may be slightly at cross purposes here. I've never said that because Lupin has minor character flaws he must be ESE!. My argument was with those who say that because he has only minor character flaws, he *can't* be ESE. JKR has already shown us that minor character flaws can lead to major lapses in judgment, and we agree that Lupin made one of those when he kept back the information he had about Sirius. Though Lupin could honestly say that he wasn't helping Sirius get into the castle, he certainly wasn't doing all in his power to keep him out. That amounts to a betrayal of Dumbledore, as Lupin himself admits. We've already seen that Voldemort can analyze people's characters and lure them into making bad decisions. We've seen people keep making bad decisions because the consequences of admitting the first one was poor would be so painful. The argument was that Lupin must be spared this trap, because if he showed such poor judgment it would justify the persecution of werewolves. It's as if when Harry screws up it's because he's only human, but if Lupin did, it would be because he's a werewolf. That's demeaning, IMO. Debbie: >Why would Lupin betray James, one of the friends who gave him the best times of his life, and who saved Lupin from possible catastrophe when he pulled Snape back in the tunnel? Even if he distrusted Sirius after the prank, there was no reason for him to betray James.< Pippin: Why did Lupin betray Dumbledore in PoA? Because he thought he already had. Could the same thing have happened with James? I don't know, but I don't see how it can be ruled out. If Lupin saw a choice between giving Voldemort information that would save Lily, and admitting to James that he had done something James might never forgive, what would he do? Lupin is another person who knows an awful lot about the dark arts...and James always hated them. Interesting, eh? Debbie: It would be really pointless if he turned out to be just another DE, but a glimpse of the desperate straits our attitudes force upon the disabled (mental or physical) and the Hobson's choices they have to make, is something different altogether, and unique among the characters in HP.< Pippin: All the villains are unique -- it's one of the things that puts the story a cut above others in its genre. Each of them has their own story and their own unique motive for joining Voldemort. They're not clones. Pippin From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Oct 21 16:01:27 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:01:27 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116121 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Renee: > Whatever Lupin's status, Peter still remains a traitor; the real > tragedy lies way back. (By the way, Sirius might have had mercy > on Peter if Peter had asked him forgiveness - which he never > does.) > > Pippin: > > He never gets a chance. Sirius roars him into silence and tells > him he should have died, then raises his wand to carry out the > sentence. Renee: Come on! Peter denies everything for no less than four pages, trying to convince the others Sirius is the guilty party. When this fails, he starts to crawl, cower and beg for mercy, still without admitting anything or saying he's sorry. Then Sirius asks him explicitly if he denies being guilty and wait for his answer. At that moment, Peter could have confessed and asked forgiveness, but instead, he begins to come up with excuses for his actions. After Sirius' question he gets *three* opportunities to react before Sirius and Lupin raise their wands, but all he does is claim that surrendering to Voldemort was inevitable. Pippin: > But I do find it extremely curious that Peter, who is > supposed to know a spell that will kill thirteen people at once, > merely stuns Ron and runs away. No one knew he was there, > Sirius was present to take the blame just like before...why not > blow them all up, leave Lupin's wand in Sirius's maimed hand, > and run for it? > Renee: I can think of several explanations. It could be too difficult a curse to cast with someone else's wand. Or he didn't think people would believe Sirius had blown himself up - after all, that's not what Sirius did when he "killed" Pettigrew and all those Muggles, is it? Maybe he was afraid that one of his victims would come back as a ghost to accuse him... Or maybe he doesn't have a reason to wreak havoc as long as Voldemort isn't re-embodied. (After all, he could have killed Harry many times over in the Gryffindor dorm, but he doesn't.) And lastly, the plot-device answer: maybe JKR couldn't have Harry die, just like she couldn't have Lupin transform until the moonlight actually hit him. Pippin: > LOL! No, I expect ESE!Lupin to be outed in Book 7, probably in > the final chapters. I expect him to die at the hand (literally) of > redeemed Peter P, who will no doubt perish himself in the task. > ESE!Lupin is a mystery plot theory, not a textual subversion > except insofar as it is subversive to try and guess the outcome of > a mystery story while it is still in progress, and I will cheerfully > abandon it to AU fanfiction if it doesn't pan out. > Renee: Well, at least we agree that book 6 won't bring the answer yet! Renee From kethryn at wulfkub.com Thu Oct 21 16:02:55 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:02:55 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116122 To return to Sirius (and Lupin): Harry may have been protecting them on the "sentimental" grounds that his father would not have wanted them to commit murder, and I admit he knows nothing at this point about the Killing Curse, but he instinctively realizes that they would have been guilty not of killing someone in self-defense but of murdering, two against one, an unarmed man. As for Lupin, equally willing to kill his former friend for betraying the Potters and framing Sirius, it's hard to understand his motivation. Solidarity with Sirius? Or is he once again afraid to stand up and do the right thing? Evidently, he has to be shown what's right by a thirteen-year-old boy. And what of his future? Endless guilt and remorse or a soul corrupted by the AK so that he, like Barty Jr. and the young Tom Riddle, is on his way to becoming irredeemably evil? At best, a lonely existence in Azkaban with Dementors for company and his own monthly transformations into a werewolf with no wolfsbane potion to soothe the pain. Carol, who still can't figure out *what* Lupin was thinking Kethryn now ? Sorry about cutting so much out of the arguments that you have presented but, as they did not pertain to what I'm going to get into, it is best that they were left off. Why are people so willing to cut Sirius some slack because he was in prison for 12 years but not willing to cut Lupin some slack on his full moon days? It seems to me that Lupin hasn't had it any easier than Sirius has; loosing all three of his best friends, not being able to keep a job for long, plus being a werewolf at least one day out of the month. I suppose that you can argue that the man should be used to it by now...I'd hate to think of that as just being something to get used to, myself. Ok, so picture this. It's the night of the full moon and, as soon as you see the moon, you are going to turn into a werewolf. Do you think that would lead to rational adult behavior on your part? I happen to believe that, as the full moon approaches, a werewolf looses more and more of his/her humanity without actually turning into the wolf state. Or, in other words, Lupin is under the heavy influence of the werewolf at this stage of the moon and is having to fight the impulses to shed off the rest of his humanity. It's a war, one that he wages each month, but this month, there is a little thing called finding the person responsible for murdering his best friend and framing the other one to tip the scales. His humanity, his morality, go right out the window and he lets the wolf take over, mentally. Therefore, while I believe that Lupin is responsible for some of his actions, I also believe that he was not in his right mind at the time and can thusly be excused from wanting to commit murder. I don't think that Lupin wanted to show solidarity with Sirius or that he was afraid to do the right thing, I think he was WAY beyond those complicated concepts and was, instead, acting on primal urges. Or, in other words, the brain was disconnected from the body Finally, how many of us have wanted to kill someone at one time or another? I know I have. Does that make me immoral or just human? Personally, I don't think it's immoral until you act on it Kethryn who is terribly glad she isn't a werewolf... From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Oct 21 16:10:51 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:10:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > *Message 39562 Renee: PS: this was fun to read - but could you give me the message number for the revised ESE!Lupin theory, Pippin? I'm not sure I've seen all the revisions. Renee From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 16:18:03 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:18:03 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > Renee: > > Sorry, but you're not on. :) We may not find out in Book 6. In > fact, we may not even find out in book Seven. I wouldn't be > surprised if the adherents of the ESE!Lupin theory will still be > able to maintain they were right at the end of the series: ESE! > Lupin, though unable to prevent Voldemort's demise despite his > clever machinations, has succeeded in remaining undetected and goes > on pretending to be the nice guy while secretly plotting to take > over the Wizarding World and establish a werewolf dictatorship. Dropping the quasi-TBAY format... This is certainly *possible*, but ESE!Lupin is of the sort of theory that's less interpretation than speculation, and thus lives on the eventual 'yea' or 'nay'. What *is* eminently possible is to get some sort of character information in book 6 that could drive some strong wedges into the theory--even if we don't get a complete resolution then. I'm too lazy to come up with some things off the bat, but I'm sure Pippin, who has assiduously reworked the theory every time challenges come up, can think of something that would be genuinely damaging--without Revealing All. Momus will be ready and waiting to be arbiter, when the time comes... -Nora has the nagging suspicion that JKR doesn't find the same things screwy and suspicious that we do--and this should be examined... From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 16:20:33 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:20:33 -0000 Subject: NOW Who Knows the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116125 I was quite astonished at the end of OotP to see Dumbledore lay out Trelawney's prophesy in full during his explainations of the previous year's events to Harry. Dumbledore KNEW that Harry had failed to master occlumency, and yet he went ahead and spilled the very beans that Voldemort had most of his top DEs scrambling to obtain. Doesn't this possibly mean that Voldemort now knows the entire prophesy now as well, given his mental bonds with Harry? I was deeply croggled by all of this. Did I possibly miss something? -cunning spirit From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 16:21:26 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041021162126.18822.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116126 Alla wrote : >I am not saying mind you that yelling is my favourite form of communication :) >But once in a blue moon, especially if my friend is in distress, I see nothing wrong with it."<< Del replied: >Well, I don't really see anything wrong with it either, except when people obviously abuse it or enjoy it, which Harry wasn't doing. I know that Harry's reaction is a normal one, that many teenagers react that way, and that it was in fact healthy for him to yell and vent. I know that, but I can't deal with it. I can't take it. >As I said many times already, this is *my* problem, but it is a big one. I actively avoid people who get too easily angry in RL, so having to put up with Angry!Harry was (and still is) a real ordeal. But JKR writes her story, not mine :-)<< Kim adds: Does anyone else think that Harry may be suffering in part from delayed PTSD, in addition to the recent kicking in of teenage angst and hormones? That is, if wizards can suffer from PTSD... Even with the mood swings and yelling, I see Harry as an incredibly resilient and fair-minded character when all is said and done. His situation broke my heart, from the time I read the first book to the finish of OotP. If someone told me of a child in RL that had undergone what Harry had and was then still expected to summon the fortitude to go on and fight the murderer of his parents again, I'd be floored. When I told my aunt his story (she's not into reading the books, but was interested in hearing my synopsis of them) she was nearly in tears. Then again, my family could be characterized as a just a tad over-emotional :-) Kim Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From oppen at mycns.net Thu Oct 21 16:45:07 2004 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:45:07 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116127 As usual, I have my own individual take on what the right thing to do in the Shrieking Shack was. I'd have spared Pettigrew...but purely because _alive,_ he could testify and serve as living proof of Sirius' innocence. He could always be made dead _later._ As long as he's alive, though, I'd imagine that Dumbledore (or Real-Moody) would be able to get the truth out of him...albeit without all those bad war-movie schticks I so love: "You haff maybe relativezz livink in Hogsmeade?" I think that approach could also have been used to get Snape on- side: "Look, Professor, _this_ way you can be a Big Hero. You and I bring in Pettigrew---to whom you do owe some payback, I believe---and not only do _you_ get the Order of Merlin once everything's out in the open, but once Sirius Black's exonerated, _he'll know he owes it all to you,_ which, if I read him right (and I bet I do) will heap coals of fire on his head every day of his life!" One thing that a lot of people who've posted on this subject seem to forget, IMO, is that the Wizard World is _tough_ in a way we've mostly forgotten how to be. They'd be utterly amazed at our aversion to risk..."Of course Quidditch is risky! That's half the fun! And dragons are perfectly safe if you know what you're doing!" In the old days, public executions were popular spectator sights, and corporal punishment was the norm in schools, the armed services, and (on an informal basis) on the job---mouth off to your supervisor in the factory and you'd be spitting out teeth, no error. In their cultural isolation, the poor Wizards have not realized that Risk is Wrong, nor that Revenge is Always Wrong---they're still in the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" stage of things. --Eric, who'd post more often if his OE was working better, and who can always be swayed by practical, pragmatic arguments where abstract morality leaves him cold. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 21 16:47:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:47:59 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116128 HELP!!!!! I CAN'T KEEP UP! Isn't there ANYBODY ELSE out there who works full-time, has a family, is involved in the community, and just can't stay caught up?? Am I the only one?!? AAARGH!!!! There. I feel better now. Let's see. I need to do something to make this on-topic and not just a major vent, so.... Back to Minerva, if I may. I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between Professors McGonagall & Snape. Is there real respect there or is it grudging? What about affection? Is the Quidditch/House rivalry friendly or filled with animosity? Does MM trust SS to be fair? Does she trust him the way DD does? Do they drink hot chocolate, eat biscuits & chat about students together in the teacher's lounge? Siriusly Snapey Susan P.S. Any strategies for finding an extra two hours per day to read HPfGU posts would be welcomed! From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:07:11 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041021170711.9402.qmail@web54109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116129 Pippin wrote: >IMO, the scary thing about Voldemort is that he's very good at getting decent people to cross that line. As Sirius says, "he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves."--GoF 27. Like Sauron's ring, he has the power to corrupt people of strength and good purpose. >Look at Ginny. She didn't know what she was doing at first but she knew the Diary was dangerous when she threw it away. Yet she stole it back, willingly putting herself into the power of Slytherin's Heir. Her belief that no decent person could be made to do what she'd already done made her think no decent person could forgive her.< Alla replied: >Good point. I actually find Tom Riddle to be quite scary, more scary than Voldemort. I don't feel that they are one and the same. What he did to Ginny was horrible, but from the writing I don't feel that Voldemort can do the same, even despite him actually possessing Harry at the end of OOP.< >I don't think that Ginny was really doing anything WILLINGLY in CoS,despite her saying to the contrary. I think Tom messed up with her head a lot.< >I think there is a line decent people won't cross ON THEIR OWN. Threats of torture or threats to their loved ones, or possession do not count.<< Hi. Kim here: I agree, I think. If I'm on the same wavelength, I think that LV is such an obvious villain that he loses a little power as a result. In other words, in his case, you at least know what you're dealing with. You can see it in his physical appearance and he also doesn't hide his intentions. OTOH, Tom Riddle was scarier because his image was that of a young man (also good-looking?) and by offering the confidence of his diary he was able to pull little Ginny under his control (though I also think we need to cut her some slack for simply being just a child under the influence of an older child, Tom Riddle, albeit in the form of a personality in a diary). TR even managed to fool Harry til almost the very end. I think when it comes to evil, people are often not able to "read between the lines" if someone speaks in a superficially normal, reasonable, or pleasant manner, and are often fooled by a pretty face, so to speak, into giving credit where it actually isn't due. In Voldemort's case though, I'd say he does have the very scary ability to appeal to the indecency of certain adults -- those too greedy, power-hungry, weak, etc. to resist his offers of power or his threats of punishment. Unfortunately in the real world, that may be all it takes to win some adults over, and it looks like the wizarding world is not much different. Then again, if LV uses the Imperius curse, only a really strong person, decency besides the point, may be able to resist him (for example, Harry was the only one in his class who could resist Moody!Barty Crouch when he used the Imperius). Kim (who gets scared just thinking about the TRs, LVs, and DEs out here in the real world) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:14:10 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:14:10 -0000 Subject: Are TWO People Carrying the Soul of TR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116130 > wrote: > > Now, in light of the Soul-of-Tom theory, what if we now have TWO > vessels carrying the > > human part of the LV construct? Not to spill into a SHIP > conversation, but what if it is some > > sort of connection--magical or otherwise--between Harry and Ginny > that heals this soul > > and allows it ("the other" of the prophecy) to destroy LV? > > > > Just a thought. I haven't really considered all of the > ramifications.... > > I know this is a bit far fetched but what if the love between Ginny > and Harry is what ends up defeating LV. Like Harry falls for Ginny > and she is in some mortal danger or is attacked by LV. Then Harry > goes to sacrifice himself to save her and the act of love triggers > the soul parts to leave them and make LV fully human and killable. > Like no one can kill LV fully as long as the pieces of his soul are > scattered without taking the ones that have it with him, but when he > gets them back then he can be killed. > > This would explain the questions JKR posed of why LV didn't die and > why DD didn't try and kill him if he knows this. > > I know he risks himself to save her in CoS but he wasn't in love with > her it was out of friendship with Ron more then anything else. > > Brent Antosha: I'll buy this on a couple of levels. First of all, the Harry/Ginny ship is looking very cute to me these days, for some reason. But your idea has two non-ship pieces of great merit to it. First of all, I like the idea of a second sacrifice--preferably by Harry, since his life is owed to just such a sacrifice--being the catalyst to destroy LV. And second of all, as you point out, JKR has been asking us to consider why LV didn't die... WHAT IF THE DIARY wasn't so much an attempt to keep his memories alive--I mean, what sixteen year old is going to be thinking that far ahead?-- but rather the first stage in his experiments to fly from death (vol de mort)? That portion of TR held within Ginny could, as we're theorizing, come into play. Antosha, who persists in claiming that he is an equal-opportunity shipper From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:19:27 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:19:27 -0000 Subject: NOW Who Knows the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cunning_spirit" wrote: > > I was quite astonished at the end of OotP to see Dumbledore lay out Trelawney's prophesy > in full during his explainations of the previous year's events to Harry. Dumbledore KNEW > that Harry had failed to master occlumency, and yet he went ahead and spilled the very > beans that Voldemort had most of his top DEs scrambling to obtain. Doesn't this possibly > mean that Voldemort now knows the entire prophesy now as well, given his mental bonds > with Harry? I was deeply croggled by all of this. Did I possibly miss something? > > -cunning spirit Antosha: Three separate thoughts occur to me. 1) DD doesn't care; it's time for Harry to know. 2) DD _WANTS_ LV to hear the rest of the Prophecy, for reasons that elude me, but which, knowing JKR's devious mind, I can imagine. 3) DD is feeling secure that LV won't try to peak into Harry's brain for the moment--he got rather badly hurt the last time he tried, and DD plans some sort of remedial occlumency program over the summer. It could be any or all of these. Of course, we know the summer isn't going to go smoothly, so things may end up getting messy for exactly the reason you just threw out there. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:19:11 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:19:11 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important - Harry's Anger In-Reply-To: <20041021162126.18822.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, kim reynolds > Kim adds: > > Does anyone else think that Harry may be suffering in part from delayed PTSD, in addition to the recent kicking in of teenage angst and hormones? That is, if wizards can suffer from PTSD... > > Even with the mood swings and yelling, I see Harry as an incredibly resilient and fair-minded character when all is said and done. His situation broke my heart, from the time I read the first book to the finish of OotP. If someone told me of a child in RL that had undergone what Harry had and was then still expected to summon the fortitude to go on and fight the murderer of his parents again, I'd be floored. When I told my aunt his story (she's not into reading the books, but was interested in hearing my synopsis of them) she was nearly in tears. Then again, my family could be characterized as a just a tad over-emotional :-) Alla: Oh, yes, of course. I do think so. But this goes back to our discussion about very wierd absense of mind healers from WW medical system. Harry witnesses the murder of the classmate, no doubt severely traumatised by that and what does Dumbledore do to help him? Oh, yes, sends him back to Dursleys. Fine, he is safer there, but how about at least sending another adult to Mrs. Figg's House and letting Harry talk to him once in a while? (I am thinking - Sirius, of course, but really, anybody except Snape will do, I think :o)) Another smart decision of Dumbledore. Moreover, he tells Ron and Hermione NOT to tell Harry anything of importance of what is happening to them and WW. Yes, way to calm the boy down, Headmaster. Many people will benefit from Mind Healer's help in Potterverse. Snape, after werewolf incident, Sirius after Azkaban, etc., etc. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:23:12 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:23:12 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116133 Eric: > I think that approach could also have been used to get Snape on- > side: "Look, Professor, _this_ way you can be a Big Hero. You and I > bring in Pettigrew---to whom you do owe some payback, I believe--- and > not only do _you_ get the Order of Merlin once everything's out in > the open, but once Sirius Black's exonerated, _he'll know he owes it > all to you,_ which, if I read him right (and I bet I do) will heap > coals of fire on his head every day of his life!" Alla: I love that. Unfortunately, NO ONE was thinking rationally in the Shreiking Shack, IMO, absolutely no one. Emotions were at all time high (that is why I love this scene so much) and of course Harry did not have time to think about best approach to Snape. I love Harry for insisting to bring Pettigrew to justice, but I tend to side with Dzeytoun - so many problems could have been avoided if he was killed right away. From hautbois1 at comcast.net Thu Oct 21 17:27:31 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:27:31 -0000 Subject: NOW Who Knows the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116134 cunning spirit said: Doesn't this possibly mean that Voldemort now knows the entire prophesy now as well, given his mental bonds with Harry? I was deeply croggled by all of this. Did I possibly miss something? Hmmm, very intersting. Being the conspiricy theorist I am, I wonder if Dumbledore actually expected this. Either in a "bring VWII to a quick end" or in that DD knows a part of the prophesy that we didn't hear, and that was not told to Harry for this very reason. We never did hear the prophesy from the orb itself, only from a memory. And, as we all know, "powerful magical objects" (ie GoF and pensieves) can be fenagled with...hmmmmmmm Patrick From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:27:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:27:40 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116135 Kneasy: > For once we agree. Alla: Miracles do happen once in while. :o) Kneasy: > Villain!Voldy is a bumbling incompetent - but unfortunately he has to > be or Harry couldn't possibly win. > Most unsatisfactory; the Evil Overlord curse strikes again. > Mind you, it could be that you'll find that there are a surprising number > of fans that are quite happy with Voldy the way he is; that was my > impression reading the responses to two posts (108316 & 109355) > that had a disgruntled look at Voldy's actions and his attitudes respectively. > > And most readers expect Harry to win in a fairly conventional way. Alla: Well, I am not happy with Voldie the way he is as a character, and I think that Harry could be made to win in a same way, even if Voldie will be a stronger villain . I am one of those who thinks that L word will play a major part in Harry's victory, so I don't see how it matters whether Voldie is cartoonish or not. I suppose come to think of it JKR does portray some evil fairly convincingly - some DE are very scary, same with TR. I just wish Voldemort could be the same way. From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:32:05 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:32:05 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Posts, was SHIP: Ginny/Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116136 > I sure hope they do end up together but I wanted to let you know > about Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them (on the home page, > scroll down). Once there you'll find a section that discusses > various romantic pairings. There are a number of posts (with their > numbers so you can read the threads). Lots of interesting reading at > FP&WtFT! > ~tina Antosha: FP&WtFT is, indeed, a wonderful resource, and I spent many hours poking around there when I first came into the group, but.... As near as I can tell, the Fantastic Posts site doesn't seem to have been updated in quite a while. Yes, there are some terrific links, but most (if not all) of them seem to predate OotP. There's no mention, for instance, of Luna Lovegood, or of Dolores Umbridge, both rather important new secondary characters. No mention is made on the Sirius page of Sirius's death. O.O The shipping page discusses much of interest, but all of it without reference to the most recent book. It would be really nifty if the pages were updated. Not that I'm volunteering for the job... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 17:32:55 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:32:55 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > HELP!!!!! I CAN'T KEEP UP! > > Isn't there ANYBODY ELSE out there who works full-time, has a family, > is involved in the community, and just can't stay caught up?? Am I > the only one?!? AAARGH!!!! > > There. I feel better now. Alla: Deep breath, Susan, deep breath. :o) Seriously though, I tend to skip the topics I am not interested in. Of course if you are interested in ALL topics my strategy will not help you much. Susan: > I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between > Professors McGonagall & Snape. > > Is there real respect there or is it grudging? > What about affection? > Is the Quidditch/House rivalry friendly or filled with animosity? > Does MM trust SS to be fair? > Does she trust him the way DD does? > Do they drink hot chocolate, eat biscuits & chat about students > together in the teacher's lounge? Alla: For all my bashing of Snape, I am fairly convinced that McGonagall respects him. I think they have healthy house rivalry relationship going on (if only their students could do the same) We have the end of OOP, where Snape seems to be almost pleased to see McGonagall back. We hear McGonagall saying that she could not look Snape in the eye for a week after Quidditch loss. I would not go as far as talk about affection. The most interesting question for me is whether McGonagall trusts Snape to be fair. We NEVER hear her say that. What does it mean, I don't know. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 21 18:10:42 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:10:42 -0000 Subject: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy OWLs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lady Macbeth" wrote: > mhbobbin wrote: > Why is the Astronomy Tower off-limits except for classes. > And Would we like to know more about a Professor with the name of > Sinistra? > > Lady Macbeth replies: > Good questions on both of those! Sinistra's name may refer to the > science/measurement aspect more than a subjective aspect of her name. Geoff: Perhaps it's just because she's left-handed.... :-) From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 18:23:07 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:23:07 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116139 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between > Professors McGonagall & Snape. > > Is there real respect there or is it grudging? > What about affection? > Is the Quidditch/House rivalry friendly or filled with animosity? > Does MM trust SS to be fair? > Does she trust him the way DD does? > Do they drink hot chocolate, eat biscuits & chat about students > together in the teacher's lounge? Frugala: I think MM and SS have one of the more interesting relationships in the school. We aren't given enough (in my oppinion) to go on but, in a way, they must have as much history as Snape and Dumbledore--MM was the one directly in charge of the Marauders, and judging from her handling of the trio and the Weasley twins, while she may not know everything that goes on, she's not oblivious either. And she's FAIR. I don't think she approved of their behavior toward Snape, though I doubt she reolized how far it went. What I wonder is, does she reolize *now*? I think Snape's oppinion of her shows in that, as bitter as he seems about his school days, he doesn't seem bitter toward her. As far as her towards him, I think a lot would hinge on how much DD has told her for his reason for trusting Snape, and the degree that she trusts DD judgement--she does question his decisions privately at times (the very first scene...)--and how much *Snape* has opened up to her. We just haven't been shown how great a role MM actually plays and how much she's privy too. For example, she's deputy headmistress but what position does she hold in the Order? Neither of these people are warm and cuddly. Attitude-wise, they actually have a lot in common--both are stern, formal, highly skilled in their feilds. As far as chatting over chocolate... maybe. As least as much as is normal with Hogwarts staff. But I'd be more inclined to imagine a bitch session about Dumbledore. Any discussion of the relationship between them really has to take Dumbledore into account. He's in a position of authority over both of them, and is manipulating situations which they both then have to deal with. Since DD still acts (biasly) like he's head of Gryffindor, and given her personality, I can't imagine DD's bias on *her* house's account doesn't grate on her. Yeah, I can picture them kicking back (as much as either of those two kick back) and venting about Dumbledore. Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > P.S. Any strategies for finding an extra two hours per day to read > HPfGU posts would be welcomed! Time-turner! I've got one I found in kitchenwares but it doesn't work... damn those muggles and their electrical interference! From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 21 18:23:32 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:23:32 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: <004801c4b77a$e12ccfc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Meri: > Like I said above, the minions are the ones that are > frightening, and also interesting. I always thought that Denethor > and Boromir in LotR were far more compelling vilians than Sauron, > just because they were so human, just like I can care about Darth > Vader's fall and redemption. Geoff: I don't consider Boromir to be a villain. He thought that the Ring would give him the answer to saving Minas Tirith and Gondor but didn't realise the strength of its corrupting influence until it was too late. Denethor tried to do something similar with the Palantir and was lured into seeing Sauron as all-powerful and unable to be beaten and, as a result, descended into despair and madness. My comparison with Voldemort, apart fom Sauron himself, would be Saruman. A man of great wisdom who was seduced by the thought of holding power over people and who pawned his greatness and his standing with the peoples of Middle Earth for a tawdry pseudo- relationship with the great arch-enemy of Arda, Sauron himself. Riddle sought power and pawned his potential greatness for unadulterated selfishness and pseudo-immortality. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 18:31:26 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:31:26 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116141 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > > I suppose come to think of it JKR does portray some evil fairly > convincingly - some DE are very scary, same with TR. I just wish > Voldemort could be the same way. Oh. Not for me. TR is just a snide teenager, most of the DEs are fairly standard heavies - thuggish rather than evil, and Bella - well, in the past I've had girl-friends that were more frightening than she is. More could be made of other characters, I think. Am I the only one that sees more than a touch of Uriah Heap in Ollivander? or O'Brien (from 1984) in Lucius? Kneasy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 18:33:16 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:33:16 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116142 > Geoff: > I don't consider Boromir to be a villain. He thought that the Ring > would give him the answer to saving Minas Tirith and Gondor but > didn't realise the strength of its corrupting influence until it was > too late. Denethor tried to do something similar with the Palantir > and was lured into seeing Sauron as all-powerful and unable to be > beaten and, as a result, descended into despair and madness. Alla: Ooo, me neither. I love Boromir. Here is the guy who deserves to be pitied and respected at the end. He had no evil intentions in mind. To bring it back on topic, I wish Snape would turn out to be similar character, but I doubt it. I speculate that he at least partially knew what Voldie and DE stand for when he joined, but I would LOVE to be proved wrong on this one From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 18:35:37 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:35:37 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Oh. > Not for me. > > TR is just a snide teenager, most of the DEs are fairly standard > heavies - thuggish rather than evil, and Bella - well, in the past > I've had girl-friends that were more frightening than she is. > > More could be made of other characters, I think. > > Am I the only one that sees more than a touch of Uriah Heap in > Ollivander? or O'Brien (from 1984) in Lucius? > Alla: I am not saying that they cannot be scarier, just that they are scary enough. For snide teenager Riddle did a pretty good job with Ginny's mind , don't you think? Innocent child became an unwilling dispenser of evil in Hogwarts. I think Riddle is OK as villain From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 19:19:10 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:19:10 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116144 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I am not saying that they cannot be scarier, just that they are scary > enough. > > For snide teenager Riddle did a pretty good job with Ginny's mind , > don't you think? > > Innocent child became an unwilling dispenser of evil in Hogwarts. I > think Riddle is OK as villain I'd expect something a bit meatier. What, after all, did Ginny do? Open the Chamber, strangle a couple of chickens and write on the wall a couple of times, guided the Basilisk to a few victims, none of whom died or suffered more than temporary inconvenience, not even Ginny. For a supposedly force for evil, it all seems a bit, well, transient. As you stated originally, the villains do leave a lot to be desired. Kneasy From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 21 19:26:16 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:26:16 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116145 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > In the old days, public executions were popular spectator sights, and corporal punishment was the norm in schools, the armed services, and (on an informal basis) on the job---mouth off to your supervisor in the factory and you'd be spitting out teeth, no error. In their cultural isolation, the poor Wizards have not realized that Risk is Wrong, nor that Revenge is Always Wrong---they're still in the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" stage of things. < Pippin: It seems public executions are not a common spectator sight for children in the WW at present, since few in Harry's fifth year class can see the thestrals. It's a theme carried through the book, beginning with Snape's threat to poison Neville's toad, that violent death is not a fit sight for children's eyes -- or indeed for anyone's unless it cannot be avoided. Sirius does know that revenge is always wrong, and that informal justice is not just -- he says that Moody always brought people in alive where possible and that not to do so would have brought him down to the level of the Death Eaters. He's also very bitter about not having had a trial. Dumbledore also says that James wouldn't have wanted Peter killed, which is as good as JKR saying "You may think Peter deserved to die, but take it from me, there's more coming." Sirius is obviously unbalanced, but barring ESE!Lupin, I'm as mystified as anyone that Lupin wanted to execute Peter. Even if there was a trial and Peter got off, why should he think that Peter was going to run off and rejoin Voldemort? Sirius himself says that it was unlikely to happen unless there were signs that Voldemort was stirring again. Here's something else that bothers me. At the beginning of GoF, Peter tries to persuade Voldebabe that he should be allowed to go fetch another wizard, and Voldebabe thinks this is a plan to desert him. But that is very strange. Voldebabe is very weak, so weak that he cannot survive in that form more than a few hours without feeding. Surely all Wormtail would have to do is wait, and within a few hours Voldebabe would be too weak to hold a wand. What, or who, compels Wormtail to stay? Voldemort says later on in the graveyard that Wormtail returned to him only out of fear of his old friends. Yet it seems Wormtail thinks he could have left, if only Voldemort gave him permission. Why, if his old friends are hunting him...they wouldn't care if he had Voldie's permission, right? Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 21 19:29:44 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:29:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116146 Del: > Building on the recent threads of "this is Harry's story", I'm > wondering about what new experiences Harry might have to go through. > According to JKR (paraphrase), if Harry knew what's in store for > him, he would run and hide. So I'm wondering what could be so > horrible. > > Physical pain ? Well, I don't know for you, but I'm getting tired of > being told 10 times in each book that "Harry had never felt such > intense pain before". SSSusan: Hallelujah & amen, Del!! I know some people find JKR's (over)use of adverbs to be annoying. Well, I find her "searing" scar pain and "never felt such intense pain before" lines to get really old. There *has* to be a new way to express scar pain! Del: > Emotional pain ? Ah, many more possibilities here. > > 1. We already know that Harry is right now in the throes of grieving > over Sirius. Could there be other deaths that would be at least as > significant to Harry ? > - His best friends. Hum, considering that JKR said that Hermione > would live, if I'm not mistaken,... SSSusan: Really?!? I haven't heard this! Can anybody confirm?? Del: > ...that might not bode well for Ron. But it > could also be Ginny, Neville or even Luna. Or one of the twins. It > could be another one of the adults, like Lupin or Tonks, but I don't > think it would affect Harry as much. > - His mentor, DD. > - His adoptive family. I'd go for one or both of the parents, with a > favour for Molly, as the mother figure, since Sirius was the real > father figure. > - Who else ? Maybe a real love interest ? (Kneasy, if you're > reading, skip this paragraph) SSSusan: Love the editorial comment re: a love interest. ;-) What I might add to this category is the death of Snape. Would Harry feel that as emotional pain? It seems not, *but*.... Or perhaps that would go into your next category: Del: > 2. Harry also started discovering the true horror of guilt. Could he > possibly make another mistake, or take another wrong decision, that > would end up in another death, undisputably his fault this time ? I > somehow doubt it. JKR already killed off Cedric in GoF because he > happened to be with Harry, and Sirius because he went to Harry's > help. I don't think she will make anyone else die "just because of > Harry". I think he's learned his lesson, and won't go flying into > action without thinking again. SSSusan: I, too, don't think another will die because Harry goes flying off w/o thinking first. But he could still feel guilt/responsibility if, say, a person died protecting him. That's where I could see Snape coming in. Though, as you said, that kind of fits Sirius already. Still, I think Snape's death could fit in here somewhere. Not that I'm trying to kill him off, mind--I'd much prefer they grumble alongside one another to the end--but in terms of what could make a huge impact on Harry, I don't think this can be dismissed. Del: > 3. A really interesting possibility, IMO, is betrayal. SSSusan: Very interesting, but I can't imagine whom it could be. Not Hermy or Ron. Neville? Nah. Dean or Seamus? We already had that go-round w/ Seamus doubting Harry, and he seems to have gotten over it. I'm just not sure who else amongst the kids. Perhaps one of the adult Order members or Hogwarts staff? Del: > 4. Another thing we haven't really seen, is Self-doubting!Harry. > We've had glimpses of it in almost every book, but I don't feel > we've seen Harry in full-bloom self-doubt, paralysed by his > uncertainties about himself. But now that Harry knows to what > extent LV was actually controlling him, he might have doubts as to > how much he can trust himself. He might then come to understand why > many of his schoolmates are not as determined as he is, for example. SSSusan: Now THIS is one I could sink my teeth into. It could be drawn very realistically, I think. And the temptation issue could come into play through this, perhaps? Del: > Now that the truth is revealed, I also expect a lot more loyalty > and cooperation, people looking up to him and willing to help him. SSSusan: I concur. Siriusly Snapey Susan From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 19:50:38 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:50:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116147 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > - Who else ? Maybe a real love interest ? (Kneasy, if you're reading, > skip this paragraph) Having Harry discover a more real and profound > love with someone more compatible than Cho, and then have this girl > taken away from Harry, might sound too stereotyped, but it could be > awfully interesting, in terms of Harry's development. > Interesting that you consider that depriving Harry of a 'true love' (spit) would enhance his development. Might be hope for you yet. FEATHERBOAs of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but an excess character or two. 'Course, to be *really* fun, it would require that a succession of Harry's heart-throbs got handed the Black Spot as soon as they started holding hands: Luna (yes please!), Ginny, Hermione and so on. Eventually all the girls get the message and run a mile as soon as he smiles at them. For a true SHIPper and/or romantic there could be no more a devastating emotional trauma than that. Harry ALONE. Forever. And with that cheerful thought.... a G&T, I think. Kneasy From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 21 19:59:53 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:59:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116148 Kneasy wrote: > 'Course, to be *really* fun, it would require that a succession of Harry's > heart-throbs got handed the Black Spot as soon as they started holding > hands: Luna (yes please!), Ginny, Hermione and so on. Eventually all the > girls get the message and run a mile as soon as he smiles at them. > > For a true SHIPper and/or romantic there could be no more a devastating > emotional trauma than that. Harry ALONE. Forever. > > And with that cheerful thought.... a G&T, I think. > Potioncat: Does anyone remember the old American TV show "Bonanza"? Everytime Hoss, Adam or Little Joe fell in love, you knew the girl was toast! Harry Potter as Hoss Cartwright...nope, can't take it! From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:06:45 2004 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:06:45 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116149 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: *Concerning McGonagall and Snape* "K" (IMO): Respect. "K": Yes, there is affection between the two. "K": Friendly. Though I do believe there's more to Quidditch than just a game. "K": Yes. "K": Yes. "K": Don't know about the hot chocolate and biscuits but yes, they chat about the students in the teacher's lounge. "K": Sorry, can't help in that area as you can tell from my reply. ;-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 21 20:14:14 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:14:14 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116150 "K" wrote: > > > "K": > Yes. Potioncat: Elaborate > > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 20:22:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:22:24 -0000 Subject: Doris Crockford/Diggle/Flitwick/Wizards at Large In-Reply-To: <001001c4b476$c620de80$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116151 Ffred wrote: > Harry, being part of the WW (albeit unknown to himself) sees wizards out and about, but I suspect that they have a "don't notice me" charm to make sure that the average Muggle's vision just drifts over them without their noticing anything untoward in someone exotically dressed going into the local Tesco's. Carol responds: Your remark leads me to wonder (again) how all the wizard parents disguise themselves when they drop off or pick up their children a Platform 9 3/4. A Muggleborn or half-blood parent would know how to disguise him- or herself as a Muggle, but purebloods like the Weasleys seem somehow (despite seven kids who wear jeans and jumpers on occasion and despite Arthur's fascination with Muggles) not to know exactly how Muggles dress. And Lucius or Narcissa Malfoy might know how Muggles dress but would never (IMO) lower themselves to pass as one. So how do they hide from the Muggles at King's Cross Station? Does anyone think they use a "don't notice me" charm like the one Ffred mentions above, some variation on the Disillusionment Charm or something like the spell that's used to hide Hogwarts from Muggles? Certainly Molly doesn't put any such spell on her children or Harry, but might she put one on herself? Ideas, anyone? Carol From averyhaze at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:24:47 2004 From: averyhaze at hotmail.com (onnanokata) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:24:47 -0000 Subject: Teen Conflict (was: "Lapdog" and "snivel") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116152 Dharma wrote: > I'd just like reiterate something that others have hinted at, or said in the past on this topic. At 15, the Hogwarts kids are 2 years away from going into the adult world. There does not seem to be much in the way of delayed adolescence in the Wizarding World. By the time we see James hexing Snape, they very well could have had some very adult sense of morality. Their views on pureblood supremacy really could have been intellectually and morally very important at that time. They were only 2 years away from being expected to participate fully in the adult world. At the time the Marauders and Snape are 15 years- old violence is increasing, and they are facing going out into that world. Why wouldn't any of the older students have an opinion about this situation? James may have initially been popular for other reasons, but his stance against the Dark Arts could have impacted how others perceived him as well. Carol responds: Unfortunately, we don't see James demonstrating any such maturity or social concern. Instead, we see him joking about the werewold answer on the exam, playing with a snitch, and "entertaining" the bored Sirius by hexing Severus. If he were so concerned with opposing the doctrine of pureblood supremacy, you would think that he would express these views. Instead, all we have is his reaction to Severus's angrily calling Lily a Mudblood, probably the first term that comes to his mind under the circumstances. There's no indication that pureblood ideology is of concern to either boy. Dharma replies: James does have a problem with the using slurs to describe people of Muggleborn heritage, so much so that he refuses to even say the word Mudblood. His words are, "I'd NEVER call you you-know-what." Now if he and Snape held contempt for one another, for 5 years up to this point, James could have had many reasons to dislike Snape, including their feelings about the Dark Arts. There is not enough evidence to exclude the notion that James and Snape were on the opposite ends of the spectrum by the time they were 15. The issue of the Dark Arts could have just been another example in a litany of dislike. People do not act rationally at every moment in their lives. Snape has held on to this grudge long enough to project those feeling onto James' son. It might not be kind or just, but it's what seems to be happening. As to maturity, the behavior we saw constituted approximately 15 minutes in a 5-year conflict based on mutual dislike. It's clear to me that James was out of line for 15 of the 2,160,000 minutes (give or take a couple hundred) that they had been in school together, but there is no information about what either Snape or James was up to in the 2,159,985 minutes, as it relates to the conflict. I'm not going to assume that either of party was always on his best or worst behavior for all of this time, nor am I going to assume that what we saw was the sum of either of their personalities in the pensieve. Decent people often hold irrational beliefs. It is part of the imperfection of humanity. Sirius and Lupin try to get Harry to understand that James behavior in the pensieve, while immature and unacceptable, did not reflect the entirety of his personality. Carol wrote: As for his opposition to the Dark Arts, the only canon evidence for this view is a statement made by Sirius twenty years later that James hated the Dark Arts. There is no indication in the Pensieve scene itself that James is opposed to the Dark Arts and associates them with Severus. James's stated, canonical reason for bullying Severus is "because he exists." Any other reason is purely speculative--at least until Book 6 or 7 provides the missing evidence. Dharma replies: "Because he exists," sounds like another instance of saying the nastiest thing you can think of about another person rather, than actually seriously attempting to address an issue. James is being completely arrogant, and completely demeaning toward Snape. He's insulting him by suggesting that Snape's being is a problem unto itself. This is analogous to Snape's behavior. Snape says to James, "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" Both of them are dehumanizing other individuals by speaking about them in the third person and attempting to reduce their significance as a person. Lily says, "What's he done to you?" James replies, "It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean-" The word exists is italicized in the text. James could be implying quite a number of things here. He never clarifies exactly what that means. Carol wrote: And if James were so concerned with the upcoming battle against Voldemort (which again is not mentioned in this scene), shouldn't he take his DADA exam seriously? Instead, he is tracing the letters LE on his exam book. His mind is not on the subject that ought to be of great concern if he is already, at fifteen or sixteen, concerned with the battle against Voldemort. He's preoccupied with the girl he has a crush on. And as far as schoolwork is concerned, his efforts so far have been focused on Transfiguration, not so he can fight Voldemort or even so that he can do well on his OWLs, but so that he and his friends can transform themselves into animals and run around with a werewolf. (That, just possibly, could account for McGonagall's memory of him as a brilliant student. She remembers him in her classes. She never saw him in any other class.) Dharma replies: Well McGonagall tells us that they were both James and Sirius are exceptionally bright. Remus tells us that they were the cleverest students in their year. Dumbledore comments on the how "extraordinary" it was that they were able to keep the animagus transformation for him. Obviously they were both quite smart and could have very well finished their exams in plenty of time to allow their minds to wander. Their ability to complete their DADA exams just goes to show that they were on top of their studies. James does become Headboy. He might not have always been the most serious student, but more than likely was always able to get good marks. Dharma replies: And if Severus is so enamored of the Dark Arts, and again it's Sirius who says that he was, why is he so intent on his exam in *Defense Against* the Dark Arts? Clearly he knows the subject inside out; his answers to the questions are so detailed that he has to write in a minuscule hand to get them in. Clearly he cares about the subject (and his mark in it) or he wouldn't be obsessively studying the exam sheet when the test is over. The adult Snape's desire to teach DADA is not some whim. He cares about and knows about this topic. It would be very surprising if he did not get an O ("outstanding") on both his OWL and his NEWT. An intense fascination with DADA is a very odd trait in a future DE, and yet there it is. It's Severus, not James (or Sirius) who's studying the one subject that the future opponents of Voldemort must master in order to fight him. Dharma replies: Again, this is evidence that a student is on top of his studies. Snape might very well know his subject, but that does not speak much to any relationship for or against Voldemort. The reason that Snape is able to go into so much detail could be that he has quite a bit of experience with the Dark Arts. Learning to use the Dark Arts goes hand-in-hand with learning to defend against them. It's two sides of the same coin. It would make very little sense for a Dark Wizard to learn to cast offensive spells but not learn to counter them. Snape becomes a Death Eater, and capable of legilimency and occlumency advanced enough to fend to keep his spy status from either Dumbledore or Voldemort (depending on who he is actually working for). This seems to take exceptional discipline. Perhaps he applied that disciple to all of his studies. I personally can't remember any examples of Snape not being up to the task I any branch of magic. Dharma wrote: I agree that Snape might not have been loyal to Voldemort, but the perception that he supported the Dark Arts, could have impacted the way people viewed him. Even if some of the students did not agree with James' bullying behavior, they may have held a negative general view of Snape as well. We don't know why they were looking apprehensive. It is significant to me that only Lily is willing to confront James. Is the student body generally afraid of James? That could be, but then why is he consistently described as popular and not intimidating or overly aggressive? As an adult, even Snape describes James arrogant but not as a generally aggressive individual. The exception might be "The Prank," which would depict James a manipulative rather than physically intimidating Which leads me to other thoughts Are the apprehensive students not interested enough in Snape's safety to risk entering a conflict with James, who is a very talented young Wizard? Carol responds: I think you've answered your own question here. The student body may or may not agree with James, but he's popular as an athlete and they don't want him to hex them. Lily says that he hexes people for fun and James doesn't deny it. Later, in GoF, Sirius says that James stopped hexing other people, but not Severus Snape. Dharma replies: Well if James was popular and well liked, chances are he was not really hexing a majority of people he knew. Again, the majority of students did not dislike James, and he's never described as overly aggressive. We don't know the identities of the other people he hexed, or what got on his neves enough for him to start wielding his wand. He could have gotten into minor tiffs all over Hogwarts. This type of behavior in the halls is still going on at the school in Harry's day. Immature bullying seems to happen frequently and be tolerated to some extent in the Hogwarts Halls. Most of the main student characters have been hit with a curse, hex, jinx or bit of bad sportsmanship at some point during the stories. Very rarely do adults mete out any consequences for magical scuffles beyond point reduction and detention. Sirius says clearly that he and James were frequently in detention. It seems to me that James and Sirius may have been obnoxious, but like the Weasley twins, they managed to not cross the line. Sirius probably crossed it with "The Prank", but it seems that James was not involved in planning that one. On the apprehensive students in the pensieve They might have had little interest in Snape's safety; there is not enough evidence to rule that out. Perhaps those in the apprehensive lot were unwilling to stick their necks out for Snape, but might have acted differently if the victim of the jinx had been someone else. If they liked James, but did not care for Snape, why would they bother getting caught up in the ongoing conflict? Lily may have strongly felt that James and Sirius were out of control, but others could have had a different perspective. Carol wrote: Severus, of we can trust what Sirius says of him, already knew more curses than most seventh-years when he entered Hogwarts. Maybe James, on his way to growing up and becoming the heroic figure he seems to be at Godric's Hollow, stopped hexing people weaker than himself-- that is, most of the Hogwarts students. But he didn't stop hexing Severus--either because he still disliked him "because he exists"--or just possibly because Severus was the one person who could, and would, fight him back. Dharma replies: James hexes people who annoy him. That is not the same as most of the students. Perhaps James does not stop hexing Snape because, Snape never hangs up his wand either. Snape very well could have been holding on to this grudge with a death grip too. We don't even know who started the conflict between the two of them, and we don't know that Snape never goes on the offensive. Perhaps Snape is still following the Marauders around trying to create problems, just as Sirius said he was. Carol wrote: Regardless of his motivations or the reasons for his popularity, I know of no canon evidence that James was regarded as a hero for his opposition to the Dark Arts or to the Slytherin pureblood ideology. Athe evidence, as we now have it, indicates that he was merely an "arrogant little berk" who liked attention, hexed other people for fun, ruffled his hair to make it attractively windblown. Whatever grudge they bore against Severus Snape (and when Lily asks James what Severus has done to them, he has no good answer), he and Sirius caught Severus off-guard and fought him two against one. If that's the high moral ground and these fifteen- or sixteen-year-olds are preparing to go out into the world and defend their views by bullying those who disagree with them or are less physically attractive, then heaven help the WW. Dharma replies: My ideas remain the same. I objected to the assertion that morality does not enter young peoples' conflicts. Morality matters to young people in some situations, and this could have impacted the way James and Snape were viewed by their peers. We need look no further than the way Harry is treated in OotP to understand that morality is an issue for young people. Some students ostracize Harry, while operating under the false impression that Haerry is lying about the return of the most dangerous Wizard in their history. Although the false impression is largely constructed, these are the politics of their times as the students understand them. Other students come to embrace what Harry is saying because, they believe that the possibility of Voldemort returning could have devastating consequences from which they'd like to defend themselves. Unfortunately, we are not given the same kind of window into the Marauders school days. We don't know what conversations they were having. As to other students' opinions about James A bright, popular, 15-year- old could be arrogant and obnoxious at times in dealing with his or her peers. I don't like it, but it happens. Being full of oneself and insensitive at one moment does not constitute anyone's entire life. The process of moral development is not a straight line toward perfection. Many of the "good" characters in the books have occasional moral failings. James and Snape could have made their feelings known at times other than what we see. When violence and disappearances are on the rise, there is a problem. The students in the pensieve scene have family members and their own futures to think about, but the readers are never privy to any direct conversation that they may have had during school. The Dark Arts and pureblood prejudice were community issues by the Marauder's 5th year. It is quite possible that young people had political beliefs based on their own life experiences and family histories at this time. Now personally, I'm not willing to rule out the possibility that the students did have strong feelings about what was happening outside of Hogwarts, just as the kids in OotP had opinions about the return of Voldemort. What we know about the politics of this time are fractions of what was happening. What we see in the pensieve is a fraction of what the students would have witnessed at that time. James' behavior toward someone he's been in conflict with for 5 years for unknown reasons does not seem like a good measure of his overall morality to me. His peers more than likely had a range of experiences with him and knowledge that we the readers do not. They could have had information that we don't, so therefore I'm willing to leave the possibility of James taking a stance on the political issues of the times open. When it comes down to it James may have acted like jerk more than once, but the only person who consistently insists that this was the sum of his personality is Snape, who is unable to let go of a grudge that could be based on any number of things almost 20 years later. Perhaps the fundamental beliefs that led James to choosing to become a member of the Order and Snape to joining the Death Eaters all came about in the 2 to 3 year period between the pensieve and entering the adult world, but I personally doubt it. Even at 15 Snape is hurling around the word Mudblood and James finds it to inappropriate to let it pass his lips. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 20:34:27 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] NOW Who Knows the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041021203427.83557.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116153 > Doesn't this possibly mean that Voldemort now knows the entire > prophesy now as well, given his mental bonds with Harry? I was > deeply croggled by all of this. Did I possibly miss something? > > -cunning spirit No, you didn't miss anything. This is one of the reasons why I hated the Dumbledore-explains-it-all-to-Harry wrap-up in OOTP. He basically said, "well I made you miserable for a year because I thought it was the right thing to do but it looks like I was wrong - silly me." I agree that Harry should have been told about the prophesy at this point in the story - if not earlier - but the way JKR wrote it it's like Dumbledore's just wiping out all the angst and pain that everyone undertook for the entire year in a couple of sentences. And of course he also talks about the Order in front of Harry too so that's something else that Voldemort now knows....and Harry's memories of 12GP.....and Harry's memories of reading the note to get into 12GP....it just goes on and on. I've got faith that JKR is going to explain this apparent anamoly before the end of Book 7, especially as she's now aware that thousands of us parse her books for just this kind of thing. But I hope it's really, really good... Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 20:46:50 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041021204650.59256.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116154 --- cubfanbudwoman wrote: > I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between > Professors McGonagall & Snape. > > Is there real respect there or is it grudging? It's real respect, definitely. They both respect Dumbledore but that's always influenced by the fact that Dumbledore is their employer and leader, a much older wizard, and a very powerful wizard too (and also in MMcG's case, a small but intense crush). McGonagall and Snape are more equals than either can be with Dumbledore. > What about affection? I'd say yes, although it's not a modern I-feel-your-pain kind of thing where they each feel comfortable enough to cry on the other's shoulder. They both know the rules: no overt emotion, no sentimentality, no lies. > Is the Quidditch/House rivalry friendly or filled with animosity? It's seriously friendly. They're both very competitive and Quidditch is a good release for that. Sprout and Flitwick are more the healthy-mind-in-a-health-body types and promote the sport as all around school activities. > Does MM trust SS to be fair? Yes. > Does she trust him the way DD does? Yes, in the manner that DD does. But DD trusts him on a wider variety of matters than a fellow teacher would. > Do they drink hot chocolate, eat biscuits & chat about students > together in the teacher's lounge? Yes, although I think that they're more likely to spike their chocolate with firewhiskey to keep out the cold than rely on pure cocoa. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 20:49:39 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:49:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116155 SSSusan wrote : " I, too, don't think another will die because Harry goes flying off w/o thinking first. But he could still feel guilt/responsibility if, say, a person died protecting him." Del replies : Ah yes, that's one I forgot. He did feel a bit of that after the attack on Arthur, though. He almost went back to the Dursleys' because he couldn't bear the thought of his friends being in danger because of him. And he did go through some difficult time when he realised that Arthur might die "because of him". SSSusan wrote : "Still, I think Snape's death could fit in here somewhere. Not that I'm trying to kill him off, mind--I'd much prefer they grumble alongside one another to the end--but in terms of what could make a huge impact on Harry, I don't think this can be dismissed." Del replies : Hmmm... Snape's death, an interesting possibility. It would indeed be hard to make it happen in such a way that Harry would actually feel bad about it, but knowing JKR, I have no doubt she could pull this one. It for sure would make re-reading the books an interesting experience. I, Del, wrote : "3. A really interesting possibility, IMO, is betrayal. " SSSusan answered : "Very interesting, but I can't imagine whom it could be. Not Hermy or Ron. Neville? Nah. Dean or Seamus? We already had that go-round w/ Seamus doubting Harry, and he seems to have gotten over it. I'm just not sure who else amongst the kids. Perhaps one of the adult Order members or Hogwarts staff?" Del replies : One of the adults would make it harder for JKR to make it personal for Harry. But still, DD, McGonagall, Lupin, Tonks, Moody or Shacklebolt could work IMO. Of course there's also Snape ;-) Imagine the two of them *finally* getting along somewhat, and then Snape betraying Harry ? Oh oh ! SSSusan wrote : "And the temptation issue could come into play through this, perhaps?" Del replies : Ha, the temptation ! If I remember correctly, JKR said that Harry would never be tempted to go to the other side. But that still leaves room for a nasty piece of temptation. I wonder... Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 20:53:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:53:42 -0000 Subject: BIll Weasley as DADA? (was Re: Krum as DADA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116156 Julie wrote: > > But my best guess for DADA teacher in Book 6 is Bill Weasley. > > He has the experience, and it's time again for a DADA teacher > > who is not incompetent or working for Voldy. (Books 1&4 were > > the Voldy guys, Books 2&5 were the incompetent teachers, and > > Books 3&6 are the competent teachers--Lupin and now Bill). > > PS -- Quirrel!Mort (DE) > CoS -- Lockhart (non-DE villian) > PoA -- Lupin (Order) > GoF -- Fake!Moody (DE) > OooP -- Umbridge (non-DE villian) > Carol responds: Do we have any canon evidence that Quirrell was a Death Eater? Voldemort, who does not seem to have known Quirrell before he encountered him in Albania. (I'm not sure what form LV was in at the time--another nagging question that I won't develop here.) LV says in GoF that Quirrell was young, naive, and easy to shape to his will (paraphrasing here, obviously). That suggests to me that he was not a DE at the time, more like a willing victim who was seduced into serving LV and sharing his belief that "there is no good or evil, only power" (quoting from memory here). And LV, being little more than a spirit capable of possession could not have marked Quirrell as a DE at that time. Does anyone else have thought on this question? Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 20:56:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:56:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116157 > Del replies : > Ha, the temptation ! If I remember correctly, JKR said that Harry > would never be tempted to go to the other side. But that still leaves > room for a nasty piece of temptation. I wonder... > Alla: Yes, I remember that too. She again said that it would be too Star Warish or something. That is actually important reason that makes me sceptical of Tempted! Harry. Do you think that he can be tempted anyway, despite author denying it , Del? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Oct 21 21:19:43 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:19:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116158 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Does anyone remember the old American TV show "Bonanza"? Everytime > Hoss, Adam or Little Joe fell in love, you knew the girl was toast! > > Harry Potter as Hoss Cartwright...nope, can't take it! Well, Harry's got more hair. But to expand the concept to a more general level - I'm going to ask the fans to do something they may find difficult. Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen. Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution. Because I can't see any such evidence. Cries of "Oh, she must!" don't work, nor do expostulations that "She couldn't do that in a childrens book" because she didn't write the books for children. On more than one occasion she's stated that she wrote the books *for herself* - and it wasn't a particularly easy time in her life, either. This is why I posted 101614 "Which way?" hoping to get some feedback on the idea that she might do something radical. She's written a series like no other - what evidence do you have that the ending will not also be like no other? Kneasy From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 21 21:28:40 2004 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:28:40 -0000 Subject: NOW Who Knows the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: <20041021203427.83557.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > Doesn't this possibly mean that Voldemort now knows the entire > > prophesy now as well, given his mental bonds with Harry? I was > > deeply croggled by all of this. Did I possibly miss something? > > > > -cunning spirit > > > No, you didn't miss anything. This is one of the reasons why I hated > the Dumbledore-explains-it-all-to-Harry wrap-up in OOTP. > snip > > And of course he also talks about the Order in front of Harry too so > that's something else that Voldemort now knows....and Harry's > memories of 12GP.....and Harry's memories of reading the note to get > into 12GP....it just goes on and on. > snip > > > Magda > > Linda: Harry wouldn't be able to give this information to anyone. Dumbledore is the secret keeper for the order and 12GP, only he can release that info. The Order didn't tell Harry anything that Voldemort didn't already know either. They said that he was in search of a weapon that he didn't have before... obviously something that Voldemort knows. They said that they were trying to inform people of the truth... again obvious. Nothing earth shattering. Even the "kids" at GP say the only thing that was new to them was the weapon... I have faith that JKR will not let us down... so far, so good! : ) > > _______________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 21:39:38 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:39:38 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Relationships In-Reply-To: <038501c4b485$425da560$01fea8c0@domain.invalid> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116160 Tinks wrote: > < A member of any other house could never find happiness with a Slytherin, because the Slytherin would eat them alive, so to speak.> > Saitana responded: > Not really. Most Slytherin's would actually find it relaxing to be with a Ravenclaw or a Gryffindor because they don't constantly have to be looking over their shoulder for a knife in the back. > > Dating/seducing/marrying for power, money, whatever is all well and good, but when you come right down to wanting a happy, normal relationship, a Slytherin would never choose one of their own unless forced. > > A Slytherin wants to be top dog, and to have the power. To marry another Slytherin would mean constantly fighting, trying to out play the other person. If they married from another house (another personality type) this constant butting of heads would lessen. Carol adds: I've already put in my two knuts regarding the two Slytherin marriages we know anything about, the Lestranges and the Malfoys, both Slytherin/Slytherin and both pureblood/pureblood. These marriages may have been arranged by the families but would also have been satisfactory to the marriage partners in terms of the pureblood philosophy. And it seems unlikely that either Rodolphus or Lucius would object to having a beautiful wife. (Lucius, as a rich and socially prominent man, may have initially regarded the somewhat younger Narcissa as a "trophy wife" and found out later she was a strong-willed, haughty Black who considered herself near-royalty. We shall see.) We do know of other Slytherins who are or were married (Crabbe Sr., Goyle Sr., Nott Sr.) but we know nothing about their wives (except that Nott's is dead, and even that came from the website rather than the books.) It's hard to conceive of anyone *wanting* to marry Crabbe Sr. or Goyle Sr., especially if they closely resemble their sons in appearance, behavior, and intelligence level, but obviously someone did. And since they became DEs during VW1, that person was probably a Slytherin. Nott Sr., though, appears to be considerably older, a man of Voldie's generation, perhaps at one time a Peter Pettigrew type who hung around Tom Riddle and his intimate friends (the ones who secretly called him "Lord Voldemort".) I can see the older Nott marrying a Ravenclaw before VW 1. His son Theo is clearly intelligent, more so than Draco, if we trust the website as semicanonical, and Theo is a loner who doesn't join Draco's gang until the end of OoP, if then. (I can't see him becoming a Crabbe-and-Goyle style bodyguard/thug.) But I would say that Slytherins are most likely to marry other Slytherins for three reasons: 1) "pure" blood and fear of contamination by "Mudbloods" (half-blood Slytherins would be partial exceptions, but I think it applies to the Lestranges, the Blacks (except Andromeda), and the Malfoys, at least, 2) a shared philosophy indoctrinated into them from birth regarding "blood," the desirability of ambition and cunning, and possibly the Dark Arts, and 3) the apparent prejudice against Slytherin by the other houses (very apparent in Harry's time, at least, and probably existing during JWPP's and Snape's schoolboy time as well), which would foster or reinforce an us vs. them mentality among Slytherins. Of course, physical attraction could play into the picture in some cases, but I don't think it's the primary factor. Carol, thinking about Pansy Parkinson's interest in Draco and wondering whether it fits the picture From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 21:52:51 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:52:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116161 > But to expand the concept to a more general level - I'm going to > ask the fans to do something they may find difficult. > > Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen. > Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her > website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution. > > Because I can't see any such evidence. > > Cries of "Oh, she must!" don't work, nor do expostulations that > "She couldn't do that in a childrens book" because she didn't > write the books for children. On more than one occasion she's > stated that she wrote the books *for herself* - and it wasn't a > particularly easy time in her life, either. > > This is why I posted 101614 "Which way?" hoping to get some > feedback on the idea that she might do something radical. > She's written a series like no other - what evidence do you have > that the ending will not also be like no other? > > Kneasy It could be argued that Barry Cunningham would never have commissioned a children's series that ended in the death of the hero (if you look at all the other books he's published since). Particularly the death of a child hero. I met him, once. He was dressed up as a parrot. *Terribly* nice chap. But since that's not the kind of evidence you're after, and I can't think of any from canon, I'll keep my fingers crossed that you're right... Betrayal and revenge, massacres of the innocent (and not-so- innocent), and a good twist of carnage. Hooray! Dungrollin, - noting that a couple of days of watery sunshine don't make up for a month of drizzle, and that she can't wait until she can emigrate from this miserable rotten country with it's miserable rotten weather. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 21 21:59:41 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:59:41 -0000 Subject: NOW Who Knows the Prophesy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116162 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cunning_spirit" wrote: > > I was quite astonished at the end of OotP to see Dumbledore lay out Trelawney's prophesy in full during his explainations of the previous year's events to Harry. Dumbledore KNEW that Harry had failed to master occlumency, and yet he went ahead and spilled the very beans that Voldemort had most of his top DEs scrambling to obtain. Doesn't this possibly mean that Voldemort now knows the entire prophesy now as well, given his mental bonds with Harry? I was deeply croggled by all of this. Did I possibly miss something? > Though Dumbledore does not explicitly say so, it appears the link was broken when Harry threw off Voldemort's possession at the end of the battle. Notice that Harry's scar does not hurt afterwards, although Voldemort must certainly have been punishing people right and left after the fiasco. I don't think that the danger is over completely, but evidently Voldemort's aversion to the feeling he encountered in Harry's mind is so strong at present that he will risk no contact with it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 22:07:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:07:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116163 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > But to expand the concept to a more general level - I'm going to > ask the fans to do something they may find difficult. > > Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen. > Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her > website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution. > > Because I can't see any such evidence. > > Cries of "Oh, she must!" don't work, nor do expostulations that > "She couldn't do that in a childrens book" because she didn't write > the books for children. On more than one occasion she's stated that > she wrote the books *for herself* - and it wasn't a particularly > easy time in her life, either. > Alla: Oh, Kneasy, thanks, but no thanks. :) I will hold on to my "happy delusions". Last time I checked - no one made "metathinking" evidence foribidden one yet. Seriously, though what do you mean by " ending like no other" ? Memorable, like no other? I think she will manage that . "Bloodbath"? I doubt it, because no matter how many times she will repeat that she wrote the books for herself, I will consider it in part to be a marketing trick. I have no doubt that she writes the books for herself too, but , IMO, she clearly oreints the books toward the younger audience. Just look at the battle at MOM, please? Which curses kids were hit with? "Dancing legs"? Ron was attacked with the brain? Yes, Sirius fell through the Veil, yes, Harry was possessed, but altogether impressive picture of violence? I don't think so, not in my opinion. Under happy resolution do you mean that Harry will survive? Not necessarily, although I really, really want him to and still hold on to my prediction that he will be temporarily dead and then resurrected. What I can bet on that if he dies, we will see him reuniting with his parents and Sirius. I am trying to think of the canon and I think there was a quote in PS/SS, which said something like "In the years to come Harry did not know how he managed to study for exams when Voldemort was breathing down his neck". I may be wrong or it could be different book, but I am pretty sure that I read something like that Here is also the Trelawney prediction about Harry becoming Mnister of Magic and having twelve children. We also have JKR's answer to the question "Whether Harry will become the Minister of Magic?" that seventeen is too young to become involved in Politics. Can I hope that it means that he will become a Minister later in life. If under "happy resolution" you mean destroying Voldemort - then yes, I think this is a given From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 21 22:09:11 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:09:11 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Geoff wrote : > " At the beginning of OOTP, Harry has just turned 15. Some folk have > commented that he makes a sudden transition from being fairly placid > to being angry. " > > snip the rest, because it would be too long to quote it all :-) > > Del replies : > Geoff, you don't understand what I meant. I wasn't trying to say that > it was unnatural for Harry to evolve the way he did Geoff: I'm sorry. I was using your post as a springboard to reply to the two or three bits of material sticking off the main thread and some didn't really belong to you. Del: > What I'm trying to explain is that, because the change occured > off-screen, and because I'm nothing like Harry, it didn't MAKE SENSE > to me. To me, it was as big a leap as suddenly having a Black Harry or > a thin and nice Dudley for example. It wouldn't make sense, you would > go "Duh !?", right ? That's what happened to me : Angry!Harry made me > go "Duh !?" because his transformation is not natural *for me*, it's > something I need explained. But JKR did *not* explain, she just said > "well, that's how he is now", and by so doing she lost me. > > If the change had happened on-screen, if I had seen Harry evolve into > Angry!Harry, I would probably have accepted and understood it much > better. But instead of that, I had to forget *years* of knowing a > certain Harry, and I was supposed to instantly accept a completely new > and totally bewildering (to me) Harry. I couldn't. Not in a couple of > days. That's why I never got into the book the first time through. Geoff: That's interesting because it's obviously an experience you haven't been through. I taught for 32 years in a school in south-west London mainly working with teenagers between 13-18 and, for the first eight of those years, boys only. I often had the experience when the pupils returned, after the long 7- 8 week summer break, of seeing quite dramatic changes in some of them. Sometimes physical - it's amazing how much some folk could shoot up in that period of time and also emotional and intellectual changes. People who were quite placid and cooperative returned questioning what goes on and being quite forceful in wanting to say or know things. Some pupils could be almost totally different folk on their reurn. This often happened at the beginning of the Fifth Year/Year 11 when they were approaching 16 and also entering their exam year. The no man's land between childhood and adulthood can be very difficult, especially for boys - at least from my experience. Some of Harry's problems also stem from perhaps brooding over the way he is treated. Some people like Fudge, for example, haven't got the first idea how to deal with him; the instance where Harry goes to Dumbledore about his dream in GOF and Fudge takes a "there, there, sonny, run along, we're busy" line is a classic. And Snape's obstinacy when Harry is trying to get help for Crouch is another case of how not to do it. No. I see no difficulty in accepting that things have happened while he's been away from Hogwarts and the others are seeing the end product of what's been going on. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 23:00:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:00:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116165 > 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what broke > the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that > Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would Draco > have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? > > 5. Are classes for Auror set, or was McGonagall making her own > recommendations here? Why was she smiling about Harry taking > Potions? Carol responds: IMO, these two questions belong together, IMO. I don't think that Snape, despite his apparent malice, would actually break Harry's potion vial any more than he would carry out a threat to poison Trevor. Nor do I think the vial could have fallen by itself, and no one was angry, so it couldn't have exploded through spontaneous wandless magic. Since Draco is present, it seems likely that he's the culprit, "accidentally" knocking over Harry's potion while handing in his own. Snape maintains his usual favor-the-Slytherins, antagonize-Harry stance, with his snide little remark and the supposed zero. However, Harry has yet to complain of his end-of-year Potions mark, which seems to indicate that Snape is not really factoring in the zeroes and is giving Harry the marks he actually has earned (certainly not high ones, but apparently at least average). McGonagall has Harry's marks in front of her during the counseling session but says nothing about the potions mark being low or unsatisfactory. (Granted, Umbridge is present, but she could have spoken to Harry about it later but does not.) Moreover, as Head of Gryffindor, she probably sees all her students' end-of-year marks and would have had words with Snape before this if she thought he was marking her students unfairly. Her little smile seems to indicate that she and Snape are working together and that she knows perfectly well that Harry will be admitted into NEWT potions. I think that she and Snape both know quite well how important it is for Harry to learn Potions (and antidotes), whether or not he survives to become an auror. (I'm betting that Harry';s knowledge of Potions, which is greater than he thinks it is, will come in handy during Book 6 or 7.) As for the qualifications to be an auror, clearly Potions *is* required, and almost certainly DADA would be as well. Note that she also recommends both classes that require "fancy wand waving"--aurors should no doubt know as many spells as possible of all kinds, and Transfiguration might even come in handy as a defensive skill. (Doesn't Tonks say something about it early in OoP?) Maybe it's only the fifth NEWT that's up to the individual student, and it's hard to see how History of Magic as taught by Binns or Divination as taught by either Trelawney or Firenze would fit in. (Muggle Studies, OTOH, would be an easy "O" that would impress the committee that approves potential aurors. If I were Harry, that would be my choice.) And yet her wording seems to indicate that some of the classes she lists are only suggestions and that Charms and Transfiguration, at least, are her recommendations rather than requirements. But as a long-time Transfiguration teacher, she unquestionably believes in the importance of that class at least, and she probably wants to train Harry herself to be sure that he has the Transfiguration skills he needs in the upcoming war. So whether or not it's a requirement to be an auror, she's going to make sure that Harry takes it (and NEWT Potions as well). > > 10. Black and Lupin are very upset that Occlumency lessons have > stopped. They don't think Dumbledore will approve. Black will > talk to Snape. No, Lupin will. Harry has to. Why does JKR set this up, then leave us in the dark about who, or when, or if anyone ever > talks to Snape or Dumbledore? Carol responds: This is a very good question because it's not easily answered and must be in the mind of any attentive reader of this chapter. It's unfortunate, IMO, that Black didn't take this same stance regarding the importance of Occlumency at Christmastime rather than undermining Snape's efforts to teach Harry by suggesting that Snape would try to harm Harry. Only now that the lessons have stopped does he concede their importance. First it will hurt Harry because Snape is teaching it. Now it will hurt Harry because Snape has stopped teaching it--hardly a consistent position except in its opposition to Snape. Is Black merely taking advantage of another opportunity to make Snape look like a bad guy or has he actually been convinced of the importance of Occlumency? IMO, the first is more likely because it's in keeping with his character. Lupin sensibly realizes that Sirius, even if he could safely leave the house, is the wrong person to persuade Snape to do anything. Lupin ought also to realize that Harry is unlikely to go to Snape with any sort of request, especially the continuation of lessons with his least favorite teacher. My guess is that Lupin talked to Dumbledore and was convinced either that Snape had a valid reason for stopping the lessons (surely something more than Harry's invading his privacy through the Pensieve) or that the lessons were doing more harm than good, or both. (Surely Snape had told Dumbledore that Harry was refusing to practice and certainly he told him about the dream of the MoM corridor, so it's quite likely that Dumbledore agreed with Snape that the lessons should not be resumed.) If Lupin were convinced that the situation was best left as it was, he would have no need to talk to Snape himself. (Either that or Lupin was only pretending to be concerned about Harry, and I don't think that's the case.) Carol, hoping that this loose end and many others will be dealt with in Book 6 From annegirl11 at juno.com Thu Oct 21 22:56:55 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:56:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Villains in potterverse Message-ID: <20041021.191053.2656.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116166 Alla said: > Do you guys find that JKR's villains or I should qualify, Death > Eaters are scary? Oh. my. god. YES. Ever since I read Maus when I was 14, I've had these recurring nightmares of invasion by a Nazi-like army of evil bigots. It isn't always Nazis; depending on what I've been watching, it's fundie aliens, fundie demons, fundie rednecks, or more recently, fundie wizards. The riot in GoF gave me horrible nightmares for days, and Lucius terrifies me because of the depth of all manner of evil that he's capable of. And I mean that in a good way - it's a good book that can scare me that much. But still. Voldemort occasionally scares me, or maybe more specifically, creeps me out. He's like an X Files baddie: nine ways of disturbing. Wanting to kills mudbloods at 12 years old? Parasite on the back of someone's head, doing god knows what to the guy's mind? Little fetal malformed demon thing? Ewwwwwwwww. Umbridge annoyed me more than scared me. She was just rediculous. Same with Bellatrix. I despise her because she's just... over-the-top. Though, ok, I guess her shrill maddness is a little shivers-down-the-spine, and she did kill my boyfriend's boyfriend. So, yeah, the DEs take the cake as HP baddies. I'm a gay athiest woman living near farmland in a country, so militantly fundie humans who have *chosen* to be evil scare me a lot more than any evil overlord. > I find Graveyard scene to be quite chilling, but that is because I > think that Harry's suffering is masterfully conveyed. Voldemort is > still rather cartoonish there. I can't WAIT to see that scene on-screen -- it's gonna rock so much. Remember the creepyness of the dead unicorn bit in the Forbidden Forrest? It'll be like that, turned up to 11. Aura ~*~ "I sat down to play yesterday and all of a sudden it was 4 hours later and dark -- as if God had hit my double arrow button." - The Sims forum Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 23:13:38 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:13:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116167 Alla wrote : "Do you think that he can be tempted anyway, despite author denying it , Del?" Del replies : No no no ! That's not what I meant. I just meant that JKR said Harry would never be tempted *to go to the Dark Side*. But that's not the only kind of temptation he could experience. He could be tempted to abuse his authority, for example. He could be tempted to abuse the trust people put in him (like someone else we know, name starts with a L). Things like that. Not the Big Temptation, just a small one, that would still teach him a lot. Del From Snarryfan at aol.com Thu Oct 21 14:48:53 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:48:53 -0000 Subject: Question to the psys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116168 > Christelle wrote: > > > I think (only based on the two times he stop someone to hurt > Neville in OOTP) that he'll never accept that someone physically > hurt a child. And that he doesn't consider verbal abuse like > abuse, rather like a 'stop whining, I lived the same stuff and > I'm still alive' stuff. > > Potioncat: > I don't remember Snape preventing someone from hurting Neville. > Can you jolt my memory? Without the book here, when Neville try to hurt Draco and Harry and Ron stop him. They almost choked him and Snape said to release him and took points for fighting. And in Umbridge's office, GoyleorCrabbe strangle him and the same, he said to release him. In a Snapish way "too much paperwork" or something. In fact I liked this phrase so I'll searched it : "And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I'm afraid I shall have to mention it in your reference if ever you apply for a job." I almost could see a insult for Crabbe in the 'ever apply for a job', like to remind that he really loathes stupidy. Christelle. From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 15:34:15 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:34:15 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116169 > Syroun asked: > member of the Order]?> > > Sigune answered: > > Well, 1) we know from OotP that he's not in the group photo of > > the Order Moody shows Harry; > > Syroun responded: > > which proves nothing... > > Carol notes: > It may not *prove* anything, but it can't be discounted as *evidence.* > And we do know that he was a spy for Dumbledore, unknown to Sirius, > who also didn't know that Snape had been a Death Eater. It seems > clear, as you admit yourself in the response to item 2, that he did > not keep up with the professional progress of his adolescent enemy. If > Snape had been in the Order, Sirius would have known about it. Tammy butts in: Snape was a spy, you know, as in secret sort of stuff? Of course Sirius wouldn't have known what spies Dumbledore had. Most of the Order wouldn't have known who were Dumbledore's spies. They all knew he had some, no doubt, but the identity would have been secret. That wouldn't preclude him from being a member of the Order however, working for Dumbledore and the Order's interests in secret. And, I can't imagine that every single member of the original Order is in that picture. Imagine if everyone was in the picture and it somehow ended up in Voldemort's hands. Of course, as a spy, Snape wouldn't have been in the picture, wouldn't have been at the meetings. > Sigune: > > 4) if Snape knew Moody as a fellow Order member, he would have no > > reason to be so nervous around Fake!Moody in GoF, and he might > > have suspected he was facing an impostor when Moody kept lashing > > out at him. Tammy butts in: That's also not necessarily true, as Moody may not have known that Snape was in the original Order. Even if he did know it, Moody's a suspicious guy by nature, so he probably wouldn't have believed in Snape's "goodness" even if Snape had shown up to every single Order meeting. -Tammy (who firmly believes in Snape's "goodness" somewhere so deeply down inside of him that we may never see more than a hint of that goodness.) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 15:38:01 2004 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:38:01 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116170 "justcarol67" wrote: >still can't figure out *what* Lupin was thinking I'll tell you what Lupin was thinking, he was thinking that for 13 years the law has been unable to find the murderer of two of his best friends; in fact all the law has done is unjustly condemn another of his friends to a living hell for that crime. Lupin has plenty of evidence that the Ministry is totally dysfunctional and justice will never be found there, so other means were needed. In retrospect I would say that Harry preventing Lupin and Serious from doing what needed to be done in the Streaking Shack to Wormtail was the biggest mistake Harry ever made in his life, even bigger than believing the dream in book 5. Eggplant From moochy4ro at hotmail.com Thu Oct 21 16:27:41 2004 From: moochy4ro at hotmail.com (Lucy) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:27:41 -0000 Subject: Possible reason behind the 'half blood prince' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116171 Ok, I'm starting a new thread cus I can't find anywhere to post this. I've had a brainwave about book six. Jo mentioned that she wanted to use the first chapter of book 6 in the first and possibly 2nd books. I'm thinking something about Voldemort's past. Does he have children? Or can he still have children? Is the half blood prince some child of Voldemort's possibly between him and a muggle? Or somehow related to Harry? Hang on - brain working faster than fingers here. Petunia knows about Voldemort but how much does she know? Did she have something to do with the wizarding world - maybe more than we think? Does this idea have any possibility do you think? "Lucy/moochy4ro" From syroun at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 18:21:26 2004 From: syroun at yahoo.com (syroun) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:21:26 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Syroun asked: > > > < Do we really know that {Snape was a spy for Dumbledore and > > > < not a member of the Order]?> > > > > Sigune answered: > > > Well, 1) we know from OotP that he's not in the group photo of > > > the Order Moody shows Harry; > > > Syroun responded: > > which proves nothing... > (snip) > Carol notes: > It may not *prove* anything, but it can't be discounted as > *evidence.* And we do know that he was a spy for Dumbledore, > unknown to Sieius, who also didn't know that Snape had been a > Death Eater...If Snape had been in the Order, Sirius > would have known about it. > Syroun responds: Why do you think that Sirius would know about someone who was a spy, let alone Snape? There would be no reason to inform him of Snape's actions as a spy, or to inform anyone else, for that matter. The whole point of espionage is for the person performing the information gathering actions to be secretive enough to allow themselves typical social movement simultaneously. For Snape to have been known as a spy and member of the order by the whole order would only counteract his function as a spy. It makes no sense. As I have stated in earlier postings, it would also have long since been a death sentence. Aside from that, what witch or wizard who knew the history behind Sirius and Snape would expect them to behave in a civil manner towards one another, which would, again, give reason not to inform either of them about the workings of their opposite. Sirius is regarded as irrational even by DD, yet you believe that he would be trusted with information that one of his greatest enemies had been a DE, then changed his mind and now spies for DD and/or had become part of the order and not use that information against Snape out of pure spite? At Grimmauld Place, they both still act as though they are feuding 14 years old...childhood grudges die hard and both Sirius and Snape are at fault for that. (snip) > Carol responds: > Actually, we do know how long he's been at Hogwarts. He tells > Umbridge in OoP that he's been teaching for fourteen years. (I can > find the quote if you need it.) The only question is whether Snape > began teaching at the beginning of term (September 1) or after > Godric's Hollow (October 31), just before Sirius was sent to > Azkaban. Either way, Sirius didn't know that Snape had been a > teacher at Hogwarts all those years. Syroun: Thanks for the information and I agree. But, it is most likely that Snape started the school year with all of the other teachers on Sept 1. We have been shown that teacher replacements have been required only in extreme situations, (e.g. Hagrid). Such a situation, we would have likely heard about. (snip) > Carol responds: > The real Moody, watching Karkaroff's hearing in the Pensieve scene, > reacts with suspicion when Dumbledore states that Snape is "no > more a Death Eater than I am." He clearly doesn't like Snape and > may well have been the one who arrested him. The real Moody trusts very few in the WW. It is a function of his profession. Snape is not the trustworthy type and this plays into my original thesis - Snape likely had a significant role as a DE skilled in potions that assisted LV in becoming immortal. Moody would not ever trust him after that, regardless of what he now professed. If Snape had ever been arrested, a number of people in the MoM would have known about it, a paper trail would exist that could have been made pubic. At any rate, eventually it would have leaked out. That would have made his value as a spy negligible to DD. Therefore, I doubt that he was ever arrested. Just for the record, I do not think that Snape was an actual member of the first order but had become a spy for DD, and in turn, for the order during the LVWI. Isn't that almost better than having been an actual member, in terms of information gathering? Syroun From stonehenge.orders at verizon.net Thu Oct 21 18:59:39 2004 From: stonehenge.orders at verizon.net (kjirstem) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:59:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses: Protection? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116173 Carol: > Yes, but weak vision is not just any weakness. Being able to see is > crucial to life as Harry lives it, whether he's playing Quidditch or > writing an essay for Transfiguration or Potions. It's even more > crucial--in fact, vital--when he's duelling with DEs or Voldemort. kjirstem: I agree completely with Carol, and had some other thoughts about the whole Harry's eyes/glasses/protection issue. About glasses: 1. peripheral vision suffers - the focus is on what is in front of one. 2. Glasses distance one from the world and others, in a way. There is a screen between oneself and the outside world. 3. Glasses can be associated with being an observer and in some ways with judgement. (I'm thinking of the billboard with T.J. Eckleberg's eyes and glasses in the Great Gatsby.) 4. Hermione protects Harry's glasses from rain (POA US HB p 177). (I thought she also repaired them once, but I can't seem to locate that incident. Must be the taint of the medium-which-must-not-be named. Arthur Weasley also fixes Harry's glasses after they break during the floo powder journey in COS, US HB p56.) I think the distancing is interesting here, since Harry is set apart from others in so many ways. On observing, Harry is the observer in that we see the Wizarding World through his eyes. Also, and this has probably been discussed ad infinitem on this list, but Harry's eyes are associated with his glasses and I am bothered by a couple things about Harry's eyes: 1. They're consistently described as being Lily's eyes as opposed to looking like Lily's eyes (from Hagrid's "...but yeh've got yer mom's eyes" (PS/SS US p47) to Ootp (US HB p47) where Elphias Doge says "Lily's eyes"). Another thing that strikes me about this is that his father is the one who wore glasses (Mirror of Erised scene.) 2. His eysight seems to fail when he gets hit in the head (happens several times in OotP) or has pain in his head (for example, Dumbledore's face swimming in and out of focus (GOF US HB p671) after Harry returns from the graveyard.) The idea of Harry actually having the same eyes Lily had makes me squeamish, besides not seeing how it would work (Switching Spell and Shrinking soln? I don't think so). But, if he did, maybe they don't work quite right for him, therefore the glasses and the loss of vision whenever his head hurts? Just tossing these thoughts out there - probably repeating someone else's post... kjirstem - fighting deeply ingrained lurkish tendencies From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 00:35:10 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:35:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > >> 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what >> broke the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, >> given that Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? >> Would Draco have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have >> fallen by itself? > > > Carol responds: > IMO, these two questions belong together, IMO. I don't think that > Snape, despite his apparent malice, would actually break Harry's > potion vial any more than he would carry out a threat to poison > Trevor. Nor do I think the vial could have fallen by itself, and no > one was angry, so it couldn't have exploded through spontaneous > wandless magic. Since Draco is present, it seems likely that he's > the culprit, "accidentally" knocking over Harry's potion while > handing in his own. Snape maintains his usual favor-the-Slytherins, > antagonize-Harry stance, with his snide little remark and the > supposed zero. However, Harry has yet to complain of his end-of- > year Potions mark, which seems to indicate that Snape is not really > factoring in the zeroes and is giving Harry the marks he actually > has earned (certainly not high ones, but apparently at least > average). Problem is, Draco is here laughing; Harry hears the smashing noise, "Malfoy gave a gleeful yell of laughter...Snape was surveying him with a look of gloating pleasure". This seems to me, although it's possible the other way, that Draco is laughing *because* he sees exactly what Snape is doing. This fits better with Draco's personality--he's the type to gloat loudly at misfortune, especially when he doesn't exactly have anything to do with it. The little git knows the full extent of Schadenfreude, but I don't think he quite has the moxie to pull that off so openly. I know we all wouldn't like to believe it, but Snape fully *is* capable of being that petty, especially when he's been offended so personally. The zeros may not matter into the final score, but it certainly matters as to the professionalism with which you treat your students. If the point is to encourage learning, engaging in cheap shots like that is not a help. -Nora adds in one long thoughtful note about Occlumency; learning to relax is a skill, and a very tricky one at that; it is NOT well- developed by taking a beginner and hitting them until they chance to actually manage to relax and deflect a hit; should be interesting to see if teaching method is addressed at all... From yutu75es at yahoo.es Fri Oct 22 00:41:36 2004 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa hagrid) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:41:36 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Possible reason behind the 'half blood prince' References: Message-ID: <008001c4b7cf$e4c0f260$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 116175 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lucy" To: Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 6:27 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Possible reason behind the 'half blood prince' > Lucy wrote: > > Ok, I'm starting a new thread cus I can't find anywhere to post this. I've > had a brainwave about book six. Jo mentioned that she wanted to use the > first chapter of book 6 in the first and possibly 2nd books. > > I'm thinking something about Voldemort's past. Does he have children? Or > can > he still have children? Is the half blood prince some child of Voldemort's > possibly between him and a muggle? Or somehow related to Harry? > Me (fridwulfa): Personally I think this firts chapter will be about the night LV killed the Potters. Why do I think this? Well, because she has told us that book 1 started, one of the earlier drafts, started with the killing of James and Lily, and she has told us too that she's tried to use what will be the first chapter of book 6 several times before and that it was one of the discarded first chapters of Philosopher's stone. So... I think we'll get to know, finally, what really happened the night James and Lily died. Or at least a bit more than we already know which is not much. But I might be wrong, of course. Cheers, Fridwulfa From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 00:51:21 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:51:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116176 : > > Carol responds: Since Draco is present, it seems likely that he's the culprit, "accidentally" knocking over Harry's potion while > > handing in his own. Snape maintains his usual favor-the- Slytherins, > > antagonize-Harry stance, with his snide little remark and the > > supposed zero. Alla: Carol, truly and honestly, I am not being sarcastic, but , in your opinion,is Snape EVER wrong in his treatment of Harry or could you justify every incident which happened between these two? Maybe you could admit once that he is an unprofessional git, or he is always a shining example of how teacher should behave? :o) I love Sirius dearly, but I can tell you so many times, when he was wrong, wrong, wrong... Could you do the same or is Snape always right, right, right? (Not that I am forcing you, of course. Maybe what seems so obvious to me is looking as direct opposite to you) Flask is on Snape's desk and even though it could be a possibility that Draco touched it, it does not look very likely to me. Besides, it seems so IC for Snape to do so. Here I was thinking how to better phrase my reply and Nora did it much better as usual. :o) So, to continue reading my thoughts, I can safely refer you to her post. :o) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 00:54:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:54:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116177 > Del replies : snip. > He could be tempted to > abuse his authority, for example. He could be tempted to abuse the > trust people put in him (like someone else we know, name starts with a > L). Things like that. Not the Big Temptation, just a small one, that > would still teach him a lot. > Alla: Oh, that could happen, I guess, although I am having trouble imagining such scenario. But, I guess I am being incredibly slow today, so please forgive me, whose name starts with L and abused the trust people put in him? Just curious From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 01:23:10 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (kim reynolds) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041022012310.50405.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116178 Frugalarugala wrote: ... I think Tom Riddle was scary. Very scary. And here, IMHO, is why: No one thinks that they're evil. Evil is too nebulous a trait to yourself in a serious way. It's a trait that we apply to Others, 'Others' with a capital 'O', as in not us, not connected with us, not of us... >[Signed] Frugalarugala, who truly hopes that the series ends with something to do with finding the Tom Riddle in the self-de-humanizing Voldemort<< Frugalarugala: I agreed with most of the rest of your post, but left out most here to focus on your sign-off which was intriguing. Did you mean that you're hoping that Voldemort will be able to find his lost humanity by finding his inner Tom Riddle, that is, the Tom Riddle who may have been born with the potential for goodness like any other child? If so, that's what I keep hoping too. It's far-fetched, I realize. Else why was Tom Riddle's wand the alternate of Harry's? If anybody's a real "good guy" IMO, Fawkes is. So why would the only other feather that Fawkes donated to a wand be in the wand of Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort? I mean, in the hands of a real baddie like LV, Fawkes's feather ought to explode or something. Teenage TR was definitely on the road to evilhood (or already there) but maybe the child TR wasn't so bad. And the phoenix is a symbol of rebirth and redemption after all. Kim --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 01:30:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:30:42 -0000 Subject: The Mark, was Re: Snape: second chance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116179 > Barmaid wrote: > > I think most of the Death Eaters have some kind of hunger for power of their own. If this bond is real, and they all somehow need each other to stay alive, it seems very plausible that when they do not suffer any real damage from LV's fall at GH they think that their power is their own and may feel, as you suggest, that they have lucked out and do not want to tempt fate by going to look for LV. Carol notes: For what it's worth, there are already at least three Death Eaters who were killed after Voldemort was vaporized ("dead in my service," LV says of them in the graveyard scene in GoF): Evan Rosier (killed by Alastor Moody), Wilkes, and one other whose name has not been revealed. (The DEs may think it's Barty Jr., whom they believe to have died in Azkaban, though how that could be death in Voldemort's service is not quite clear.) And Barty Jr., the "loyal servant at Hogwarts" by my reading, is now worse than dead. And I almost forgot Regulus Black, murdered by his fellow DEs. These deaths seem to suggest that they do not "need each other to stay alive." And Lucius Malfoy's "Leave Nott! Leave him, I say!" certainly reveals a cold indifference to a fellow DE's fate. I do agree that the DEs who escaped Azkaban feel that they have "lucked out" and would be quite content if LV never came back, but this feeling need not depend on their needing each other to remain alive. I think it's more the perverted ethic of "every DE for himself" (Bellatrix and her fellow fanatics excepted). Carol From erikal at magma.ca Fri Oct 22 01:41:53 2004 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:41:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Ginny/Harry Message-ID: <08aa01c4b7d8$501b4580$aba31a40@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 116180 "legobaty29 wrote: >I haven't found any previous references to this but please tell me >everyone else thinks Harry and Ginny will get together! >IMO she is a young Lily Potter - red hair, feisty (in OotP she really >comes out of her shell). Well I should point out that some have also suggested certain parallels between Hermione and Lily as well-- both are Muggle-borns and Hermione will, in all likelihood, follow in Lily's footsteps and become Head Girl. Personally I shy away from making shipping arguments based on generational parallels, particularly after OoP in which the Pensieve scene turned a lot of these generational parallels upside-down. Remember in PoA, Harry has a dream in which he imagines Peter Pettigrew looking like Neville? However, we find out in OoP that Neville has far more backbone than the snivelling Wormtail we see in the Pensieve scene. Characters in the books have frequently compared Harry to his father, but we learn in OoP that James isn't quite as much like Harry as we might have thought previously. Also if you want to suggest that Hermione is a parallel to Lupin (both studious, both Prefects) then the difference them between also becomes apparent in the Pensieve scene when Lupin refuses to even try to rein in James and Sirius whereas Hermione was perfectly willing to stand up to the twins in OoP and, at several points in the series, stands up to Ron and Harry. Personally I think Rowling spent the first four books working up these parallels, inviting the reader to compare the younger generation and the older and make assumptions just so that there would be more impact when she tore all these parallels down in OoP. So basically the short answer is that I'm wary of comparing Ginny to Lily. 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 frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 02:41:16 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:41:16 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: <20041022012310.50405.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116181 Kim wrote: > > I agreed with most of the rest of your post, but left out most here > to focus on your sign-off which was intriguing. Did you mean that > you're hoping that Voldemort will be able to find his lost humanity > by finding his inner Tom Riddle, that is, the Tom Riddle who may > have been born with the potential for goodness like any other > child? If so, that's what I keep hoping too. It's far-fetched, I > realize. Else why was Tom Riddle's wand the alternate of Harry's? > If anybody's a real "good guy" IMO, Fawkes is. So why would the > only other feather that Fawkes donated to a wand be in the wand of > Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort? I mean, in the hands of a real baddie > like LV, Fawkes's feather ought to explode or something. Teenage > TR was definitely on the road to evilhood (or already there) but > maybe the child TR wasn't so bad. And the phoenix is a symbol of > rebirth and redemption after all. Frugala again: I don't think JKR is as straight-forward as to give us the big showdown fight what we've all been led expect. Nor does a *fight* really show us the higher road that I think the good guys need (from a storytelling point-of-veiw) to take. A straight-forward fight would almost be anti-climatic. I'd be terribly disapointed if it's just face-off, zap, done. But aside from that, I just think that she's writing a story that's really about hate, and where it comes from. I think she's demonstrating that in-groups + out-groups = de-humanizing people = bigotry. And Voldemort is *literally* trying to de-humanize himself. I think the way to reverse that equation is going to have to be a key to the end of Voldemort. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 02:51:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:51:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116182 > > 3. After Harry turns, he hears a smashing sound. Who or what > broke the sample vial of potion? Would Snape have broken it, given that Draco thinks Snape is teaching Harry remedial potions? Would > Draco have broken it in front of Snape? Could it have fallen by itself? > > Alla responded: > Yes, I definitely think that Snape broke it. I think that was his > petty attempt of revenge for Harry's looking into his pensieve. Do > you think that it fallen down by itself? I reread the paragraph and > could not see any indication of it. > > What gets to me the most is Snape reaction, of course "His potion > sample lay in pieces on the floor and Snape was watching him with > the look of gloating pleasure" -OOP, p.661, paperback. > Carol responds: Snape's reaction does not prove that he broke the vial, only that he's glad it was broken. I agree that he took advantage of the opportunity to avenge himself on Harry and that doing so was less than admirable. But delighting in giving Harry a zero for a spilled potion is not the same as spilling the potion himself. This scene reminds me of the moment in SS/OS when Harry think it's Snape that's making his scar hurt. JKR is again concealing information; Harry doesn't see what happens: "He had just turned away when he heard a smashing noise; Malfoy gave a gleeful yell of laughter. Harry whipped around again. His potion sample lay in pieces on the floor, and Snape was surveying him with a look of gloating pleasure. "Whoops," etc.... (OoP Am. ed. It is not clear from this scene whether the vial falls before, after, or at the same time that Hermione cleans up Harry's portion. He discovers that she has done so when he reaches his desk. It's clear, however, that if she had not done so, Harry would not have received the zero. He would have triumphantly produced the second vial. More important, while it does seem unlikely that the vial would have fallen one its own unless Harry placed it precariously near the edge of the desk, it's also very unlikely that Snape would have knocked off the vial in the presence of three students (even though Harry's back was turned, he was still *there*. And Hermione, Harry's friend, witnessed the incident. Rather than blaming Snape, she blames herself: "I'm sorry! I'm really sorry, Harry. I thought you'd finished, so I cleared up!" Her distress would surely be replaced by anger if she thought that Snape had broken the vial. And Snape, had he actually broken the vial, would be in trouble if Hermione reported the incident to McGonagall or Dumbledore. Harry is furious, to be sure, but even he does not accuse Snape of breaking the vial. His bad mood results from the zero that he received in place of the E he was hoping to have earned. I've argued elsewhere that these zeroes are not really factored into Harry's grad; he has yet to complain about an end-of-year Potions mark. Note that McGonagall has his Potions grades in front of her during their appointment and she gives no indication that they're unsatisfactory. And note that even in *her* class, he is only averaging an Acceptable, She advises him to bring his work in both classes "up to scratch (663). And there's that mysterious flicker of a smile as she notes the importance of antidotes and potions, and her implication that Harry is perfectly capable of earning an "O" on his Potions OWL if he applies himself. Almost certainly Snape and McGonagall are working together to make sure Harry learns what he needs to know, regardless of Snape's in-class gloating over spilled potions. And Harry is also angry with Hermione, desptie her apology, making sure to sit between Neville and Seamus at lunch, though he tells himself that it's because he doesn't want her "nagging him about using Umbridge's office again" (661). Once Harry gets through his career consultation appointment, he forgets about the incident entirely. And note that when Harry meets that afternoon with Black and Lupin, he points out that James, in the Pensieve memory, "attacked Snape for no good reason." He continues to defend Snape, at least until he finds out that he hexed James as often as James hexed him (671) and in answer to Lupin's question about Snape's reaction to the Pensieve incident, reports indifferently that Snape told him he'd never teach him Occlumency again. He does anticipate that Snape would "kill" him if he asked to resume Occlumency lessons, but that remark relates to Snape's reaction to the Pensieve incident and not to the Potions incident. Surely if Harry thought that Snape had deliberately broken his potion vial that very day, he would not have defended him to Black and Lupin, and would have brought up the subject either to them or to Ron. And surely Hermione, if she had seen him do it or suspected him of doing it, would have mentioned it to Harry in self-defense. Instead, we hear no more of the incident. To return to the original question, it's possible that Harry himself placed the vial so carelessly that it slipped off the desk, which would account for Malfoy's gleeful whoop of laughter. It's also conceivable that Draco would have "accidentally" broken the vial in front of Snape as he swept by to turn in his own potion and that Snape would have taken pleasure in turning a blind eye to the incident and in (ostensibly) giving Harry a zero. He's still angry with Harry over the invasion of his privacy, and he's enjoying a small bit of revenge. But he would not have stooped to breaking the vial himself, and the thought that he would do so does not even enter Harry's mind, or, apparently, Hermione's. Either of these explanations is much more likely than that Snape risked his professional reputation by breaking a student's potion vial in the presence of at least three students. Carol From tinainfay at msn.com Fri Oct 22 02:55:43 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:55:43 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116183 Geoff noted: (in a unrelated post...) And Snape's > obstinacy when Harry is trying to get help for Crouch is another case > of how not to do it. > In my most recent reading of GoF, I wondered for the first time (I kind of hate to bring this up, probably already been debunked...) if Snape couldn't have been stalling. Not just in the usual "I want to pester you, Potter" sort of way but in a way to help Crouch. Crouch/Moody did receive the owl about Crouch Sr's probable coming- clean. Now that we know what was going on in those few minutes. I have a difficult time getting my brain around Double Agent! Snape but... Set me straight here, Tina From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 03:06:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:06:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116184 > Carol responds: snip. It's clear, > however, that if she had not done so, Harry would not have received > the zero. He would have triumphantly produced the second vial. Alla: Eh? Of course, he would have produced the second vial and Snape could have smashed it just the same. Carol: > More important, while it does seem unlikely that the vial would have > fallen one its own unless Harry placed it precariously near the edge > of the desk, it's also very unlikely that Snape would have knocked off > the vial in the presence of three students (even though Harry's back > was turned, he was still *there*. And Hermione, Harry's friend, > witnessed the incident. Alla: You mean it was just as unlikely as Snape riduculing Hermione's teeth in the presence of more than three students or Snape humiliating Neville in front of the whole class, or Snape having fun at Harry's expense, while he wanted to warn Dumbledore about Crouch Sr. Snape never cares about how many students present when he is having fun. Carol: > Harry is furious, to be sure, but even he does not accuse Snape of > breaking the vial. His bad mood results from the zero that he received > in place of the E he was hoping to have earned. I've argued elsewhere > that these zeroes are not really factored into Harry's grad; he has > yet to complain about an end-of-year Potions mark. Alla: He does complain about his end of the year mark, Carol. Remember PoA? Harry thought that if Dumbledore did not interfere he would have failed the potions. Could you tell me how Snape's behaviour becomes less unprofessional, because those grades do not count? That is why he is allowed to treat the student during whole year in his usual disgusting way, if he would give him "average grade " at the end? Carol: Either of these explanations is much more > likely than that Snape risked his professional reputation by breaking > a student's potion vial in the presence of at least three students. > Alla: I submit that he risked his professional reputation SO many times already, that one more does not really matter for him. He LOVES it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 03:23:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:23:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116185 > Bookworm wrote: > I wouldn't want my kids to attend a school that had Snape > in charge! ;-) > > I agreed that McGonagall is `more' likely to survive than > Dumbledore ? mostly because she isn't in the front line. > It's just that JKR takes delight in planting hints... I also > suspect that the entire Wizarding World is going to be turned upside > down by the end of the series and there will be changes everywhere. Carol responds: Given Dumbledore's age, he'll have to retire in the somewhat near future if he doesn't die, and I think JKR will tell us who replaces him in the epilogue. Although I did note McGonagall's "if it's the last thing I do," I think (at least at the moment!) that it's something of a red herring and she'll probably survive. She certainly has the temperament and experience to be Headmistress. But I disagree with you about Snape. If he survives and if he chooses to stay at Hogwarts, I think McGonagall will make him the Assistant Headmaster, essentially filling her own current position, and that he'll remain Head of Slytherin but teaching DADA rather than Potions. Given the recognition he seems to crave, and without the (to him) odious task of keeping Harry Potter out of trouble so that he'll survive to face Voldemort, I think that Snape could be an effective second in command. McGonagall is used to working with him and seems to like and respect him, even down to a friendly rivalry in Quidditch. By the time Snape is McGonagall's age (and she's 105), he'll be ready to be Headmaster himself. Just my opinion--quite possibly not JKR's, unfortunately! Carol, in Tucson where it actually rained! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 03:28:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:28:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116186 > Carol responds: >> By the time Snape is McGonagall's age (and she's 105), he'll be ready > to be Headmaster himself. > > Just my opinion--quite possibly not JKR's, unfortunately! > Alla: McGonagall is in her 70s actually, as far as I am aware of according to one of the interviews and forgive me, but I am desperately hoping that we will never get to read about the nightmare "Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts{". :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 03:31:38 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:31:38 -0000 Subject: The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116187 Alla wrote: > > Let's speculate that McGonagall and Dumbledore are both dead at the > end. Who do you think will be a Headmaster? Carol responds: Much as I'd like to say Snape, I think it would be someone older. How about Professor Binns? (Just joking!) I'd say Flitwick, tiny but understanding and kind, with Snape as his rule-enforcing Assistant Headmaster. I don't see any other good candidates. Sprout is pretty much a nonentity and the other instructors (Vector et al.) even more so. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 03:35:31 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:35:31 -0000 Subject: The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116188 > Carol responds: > Much as I'd like to say Snape, I think it would be someone older. How > about Professor Binns? (Just joking!) I'd say Flitwick, tiny but > understanding and kind, with Snape as his rule-enforcing Assistant > Headmaster. I don't see any other good candidates. Sprout is pretty > much a nonentity and the other instructors (Vector et al.) even more so. > Alla: I said in the other posts - one of my very fond dreams is the WW changing SO MUCH after the war that werewolves are allowed to teach and Remus is invited to become a headmaster. I would also like to see of course that abuse is no longer tolerated int he classrooms and Snape goes FAR AWAY to some research institute, but I realise that this dream of mine is unlikely to come true. From khinterberg at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 03:58:12 2004 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:58:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > >> By the time Snape is McGonagall's age (and she's 105), he'll be > ready > > to be Headmaster himself. > > > > Just my opinion--quite possibly not JKR's, unfortunately! > > > > > Alla: > > McGonagall is in her 70s actually, as far as I am aware of > according to one of the interviews and forgive me, but I am > desperately hoping that we will never get to read about the > nightmare "Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts{". :) I believe Carol means that as Snape is around 35 now, after another 35 years he will be the same age as McGonagall is now, around 70. By this point, she will be 105. khinterberg, who can't imagine what 70-yr-old Snape would be like From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 05:09:35 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:09:35 -0000 Subject: Harry & Seamus. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116190 I (Carol) wrote: > What Mrs. Finnegan (who has met Harry only once, and briefly) > has done is what the WW as a whole has done--take the word of the > Daily Prophet on faith. As for why the knowledge is so > limited, it's partly Harry's understandable unwillingness to talk > about events in the graveyard before the end of term in GoF and > partly DD's own very limited and almost distorted version of events. > Technically, Voldemort didn't murder Cedric. Wormtail did. But if > either Harry or DD were to reveal that, who would believe them? > > If, instead of flying off the handle in OoP and insulting Seamus's > mother, who rightly or wrongly was not abusing her child but trying > to protect him, Harry had confided the truth to Seamus and Dean, > wouldn't Seamus have trusted him? > Finwitch responded: > > I think it's simply a misunderstanding between Harry & Seamus. > > And mind you, while Hermione told him that 'papers have discredited > him' and that's all Harry knows about it, and it's just as much > headlines as Dumbledore's 'Voldemort murdered Cedric Diggory'. > > Also, I'm not saying that Mrs F is like a Dursley, just that I find > that Harry subconciously interprets her 'believing nasty lies about > Harry' and 'preventing a young wizard from coming to Hogwarts' as > very Dursley-like. > > Actually, it's rather: do you believe that Voldemort's back&killed > Diggory or that Harry's a liar&killed Diggory? Carol responds: We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. You seem to be chiefly interested in defending Harry (whom I'm not really criticizing) while I want to get at the reasons for the misunderstanding. Maybe, as usual, I've obscured my own point with too many details. If so, please accept my apologies. Let me try again, and I'm not just talking to Finwitch but to anybody interested in this thread who wants to respond. The plain fact is that Voldemort dis not kill Cedric Diggory; he ordered him killed by a Death Eater whom the WW believes to be dead. Both Harry and Dumbledore are suppressing this important detail. Now I can understand Dumbledore not wanting to bring in Wormtail at a Hogwarts banquet when all the school is in mourning for Cedric, but he could at least have provided a sentence or two that gave his generalization greater credibility. He said nothing to explain how Harry could come back with the dead Cedric and escape from Voldemort himself. Notice the reaction of the students to his brief remarks. Even the Slytherins, Draco and all, stand up to honor the memory of Cedric Diggory. But many of the Slytherins do *not* stand up and drink to Harry, and many of the other students seem to do so rather reluctantly. Why? Surely it's because "Voldemort is back. He killed Cedric and tried to kill Harry, who escaped against great odds" (paraphrasing here) is not very much information, and it's entirely unsupported. We on this list know what happens when people are provided with insufficient information: they speculate. And when that bit of information is supplemented with misinformation like that supplied by the Daily Prophet, they leap to wrong conclusions. If Cedric is dead and Harry isn't, might Harry be somehow responsible for his death? As someone else on this thread stated, that's the question Seamus wants answered. Unlike his mother, he knows Harry well enough not to leap to the conclusion that he's dangerous, but he wants reassurance, and Harry doesn't give it to him. That moment, it seems to me, would have been the one in which to get over his own reluctance to talk about Cedric's murder and provide at least enough information to enable Seamus to believe his story. Instead Harry, falls back on self-righteousness, reacting angrily to the implication that he's a liar, and passing up the opportunity to give his friends (and I believe that they are his friends, misunderstanding or no) the information they want and need. For me, the problem boils down to this: The story, in addition to being painful for Harry, is too incredible to be believed. What? A guy who's believed by the whole WW to be dead and who has spent twelve years as the Weasley boys' rat is now a DE who killed Cedric on the orders of a helpless, infant-sized snake man? And that same former-rat-turned-DE threw the infantlike monster into a cauldron, along with the bone dust of a dead man, a drop of Harry's blood, and the DE's own hand, then recited an incantation that brought Voldemort back to his old form, after which Harry dueled with the resurrected Voldemort and defeated him, with the help of the shadows of dead people that came out of Voldemort's wand? Even in the WW, this is surely an incredible story. Might it be that Harry stubbornly refuses to tell this story not only to Seamus (and Dean) but later to the DA (and Cho) because deep down he feels that it (and he) will not be believed? Again, I'm not criticiaing Harry. My concern is with the details he would have to reveal to prove that Voldemort is back and that he, Harry, is not responsible for Cedric's death. Carol, who thinks that Harry ought at least to have tried and that Seamus and Dean would probably have believed him if he had From redlena_web at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 05:28:10 2004 From: redlena_web at yahoo.com (redlena_web) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 05:28:10 -0000 Subject: Crabbe as potential job applicant (or Snape's attitude about his own house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116191 << Christelle, quoting Snape: > "And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates it > will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I'm afraid I shall have to > mention it in your reference if ever you apply for a job." > > I almost could see a insult for Crabbe in the 'ever apply for a job', > like to remind that he really loathes stupidy. >> RedLena: I have always assumed that Crabbe and Goyle were both from wealthy families... mostly because Draco seems like the kind of git that would only want to associate with those he would see as equals. And the important points on which to measure equality to Draco Malfoy would be blood status and economic status. (Draco doesn't appear to care at all about intellectual ability.) Snape certainly has demonstrated that he loathes stupidity. But as I think about the glimpses of Snape's past that we've been given, he seems to have grown up in a different economic situation than Malfoy, and (I'm presuming) Crabbe and Goyle. So, not only is it likely that Snape's "if you ever apply for a job" comment to Crabbe has to do with Crabbe's less than stellar intellect, but it seems to me that it might be a reference to the fact that as a wealthy kid, Crabbe might not *need* to apply for a job. And none of these three kids seem to be the types to do something that they don't *need* to do, for one reason or another. Crabbe might not envision ever needing to apply for a job. It further seems to me that Snape has a variety of reasons to dislike various members of his own house. --RedLena, who really should be getting to bed now and isn't sure if she's clearly made the points she thought she was trying to make but will go ahead and post this anyway From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 06:03:44 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:03:44 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116192 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Del wrote : > There's a huge difference between "things are not well, Harry has been changed forever" and "Harry will turn into a git in the next month". I knew Harry wasn't well, of course, but I never in the entire world would have expected him to turn into Angry!Harry all of a sudden like he did. What I expected was exactly the contrary : Silent!Harry, Leave-me-alone!Harry, I-don't-care!Harry. I did NOT expect a Harry who resents his friends for not telling him more (after all, Harry's habit is to *not* ask questions, right ?). I did NOT expect a Harry who turns his own frustration on his cousin. I did NOT expect a Harry who lashes at everyone. I did NOT expect a Harry who greeted his friends with yells and recriminations, and so on. Tonks here: I mentioned this in another post some time back. Harry is acting this way because he has been through a traumatic situation. Leave out the fact that he is also a teenager and look just at the trauma that he has suffered. JKR has done an excellent job of portraying a person with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). All of the clinical signs are there. Hyper-vigilance, irritability, nightmares, and so on. The fact that this has also happened to a teenager with no social support at home makes it even worse. Harry is acting like many of us would if we had been through the same thing that he has. He feels guilty for Cedric's death, even if Dumbledore tells him not to. This is a VERY emotional time for him. That is what we are seeing here. He is still the same good kid under it all, and in time he will heal. Although he has had another tragic loss at the end of OOP. And again, he is probably feeling guilty. He will probably be a mess in the opening of the next book too. Or at least depressed from grief. I thing that one important thing that JKR is teaching here, is to show a teenager going through all of this and coping. Not well, but coping. No suicide here. She will show the teenagers of the world how to cope with trauma and loss. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 06:10:47 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:10:47 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" wrote: > I don't think JKR is as straight-forward as to give us the big > showdown fight what we've all been led expect. Nor does a *fight* > really show us the higher road that I think the good guys need (from a storytelling point-of-veiw) to take. A straight-forward fight would almost be anti-climatic. I'd be terribly disapointed if it's just face-off, zap, done. > > But aside from that, I just think that she's writing a story that's really about hate, and where it comes from. I think she's > demonstrating that in-groups + out-groups = de-humanizing people = > bigotry. And Voldemort is *literally* trying to de-humanize himself. I think the way to reverse that equation is going to have to be a key to the end of Voldemort. Tonks here: Remember that LV has some of Harry's blood in him now. And DD was pleased by that. So in some convoluted way that only JKR can perform, it may be possible that in the end,Tom Riddle will be freed of the evil that has taken him over. It will be interesting to see. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 06:30:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:30:42 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116194 Geoff wrote: > Looking through my notes above, I hope this will highlight why I find > it odd that Professor McGonagall addresses Dumbledore just by his > surname. It smacks of the office set-up of a senior speaking to a > junior and certainly not of two colleagues of approximately equal > standing. I would have been quite offended had any of my teaching > colleagues spoken to me as "Bannister" and that would have included > the Headmaster. Carol adds: What makes it even odder for me, as an American, is that McGonagall is a woman addressing a man. As I said in an earlier post that went unanswered (except for your kind information on sherbet lemons), it seems to me that most of the female characters call very few people by their first names. With Hermione and the other female students, it's first names for other students and Professor plus last name for teachers. (The one exception, as I noted earlier, seems to be that Hermione follows the boys in referring to Draco Malfoy and his friends by their last names. This seems to be the only instance of a female student using the last name alone.) McGonagall, in contrast, rarely uses first names except when she's addressing certain colleagues (notably Severus Snape) in an unofficial capacity. I believe she uses first names in the Hog's Head as well. Ordinarily, though, she'll address her colleagues as, say, Professor Snape, and her students as "Mr." or "Miss" plus last name. Her use of "Albus" for that one emotional moment in SS/PS stands out, but so does her use of "Dumbledore," for the two reasons we've stated: 1) he's her superior ("boss," as we'd say in America) and 2) she's female. It seems to put her on the same level as Snape addressing Lupin by his last name to distance him (contrast Lupin's use of "Severus" to suggest friendship or equality). But why would she want to distance Dumbledore? And if she did, why not call him "Professor Dumbledore"? ("Headmaster," which Snape uses, would be *too* formal and would emphasize her subordinate position--not something McGonagall appears to want to do.) At any rate, and I really want a British perspective on this, it seems to me that men and women follow slightly different traditions in Britain. Among schoolboys and male colleagues (in private conversation), last names are the norm and first names indicate a close friendship, is that correct? Or do last names denote enmity ("Malfoy," for example) while anyone who's not an enemy (say Ernie MacMillan) would be called by his first name? McGonagall, it seems to me, is trying to follow the first version of this tradition, with Dumbledore as a colleague except on those few occasions when her emotions get to her, in which case she treats him as an intimate friend. But she's following the *male* tradition if she's following anything at all. Carol, who is feeling like a thread breaker because so many of her posts have gone unanswered and is really hoping for a (British) response to this one From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 07:10:11 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:10:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116195 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > catkind: > > > > It would be hideously unprofessional if she were to try to make an > > exception for Harry, on the other hand I can't see Snape > > volunteering, or Harry proceeding without Potions. > > > > The only way out I can see is for there to be a new Potions > teacher next book. Perhaps Snape can finally be given the DADA > job? > Potioncat: > There are some interesting assumptions in our group, so I'd like to > send out a challenge. What is the answer to this? > > Do you think Harry could get an "O" in Potions in a way that > wouldn't have us rolling our eyes? > bboyminn: There is just NO WAY that Harry can get the highest grade/mark of 'O' on his potions test. We know Harry is average in potions, he's OK, he's adequate. We know he had trouble with the Potions OWL test, although, he found it much easier since Snape wasn't around. When Harry hands in his test potion, he admits to himself that it may not have been perfect, but he was sure that he had at least passed. I get the impression that Harry expects to get a muggle 'C' or an OWL 'A'. I would agree, and on this point I think we have concensus, that Harry did better than he thinks he did. That means he got a muggle 'B' or an OWL 'E'. That's all very reasonable; that reflects Harry's true ability in potions when Snape is factored out, but to think he jumped from his expected OWL 'A' all the way up to an OWL 'O' is just too great a leap. Harry stuggled with the written test, and while he did better that usual, his own impression is that he passed but no more than that. Conclusion, the leap to the highest possible grade/mark is just to great to be credible under any circumstances. > Potioncat: > > Snape fans don't want him in DADA (come to think of it, neither do > his foes.) The assumption is that if a person teaches DADA they must > come to a bad end at the end of the book. So, would JKR be arrested > if someone lasted to the following book? Would we be on the edge of > our seats waiting for the ax to fall...and could there be a > satifying resolution to a happy ending for the DADA teacher? (Be it > Snape or Alberforth or person of your choice) > > What would be a good and resonable way for Harry to take Potions? > And, BTW, McGonagall wasn't convinced Harry would get an E on > Transfigurations. How do you think it will work out? > > Potioncat bboyminn: Possibilities- 1.) Snape agrees to accept Harry even though he only got an 'E'. 2.) Harry doesn't take Potions. I've said before that McGonagall wasn't giving the exact specifications for an Auror, just giving the classes that would most logically serve an Auror. Harry might take Herbology, and if he does well in his Herbology NEWTs, that combined with an 'E' in OWL Potions might be enough to get him in. I'm sure the Board that reviews applicants will take into consideration that Harry is the boy who has defeated the darkest wizard in a century over and over again. 3.) There is a new potions teacher with less strict standards, which means Snape has taken a new position. So, under this circumstance, he is either out of the school on other business, or the is teaching a new subject. The most logical subject for him to teach; DADA. Scenerio number One does not allows Ron to continue on the same educational track as Harry. I can see Snape being forced to let Harry in Potions, but it's debatable if Ron would get in too. Remember, it's also Ron's ambition to become an Auror. Although, given everything Ron will have done by the end of the series, I think the Auror selection commitee will look pretty favorably on him too. The easiest and smoothest transition seems to be number Three. But we know that the DADA teachers rarely last more than a year. That would imply deep deep trouble for Snape. It would seem that Snape would either be dead or disgraced by the end of the next book. As to the curse on the DADA job, first I don't think, as others have speculated, that a curse was cast upon the job by someone. Sometimes things just get jinxed by a fickled twist of fate, and I think the fickled twist of fate that has jinxed this job is Harry. Once Harry goes, the jinx goes with him. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Oct 22 08:02:54 2004 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:02:54 -0400 Subject: Possible reason behind the 'half blood prince' Message-ID: <001801c4b80d$8b59cba0$25c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 116196 ILucy/moochy4ro said: "I'm thinking something about Voldemort's past. Does he have children? Or can he still have children? Is the half blood prince some child of Voldemort's possibly between him and a muggle? Or somehow related to Harry? " DuffyPoo: As DD said LV is the "last remaining descendant" of Salazar Slytherin, it would be difficult for LV to have children, or they would also be descendants, no? ILucy/moochy4ro said: "Hang on - brain working faster than fingers here. Petunia knows about Voldemort but how much does she know? Did she have something to do with the wizarding world - maybe more than we think?" DuffyPoo: Of course Petunia knows about LV....he murdered her sister (and possibly her parents, but that is mere speculation). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 10:18:30 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:18:30 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116197 > Carol adds: > > McGonagall, in contrast, rarely uses first names except when she's > addressing certain colleagues (notably Severus Snape) in an > > At any rate, and I really want a British perspective on this, it seems > to me that men and women follow slightly different traditions in > Britain. Among schoolboys and male colleagues (in private > conversation), last names are the norm and first names indicate a > close friendship, is that correct? Or do last names denote enmity > ("Malfoy," for example) while anyone who's not an enemy (say Ernie > MacMillan) would be called by his first name? McGonagall, it seems to > me, is trying to follow the first version of this tradition, with > Dumbledore as a colleague except on those few occasions when her > emotions get to her, in which case she treats him as an intimate > friend. But she's following the *male* tradition if she's following > anything at all. Finwitch: I think it's more of a case of 'depends on the people involved'. Using someone's surname only does not necessarily mean enmity or even distance as such... 1)Nymphadora Tonks *prefers* to be known only by her surname. 2)We might also look on *other* british books like those of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes and Watson address each other by last names all the time, and they ARE friends. About Albus Dumbledore, well... that Professor who examined him is ALSO calling him Dumbledore! (If Dumbledore doesn't want to be found...) Anyway, I'm positive that Aberforth Dumbledore calls him Albus or possibly some nickname - honest, two brothers referring to each other by surname - the surname they both *share*? Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 11:15:24 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:15:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116198 >>>Tina wrote: In my most recent reading of GoF, I wondered for the first time (I > kind of hate to bring this up, probably already been debunked...) if Snape couldn't have been stalling. Not just in the usual "I want to pester you, Potter" sort of way but in a way to help Crouch. Crouch/Moody did receive the owl about Crouch Sr's probable coming- clean. Now that we know what was going on in those few minutes. > > I have a difficult time getting my brain around Double Agent! Snape but... > Set me straight here, Potioncat: I don't think Snape and Crouch Jr were working together. Crouch! Moody was giving Snape a hard time that night Harry was stuck on the stairs. Although, I suppose we could go back and look to see if it could be read differently. I think he was stalling Harry for Dumbledore. Now, a nicer person might have said, "the Headmaster will be right down. Wait here." but Snape isn't nice. :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 11:51:17 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:51:17 -0000 Subject: Headmasters Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116199 > > > Carol responds: > >> By the time Snape is McGonagall's age (and she's 105), he'll be > ready to be Headmaster himself. > > > > Just my opinion--quite possibly not JKR's, unfortunately! > > > > > Alla: > > McGonagall is in her 70s actually, as far as I am aware of > according to one of the interviews and forgive me, but I am > desperately hoping that we will never get to read about the > nightmare "Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts{". :) Potincat: Oh dear, maths! I've seen another post that clarifies Carol's comment that when Snape is in his 70s like McGonagall is now, McGonagall will be 105. I wanted to respond to both of these so I didn't snip Dumbledore is around 150. IIRC he became Headmaster around 130? 125? We know that when he was 100 he was the transfiguration teacher and had auburn hair. Headmaster Dippet seemed much, much older. We don't know if DD was ever the Deputy Headmaster. We know that Healer Derwent came straight from St. Mungo's to be the Headmistress back in her day, but we don't know how old she was. She served for 20 years, but we don't if she retired or died. And we don't know how long McGonagall has been Deputy. SSSusan started a thread about her and after a reading a bit, I wonder if McGonagall became deputy head sometime after Godrick's Hollow incident. She doesn't seem as close to DD in that first scene. I know I don't have much to work on, but it crosses my mind (thoughts cross my mind, but they rarely stick) that for the time period of the books, McGonagall and Snape are too young for the Head and Deputy positions. Well, actually, McGonagall seems young for the Deputy position as it is. And of course, Snape is pretty young too, but we have seen other teachers his age at Hogwarts. If JKR writes a reason for there to be a change of administration, I could see her bringing in someone from outside Hogwarts for the Headmaster job. (I think it's interesting that we have that tiny bit of information about Derwent.) That could add all sorts of new tensions for everyone. I've wondered at the possibility that DD takes Minister of Magic job now that the war is starting. So maybe the tawny lion man is the new headmaster? Or one of the wizards/witches who administered OWLs. Actually, I was going to comment on Alla's comment about Snape as headmaster, but it fits better in another thread so I'll put it there...stay tuned... Potioncat, who now just remembered there is a series of books called "The Tawny, Scrawny Lion" From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 12:25:25 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:25:25 -0000 Subject: smashing flasks Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116200 > >>Alla: > > You mean it was just as unlikely as Snape riduculing Hermione's > teeth in the presence of more than three students or Snape > humiliating Neville in front of the whole class, or Snape having fun at Harry's expense, while he wanted to warn Dumbledore about Crouch Sr. > > Snape never cares about how many students present when he is having fun. > > Potioncat: And this is part of the reason I don't think Snape broke it. I think if he were going to break it (and he is that mean) he would have broken it in front of Harry for the extra bit of "Gotcha!" I think it is very interesting that even though we really don't know, we've formed firmly held opinions of what happened. The bigger question is: did JKR write it this way just for fun, or is there going to be a reason for this scene? Or is it part of building up Harry's distrust of Snape? It has also crossed my mind, that Book6!Harry or Book7!Harry with timeturner and an invisibility cloak comes back and smashes it, because the potion is exceptionally good and is used for some misdeed. Potioncat: wondering if she's had too little or too much coffe this morning. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 12:34:13 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:34:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116201 Alla wrote : "I guess I am being incredibly slow today, so please forgive me, whose name starts with L and abused the trust people put in him? Just curious" Del replies : Well, more precisely the trust one particular person put in him. Someone who knew that a certain presumed mass murderer had an easy way of getting into Hogwarts, but didn't tell DD ? Hmm ? Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 13:18:45 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:18:45 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116202 SSSusan: > > HELP!!!!! I CAN'T KEEP UP! Alla: > Deep breath, Susan, deep breath. SSSusan: Thanks, Alla. ;-) SSSusan: > > I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between > > Professors McGonagall & Snape. > > Does MM trust SS to be fair? Alla: > For all my bashing of Snape, I am fairly convinced that McGonagall > respects him. > > The most interesting question for me is whether McGonagall trusts > Snape to be fair. We NEVER hear her say that. What does it mean, I > don't know. SSSusan: You're right, we don't hear her call him fair. OTOH, we don't hear her saying he's *not* fair, either, rolling her eyes about "yet another Snape story" from the students, or etc. She *does* let her true feelings show--even in front of a classroom of students-- concerning Divination & Trelawney, so I'd rather expect her to let *something* show, too, regarding Snape if, indeed, she thought he wasn't fair. Perhaps she does know he's unfair at times but is bothered less by that than she is by an entirely fraudulent subject, which is what she sees Divination to be. Or perhaps we are back to students as a rule not complaining to teachers, and so she really doesn't know what goes on re: Snape & a couple of select Gryffindors? So many questions, so few answers.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 13:29:12 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:29:12 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116203 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between > > Professors McGonagall & Snape. > > > > Is there real respect there or is it grudging? > > What about affection? > > Is the Quidditch/House rivalry friendly or filled with > > animosity? > > Does MM trust SS to be fair? > > Does she trust him the way DD does? > > Do they drink hot chocolate, eat biscuits & chat about students > > together in the teacher's lounge? Frugala: > I think MM and SS have one of the more interesting relationships in > the school. We aren't given enough (in my oppinion) to go on but, > in a way, they must have as much history as Snape and Dumbledore-- > MM was the one directly in charge of the Marauders, and judging > from her handling of the trio and the Weasley twins, while she may > not know everything that goes on, she's not oblivious either. And > she's FAIR. > I don't think she approved of their behavior toward Snape, though I > doubt she reolized how far it went. What I wonder is, does she > reolize *now*? I think Snape's oppinion of her shows in that, as > bitter as he seems about his school days, he doesn't seem bitter > toward her. SSSusan: I hadn't thought much about the overlap in Snape's school days with MM's being his teacher and perhaps Gryffindor HoH already(?), but what you've said here seems very important--he's bitter about the Marauders, but he exhibits no apparent bitterness towards the woman who was likely WMPP's HoH. Maybe she's just ALWAYS been as fair as I see her to be now? Perhaps Snape recognizes that about her? Frugalarugula: > As far as her towards him, I think a lot would hinge on how much DD > has told her for his reason for trusting Snape, and the degree that > she trusts DD judgement--she does question his decisions privately > at times (the very first scene...)--and how much *Snape* has opened > up to her. We just haven't been shown how great a role MM actually > plays and how much she's privy too. For example, she's deputy > headmistress but what position does she hold in the Order? SSSusan: Yes, darn it, wouldn't we all like to know? Frugalarugula: > Neither of these people are warm and cuddly. Attitude-wise, they > actually have a lot in common--both are stern, formal, highly > skilled in their feilds. As far as chatting over chocolate... > maybe. As least as much as is normal with Hogwarts staff. But I'd > be more inclined to imagine a bitch session about Dumbledore. SSSusan: Hee! Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall.... They could probably almost set a staff room afire with their dueling dry wits. :- ) Frugalarugula: > Any discussion of the relationship between them really has to take > Dumbledore into account. He's in a position of authority over both > of them, and is manipulating situations which they both then have > to deal with. SSSusan: That's true. Does part of their apparent getting along come from their being compatriots in enacting DD's plans & strategies? Either that they feel a solidarity with "the team" or that they can at least commiserate w/ one another over DD's role in everything they do? Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > P.S. Any strategies for finding an extra two hours per day to > > read HPfGU posts would be welcomed! Frugalarugula: > Time-turner! I've got one I found in kitchenwares but it doesn't > work... damn those muggles and their electrical interference! SSSusan: Ack. No TT!!!! I get headaches just thinking about them. :-| Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 13:34:42 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:34:42 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116204 Pippin: > Voldebabe is very weak, so weak that he cannot survive in that > form more than a few hours without feeding. Surely all Wormtail > would have to do is wait, and within a few hours Voldebabe > would be too weak to hold a wand. What, or who, compels > Wormtail to stay? > > Voldemort says later on in the graveyard that Wormtail returned > to him only out of fear of his old friends. Yet it seems Wormtail > thinks he could have left, if only Voldemort gave him permission. > Why, if his old friends are hunting him...they wouldn't care if he > had Voldie's permission, right? SSSusan: Voldebabe [like that term!] *is* weak, and it *would* seem a reasonable option for Wormtail to just run away. So why doesn't he? I see two possibilities. One: Wormtail is truly committed to Voldy. Two: Wormtail *is* afraid of all the old DEs and figures they'll hunt him down eventually if he runs. If he stays & helps resurrect Voldemort, though, he'll (he hopes) be held up as an example to the other DEs and, thus, they wouldn't dare kill him. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 13:36:18 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:36:18 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116205 ---> > Alla: > > For all my bashing of Snape, I am fairly convinced that McGonagall > respects him. I think they have healthy house rivalry relationship > going on (if only their students could do the same) > > We have the end of OOP, where Snape seems to be almost pleased to see > McGonagall back. We hear McGonagall saying that she could not look > Snape in the eye for a week after Quidditch loss. > > I would not go as far as talk about affection. > > The most interesting question for me is whether McGonagall trusts > Snape to be fair. We NEVER hear her say that. What does it mean, I > don't know. Potioncat: I agree, there seems to be a mutual respect there, although that may just be that we like(?) both characters and project it. Has any Anti-Snape readers posted an opinion? But it's complicated by Snape's behavior in class. Does McGonagall know about and accept it for some reason? Is she of the opinion that children/teens have to adapt to the adult and not the other way around? McGonagall knew Snape when he was a boy and has known him as an associate for 14 years. So she has a different picture of him than we do. Or than Harry or than the Marauders (as teens or adults). For all we know, Snape has mellowed tremendously over the 14 years. Or maybe as bad as he is, he's never as bad with anyone else as he is with Harry. Or perhaps, given his background (whatever that is) he isn't as bad as he might have been...I'm trying to think like McGonagall here. There are two times that I can think of that McGonagall's treatment of Gryffindor-Slytherin misbehavior almost seems to indicate she knows something of the Marauder-Severus history. One is the SS/PS out in the middle of the night dragon episode. The other is when the several Gryffindors attack Draco after Quidditch in OoP. Of course, just by their nature, I would expect there to be more Gryffindor-Slytherin problems than between other Houses. And while Snape seems to knowingly punish Gryffindors for Slytherin misbehavior, I wonder if he believes it was the Gryffindors who started it...based on his experiences as a student. I'm not trying to defend Snape here, just looking at options. Because it seems if Snape is merely as bad as "we" see, there would be no reason for Dumbledore or McGonagall to tolerate him. So there must be something more. Particularly since both of them have a respect for him. Potioncat From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 13:39:22 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:39:22 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116206 "K" wrote: > > > > > > "K": > > Yes. > > Potioncat: > Elaborate SSSusan: And I'll add this: "K": Friendly. Though I do believe there's more to Quidditch than just a game. SSSusan now: Please elaborate! "K": Yes. SSSusan now: But he's *not* always, so why does she? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 13:45:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:45:19 -0000 Subject: MM crush on DD? (was: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: <20041021204650.59256.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116207 SSSusan wrote: > > I'm wondering what people think about the relationship between > > Professors McGonagall & Snape. > > > > Is there real respect there or is it grudging? Magda: > It's real respect, definitely. They both respect Dumbledore but > that's always influenced by the fact that Dumbledore is their > employer and leader, a much older wizard, and a very powerful wizard > too (and also in MMcG's case, a small but intense crush). > McGonagall and Snape are more equals than either can be with > Dumbledore. SSSusan: Oh, goody! Someone bringing up MM's possible crush on DD! I was hoping someone would pick up on that when I first posted on MM a couple of weeks ago, but no one did then. So, what say all ye? Crush or no crush? Is DD aware? Does he share the feeling? SSSusan: > > What about affection [between Snape & MM]? Magda: > I'd say yes, although it's not a modern I-feel-your-pain kind of > thing where they each feel comfortable enough to cry on the other's > shoulder. They both know the rules: no overt emotion, no > sentimentality, no lies. SSSusan: For what it's worth, this is exactly how I see it as well. Siriusly Snapey Susan From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Oct 22 13:48:10 2004 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:48:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c4b83d$c51cc790$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 116208 Tonks wrote: I mentioned this in another post some time back. Harry is acting this way because he has been through a traumatic situation. Leave out the fact that he is also a teenager and look just at the trauma that he has suffered. JKR has done an excellent job of portraying a person with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). All of the clinical signs are there. Hyper-vigilance, irritability, nightmares, and so on. The fact that this has also happened to a teenager with no social support at home makes it even worse. Harry is acting like many of us would if we had been through the same thing that he has. He feels guilty for Cedric's death, even if Dumbledore tells him not to. This is a VERY emotional time for him. That is what we are seeing here. He is still the same good kid under it all, and in time he will heal. Although he has had another tragic loss at the end of OOP. And again, he is probably feeling guilty. He will probably be a mess in the opening of the next book too. Or at least depressed from grief. I thing that one important thing that JKR is teaching here, is to show a teenager going through all of this and coping. Not well, but coping. No suicide here. She will show the teenagers of the world how to cope with trauma and loss. Tonks_op Sherry now: Thanks, Tonks for that post. What you stated above, about JKR showing teens that it is possible to cope, is why I so adamantly and vehemently reject the idea of Harry being so damaged by the end that he commits suicide or something. If he goes through all this and instead of surviving he crumbles under the strain and ends it all, I feel that would be a terrible message to teens who are struggling and already have such a high suicide rate. I considered that route in my teens, due to family trauma, but it isn't in my nature to give up. I'm too stubborn and determined to survive. I think Harry is also too determined to survive, and that having him kill himself would be a cheap cop out, especially for teenagers. I know that JKR is not writing these books for anyone but herself, but it wouldn't seem to match the other lessons she puts forth in the books. Just my two cents. Sherry G From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 13:49:19 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:49:19 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116209 snipping here and there >>> SSSusan: > I hadn't thought much about the overlap in Snape's school days with MM's being his teacher and perhaps Gryffindor HoH already(?), but what you've said here seems very important--he's bitter about the Marauders, but he exhibits no apparent bitterness towards the woman who was likely WMPP's HoH. Maybe she's just ALWAYS been as fair as I see her to be now? Perhaps Snape recognizes that about her? Potioncat: It would be interesting to know when she became HoH and when she became Deputy. And it's interesting, Draco dislikes both McGonagall and DD very much... I suppose because of the DE influence. Certainly Snape doesn't doesn't dislike either. But I wonder how he keeps from slapping Draco down at some of the comments he makes. Or how Snape deals with the whole Umbridge/ I.S. thing. > > > > >> SSSusan:(referring to Snape & McGonagall's conversations) > Hee! Wouldn't it be fun to be a fly on the wall.... They could > probably almost set a staff room afire with their dueling dry wits. :- > ) Potioncat: Oh, that would be a riot! JKR should publish another charity book based on the teachers relationships...Minutes from the Teacher's Meetings--or something. As for the staff lounge...I'll bet if they go after eacher other with quips, less brave staff members head for the hills. And Heaven help anyone who is on the receiving end if they join forces! From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 13:52:31 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:52:31 -0000 Subject: MM crush on DD? (was: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116210 > SSSusan: > Oh, goody! Someone bringing up MM's possible crush on DD! I was > hoping someone would pick up on that when I first posted on MM a > couple of weeks ago, but no one did then. > > So, what say all ye? > Crush or no crush? > Is DD aware? > Does he share the feeling? Potioncat: It was most likely the source of rampant gossip when DD promoted such a young, inexperinced witch of 60 to Deputy Headmistress! I mean, everyone knows she' such a cat! From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 22 14:08:33 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:08:33 -0000 Subject: The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > I said in the other posts - one of my very fond dreams is the WW > changing SO MUCH after the war that werewolves are allowed to teach > and Remus is invited to become a headmaster. Hickengruendler: I don't knopw. I'm all for bringing him back as a teacher but, IMO, he would be a terrible headmaster. He seems to be one of those people who try to please everybody, and I don't think that's the right character trait to become a headmaster. On this job you sometimes have to stand up to your opinion, even if it is an unpopular one, and Lupin isn't very good in this (to say it carefully), especially not against people he likes. That's understandable in this circumstances, but I still think he wouldn't be a good headmaster. And Snape as headmaster is a truly scary thought. He's bad enough as a teacher. I hope it will be McGonagall, she's tough and stubborn enough to stand up to her believes, and she's also soft enough to give people second chances, like Dumbledore. If she should die, than I hope it's flitwick, who I think would make a better headmaster than Snape and Lupin combined. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 14:10:14 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:10:14 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: <004301c4b83d$c51cc790$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116212 Tonks wrote: " I thing that one important thing that JKR is teaching here, is to show a teenager going through all of this and coping. Not well, but coping. No suicide here. She will show the teenagers of the world how to cope with trauma and loss." Sherry answered : " Thanks, Tonks for that post. What you stated above, about JKR showing teens that it is possible to cope, is why I so adamantly and vehemently reject the idea of Harry being so damaged by the end that he commits suicide or something. If he goes through all this and instead of surviving he crumbles under the strain and ends it all, I feel that would be a terrible message to teens who are struggling and already have such a high suicide rate. I considered that route in my teens, due to family trauma, but it isn't in my nature to give up. I'm too stubborn and determined to survive. I think Harry is also too determined to survive, and that having him kill himself would be a cheap cop out, especially for teenagers. I know that JKR is not writing these books for anyone but herself, but it wouldn't seem to match the other lessons she puts forth in the books. Just my two cents." Del replies : Er... I feel very uncomfortable when I read comments like that. First, as Tonks pointed out, Harry does not cope very well. If a teen has to learn how to cope, I'd rather he was taught not to yell at everyone, not to lie about what's going on, not to keep everything for himself, how to go about getting help (instead of waiting until it is forced upon him) and so on. Second, if someone is suicidal, telling them that it is possible to cope is often not going to help. When I was suicidal, no such talk would have changed anything. In fact, it might even have increased my depression, if I felt like everybody else managed to cope but I was too dumb to do it too. Telling me about people who suffered "more" than me and still coped, in particular, was a sure way of making me feel even more miserable and stupid. Third, you say, Sherry, that "it isn't in my nature to give up. I'm too stubborn and determined to survive". And so is Harry. But there are people out there who are simply not like that. And so they won't relate to Harry, and replicate his coping mechanism, no matter how strongly it is drilled into their head. Fourth, as many people have pointed out recently, this is Harry's story, not some Life Handbook for Teens and Kids. If Harry ends up suicidal, it will be sad, but so what ? It happens all the time in RL. And if he does commit suicide, it will still be very useful, to "teach" people to take better care of stressed friends. Harry is indeed representative of many kids. But he is not the absolute model. His example can be useful to many kids, but let's not make generalisations, shall we ? Del From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 22 14:11:28 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:11:28 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116213 > Alla: > > The most interesting question for me is whether McGonagall > > trusts Snape to be fair. We NEVER hear her say that. What does > > it mean, I don't know. > > > SSSusan: > You're right, we don't hear her call him fair. OTOH, we don't > hear her saying he's *not* fair, either, rolling her eyes > about "yet another Snape story" from the students, or etc. She > *does* let her true feelings show--even in front of a classroom of > students--concerning Divination & Trelawney, so I'd rather expect > her to let *something* show, too, regarding Snape if, indeed, > she thought he wasn't fair. > > Perhaps she does know he's unfair at times but is bothered less by > that than she is by an entirely fraudulent subject, which is what > she sees Divination to be. Dungrollin: I think that McGonagall and DD have a pretty good idea of how unfair Snape is. One episode from CoS stick in my mind, though there must be others. It's just after the discovery of Mrs. Norris, when Snape tries to get Harry taken off the Quiddich team, and McGonagall says something along the lines of `The cat wasn't hit over the head with a broomstick. There is no evidence at all that Potter has done anything wrong.' Now, admittedly, McGonagall is somewhat partisan when it comes to letting Harry play Quidditch, but what Snape was suggesting is *so* blatantly unfair, she *can't* have missed it. However, what I suspect that DD and MM aren't aware of, is the venomous malice with which Snape treats Harry when there aren't any adult witnesses. They're both aware that Snape can be unfair, but since they don't see the full extent of his unpleasantness, they assume that it can't be doing that much harm. Kids often take a teacher's attitude personally, so they may assume that Harry hates Snape disproportionately to how much Snape hates Harry, thus laugh it off. Potter'll grow out of it. It won't do any lasting damage. If they were fully aware of how nasty he can be, I think they'd disapprove somewhat. Dungrollin From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Oct 22 14:25:58 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:25:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116214 In a message dated 10/22/2004 6:51:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: Potioncat: And it's interesting, Draco dislikes both McGonagall and DD very much... I suppose because of the DE influence. Certainly Snape doesn't doesn't dislike either. But I wonder how he keeps from slapping Draco down at some of the comments he makes. I have thought about this as well. It's clear (at lest to me) that Draco is hands down Snape's favorite. And it is odd that Snape would choose such a child considering his allegiance to DD and the order. My theory is that it probably has a lot to do with Lucius. The way I see it is that since we know Snape is a spy for the order, and Lucius is within the inner circle of DE that maybe Snape gets his inside info from him. He then keeps Draco close to him in order to keep Draco from telling dear old Daddy that something just doesn't add up. IMO this also would explain why Snape is harder on Harry when in view of Draco. Especially since Harry was the end of Voldemort's the first time, and Snape is trying to keep the farce of being loyal. And as far as Snape's allegiance to the Order, DD in particular. I do believe he has respect for him, and wouldn't disobey a direct order from him. But I'm also not very sure that he agrees with him on a lot of things. (Sirius, and Lupin being a big example. ) Or that he would be opposed to bending the rules so that he can get what he wants out of it. (His DADA assignment on werewolves, knowing that Hermione would put it together is another example.) So that makes me wonder if maybe he doesn't let things slip every once in a while to the DE to help his hand a bit too.... I think the whole double agent thing is pretty tricky for Snape. I imagine he has to be VERY careful whatever he does knowing that either a DE (or family there of) or someone could be looking and blow his cover. I'd love to get someone else's POV on this. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Oct 22 14:43:22 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:43:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall Message-ID: <1e5.2d2407ae.2eaa768a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116215 In a message dated 10/22/2004 7:13:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com writes: > SSSusan: > You're right, we don't hear her call him fair. OTOH, we don't > hear her saying he's *not* fair, either, rolling her eyes > about "yet another Snape story" from the students, or etc. She > *does* let her true feelings show--even in front of a classroom of > students--concerning Divination & Trelawney, so I'd rather expect > her to let *something* show, too, regarding Snape if, indeed, > she thought he wasn't fair. When reading this a thought popped into my head. MM does show her feelings about Trelawney and divination, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that Sybil's not in the Order. Perhaps DD and MM give Snape a little more leeway because they know he's loyal and what his job is in the scheme of things concerning Voldemort. I do however think that DD and MM think that he's unfair to Harry because of the statement DD makes to Harry regarding Occlumency... "I trust Severus Snape," said Dumbledore simply. "But I forgot another oldmand's mistake---that some wounds run too deep for the healing I thought Professor Snape could over ocme his feelings about your father---I was wrong." pg 833 Chapter 37 Order of the Phoenix US hardback IMO this shows that Dumbledore does know how Snape treats Harry. Does anyone else have any other ideas of what this could mean? Of course this is refering to Occulmency, but it also shows to me that DD knows this to be an on going problem. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Oct 22 15:23:51 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:23:51 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Here's something else that bothers me. At the beginning of GoF, > Peter tries to persuade Voldebabe that he should be allowed to > go fetch another wizard, and Voldebabe thinks this is a plan to > desert him. But that is very strange. > > Voldebabe is very weak, so weak that he cannot survive in that > form more than a few hours without feeding. Surely all Wormtail > would have to do is wait, and within a few hours Voldebabe > would be too weak to hold a wand. What, or who, compels > Wormtail to stay? > > Voldemort says later on in the graveyard that Wormtail returned > to him only out of fear of his old friends. Yet it seems Wormtail > thinks he could have left, if only Voldemort gave him permission. > Why, if his old friends are hunting him...they wouldn't care if he > had Voldie's permission, right? > > Pippin Carolyn: It's the persuasive part of Agent!Peter theory. Firstly he didn't have to hide with the Weasley's for 12 years; secondly he didn't have to go back to Voldie; thirdly he didn't have to help Voldie with his plans, especially the resurrection spell. So, why did he? He could have buggered off to deepest anywhere, and lived as a rat for a very long time before anyone tracked him down. We've no evidence that the DEs are an international gang, beyond Karkaroff's job at Durmstrang (which he may have got post-Vapor!Mort), and Sirius only came after Peter once he saw the photo in the Daily Prophet. And for that matter, why did Peter allow himself to appear in the photo of the Weasley's on holiday? If he was trying to hide from everyone, particularly those that knew he was a rat, it was a pretty stupid thing to do, don't you think? Sounds as though it was a staged shot, with the Weasley family all grouped together, not a paparazzi shot using a telephoto lens - plenty of time for him to scarper into Ron's pocket, bag or down his trouser leg... If he's not smart enough to hide from a photographer, how come he was smart enough to spy for a year, beat Sirius at duelling and simultaneously blow up a street? Instead, is Peter, in his weak, rat-like way gradually nerving himself to play another role - his part in Voldie's downfall? Carolyn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 15:51:07 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:51:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116217 Kneasy: > > But to expand the concept to a more general level - I'm going to > > ask the fans to do something they may find difficult. > > > > Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen. > > Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her > > website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution. > > > > Because I can't see any such evidence. > > > > Cries of "Oh, she must!" don't work, nor do expostulations that > > "She couldn't do that in a childrens book" because she didn't > > write the books for children. On more than one occasion she's > > stated that she wrote the books *for herself* - and it wasn't a > > particularly easy time in her life, either. Alla: > Oh, Kneasy, thanks, but no thanks. :) I will hold on to my "happy > delusions". > > Last time I checked - no one made "metathinking" evidence > foribidden one yet. > > Seriously, though what do you mean by " ending like no other" ? > Memorable, like no other? I think she will manage > that . "Bloodbath"? I doubt it, because no matter how many times > she will repeat that she wrote the books for herself, I will > consider it in part to be a marketing trick. I have no doubt that > she writes the books for herself too, but , IMO, she clearly > oreints the books toward the younger audience. SSSusan: I'm here *not* to offer up canonical evidence of a happy resolution, for, being admonished to set aside our wants, I agree w/ Kneasy that there isn't much IN THE BOOKS to assure us of this. So I'm here, rather, to address that "she wouldn't because they're children's books" point. I often hate the "but they're CHILDREN'S books" argument *because* it gets used often, imo, simply to avoid whatever issue is being raised. (NOT talking about you, here, Alla!) That being said, I'm going to attempt to sort of argue two sides of the children's books statement. I know that JKR has said (and I believe it) that she is writing these books for herself. She HAS, however, also used the words--numerous times--"children's books," along the lines of, "When one is writing children's books, as I am...." I remember being struck, as I read through the interviews section of George Beahm's Muggles & Magic: J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter Phenomenon, just how often those words have come out of her mouth. [Book is at home; I'll provide quotes later if asked!] Here is one example, from Salon, in 1999: Q: What was it like when you realized the book [SS/PS]was a success? A: I had been very realistic about the likelihood of making a living out of writing children's books -- I knew it was exceptionally rare for anybody to do it -- and that didn't worry me. I prayed that I would make just enough money to justify continuing to write, because I am supporting my daughter single-handedly. And another from Scholastic: Q: What do you think it is about Harry Potter that connects with so many people? A: It's very hard to think about my work in those terms, because I really wrote it entirely for myself; it is my sense of humour in the books, not what I think children will find funny, and I suppose that would explain some of the appeal to adults. On the other hand, I think that I have very vivid memories of how it felt to be Harry's age, and children seem to identify strongly with Harry and his friends. ... I never thought about writing for children --- children's books chose me. My point is, while JKR is writing the books for herself, to tell the story in her own way, and while she's said she didn't SET OUT to write children's books, she *does* reference writing children's books or writing for children. **I** think what she's saying when she says she's writing them for herself is that she doesn't think of herself as writing *formulaic* children's books, nor does she think certain topics can't or shouldn't be brought up [in particular, death]. In that way, she's not "doing" typical children's books, but I do think she is writing with children in mind. Does that distinction make sense? They're not standard children's books; she doesn't want to be locked into standard acceptable practices or topics for children's books; yet she is writing books in large measure for children. So while I don't think there are things she believes she CAN'T introduce, I think there are things she WON'T introduce per personal preference. No, I'm not JKR, and I don't mean to sound as if I'm speaking for her! I'm simply trying to point out a distinction I see between writing "typical" children's books and writing books where an author purposely doesn't want to and won't promise to skirt tough issues as many children's books do... but at the same time still acknowledging that she is writing in large part for children. Alla: > Just look at the battle at MOM, please? > > Which curses kids were hit with? "Dancing legs"? Ron was attacked > with the brain? > > Yes, Sirius fell through the Veil, yes, Harry was possessed, but > altogether impressive picture of violence? I don't think so, not in > my opinion. SSSusan: These are good examples of what I'm trying to get at. JKR is NOT going to avoid hurt, betrayal, death, loss, anguish, the unfairness of life, political incompetence, treachery, or evil, because she doesn't want to, and she thinks it's important for people/children to deal with them. But I do think we can tell that she is writing in large part for children in HOW she presents these things. Example. Many people on this board have expressed the view that it's fruitless to debate about the relative merits of Harry/Hermione, Ron/Hermione, Harry/Ginny, etc., because JKR is showing no signs of pairing anybody off in a love match by the end of the series. Debate this all you will, but I wonder if the reason so many people feel it's just not "there" and is, rather, simply in the minds/hearts of the fans is because JKR is purposely leaving the relationships non- sexual in nature. Harry has a kiss with Cho [offpage], we see Roger Davies snogging w/ someone in the tea shop, we see Ron's jealousy over Krum, but we're not SEEING anybody hitting the sack--even older characters such as Percy & Penny, Charlie, Bill,.... Why is that? Because it doesn't *interest* JKR? That could be. Could also be that she's writing a deep, complex, multi-layered series which adults love to discuss and analyze but which she's actually targeting primarily to children. Boy, is this EVER a convoluted way of saying that on one hand I think Kneasy is right--there is NO assurance that the ending will be happy. But I come to that conclusion acknowledging along the way that I think JKR *is* writing with children in mind, BUT emphatically saying that I don't think one can "use" that as an argument for a happy ending *requirement*. That's where the "for herself"/not standard children's book part comes in. JKR may be writing for children, and I believe she may be tempering the "bloodbathy" kinds of descriptions for their sake, but she's also NOT promising a "standard" children's book with a happy ending just for the sake of the kids. I suspect I'll take a lot of grief for this, as I don't think I've been particularly clear.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Fri Oct 22 15:58:56 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:58:56 -0500 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116218 Del wrote : > Building on the recent threads of "this is Harry's story", I'm > wondering about what new experiences Harry might have to go through. boyd: First, I'll show why I agree with Del, then I'll discuss who I think will die, and who will betray. Then I'll grin evilly and go buy a candy bar to reward myself. Paraphrasing, Del suggested that there are four wrenching emotional experiences that Harry might see in the future in order to continue his difficult journey. 1) Grief over the death of someone close. 2) Guilt over causing some catastrophe, such as another death. 3) Betrayal by someone trusted. 4) Self-doubt. JKR has already apologized for the fact that there will be more deaths. Unless she means *only* Harry in book 7 (doubtful), then your #1 (a death) is a forgone conclusion. And if Harry somehow has a hand in that, you'll have #2 (guilt) and #4 (self-doubt), as well. But every book has had a self-contained mystery/plot in it, so HBP probably will. Poor Jo's going to need all the pages she can get for that and advancing all of our other theories , so she'll make #3 (betrayal) part of the same event. How? * DD will be the death (or lost in some other way). In the end, Harry has to be alone (or perhaps joined only by Ron/Hermione) to face LV. That's usually how these things play out, right? Plus, LV himself must realize that he needs DD out of the way to win a real WW war. Hooray for mayhem! So how will DD die? * A friend's betrayal will lead Harry into an LV/DE trap. DD will save Harry but be killed in the process. There's #2, #3 and (as a result) #4 for you. Only Snape's (or for the extra-subversive, Peter's) heroics will prevent LV from killing two birds with one stone. So Harry is saved, but responsible for a death because he trusted the wrong person. Emotional pains 1-4 complete. OK, now for the fun. Who is the betrayer? (laughs an evil laugh while rubbing hands, um, evilly, too) First, let's eliminate the least likely candidates: -Sirius: He's dead, so he can't. Perhaps someone could impersonate him (via the mirror?) and lure Harry to DD's doom, but it ain't the grim godfather. -Peter: I doubt Harry would follow him anywhere unless there were trickery involved, and that doesn't encompass betrayal, so ixnay on Wormtail. -Ron/Hermy/Other Gryffindors: ESE? Them? Very doubtful. Even Kneasy wouldn't be so subversive (I hope). -Any Slytherin: Again, not a betrayal. -McGonagall: I read her as being genuinely good, but feel free to drag her through the mud if you like. -Weasley Parents: Oh, please. Arthur nearly died protecting the prophecy, and Molly is Molly. -Other secondary characters: not very bangy. So that leaves the following short list of betrayal candidates, likeliest (IMO) first: -Dursleys: Exquisitely bangy! Love that horrid family, and depositing Harry in LV's hands would seem to them no worse than taking out the trash; fits their worldview. And what an unexpected start (or end!) to the book it'd be. But is it betrayal? Can LV find them? Does this negate some agreement with DD and the WW that they have established, as some suggest? Dunno, but it'd be fun in a nasty way. And would this mean that it was Petunia who learned magic late, using it to summon the Dementors and now to contact LV? She might see LV as a tool for separating the WW from the RW, after all! -Ginny: OK, H/G shippers, here's your vessel--except that in this nightmare Ginny remains under the influence of TR somehow and lures a love-struck Harry into her master's trap. Ouch! -Luna: H/L shippers beware, because this voyage never makes it to port! (groan) Perhaps Luna has seen it written in the stars that Harry needs to die, and she's just answering the call. Or maybe she really is crazy. -Other love interest: whomever else Harry falls for, watch closely, because boys his age are not great judges of female character. -Lupin: Moony's no longer at Hogwarts, we presume, so he'd have to appear out of nowhere in the story to whisk Harry away on some pretense. So not my favorite pick. Plus, I'm not an ESE!Lupin fan. -Dobby/Winky: Seem to love Harry, but how much do we really know about them? Perhaps Dobby's still in the service of Lucius (now that'd by subversive!). Or perhaps Winky goes begging to Lucius for a new home, and he makes the delivery of Harry a condition of hire? Or perhaps the house-elves have an agenda beyond our ken.... -Snape: Lots of folks think he's ESE--including Harry, so that's no betrayal. And I think ESE!Snape is wrong. His moral color is clearly as grey as his underpants, IMO. Plus, he's the one who'll whisk Harry away to safety, finally demonstrating to Harry his true allegiance. -Percy: I doubt it, but Harry trusts him despite his git-ness, right? Perhaps he really is ESE? Bangy only because the other Wesleys would be broken-hearted. -Fudge: The truly evil politician--is that redundant? Hmmm. But would Harry follow him into a trap? Would Fudge risk his job by personally doing something so obviously evil? And how much of a betrayal is that? So here's the likeliest scenario in my mind. Harry, fresh from a particularly gut-wrenching scene in the WW, where the latest vexing mystery has been solved (but not before something horrible nearly happened to Ron and/or Hermione), arrives back at Platform 9 3/4 utterly alone and exhausted. He gets in the car with Petunia and suddenly he realizes that there are still 52 pages left in the book! He tries to get away, but Petunia binds him with *her late sister's wand*, then tells him how she hates all you wizard freaks, and wishes the WW would keep to itself and away from her and her ickle Duddykins. And that's why she delivers Harry to a place full of DEs...and LV himself. She leaves as LV preaches fanatically to his DEs while they leisurely Crucio Harry, drink apple martinis, and discuss the relative merits of autocracies vs. theocracies. DD arrives and walks into the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to say something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have your mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." And, of course, his eyes gleam. Then Snape appears from nowhere, grabs Harry, and leaves with him just as LV AKs DD. AFAIK, QED, IMHO. (Um, sorry, got carried away with the acronyms.) There, now DD is apparently dead and Harry must trust Snape at last. And the plot has finally moved forward that last step before the conclusion in book 7. Any takers? --boyd wondering whether that scenario is a bold prediction or a poorly-constructed fanfic From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Oct 22 16:07:55 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:07:55 +0100 Subject: Harry Message-ID: <88A92A88-2444-11D9-829C-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116219 Another character assessment/profile - sort of. More a series of impressions, reflections of what we see on the page, than a consideration of origins and causes, so a lot less theorising - which will please some. While it's not particularly unusual for a stand-alone novel to document the 'coming of age' of an individual or group, it is uncommon for such a development to be described almost in real time by a series - an unbroken year-by-year sequence; the only hiatuses being (apparently) the result of the sheer physical impossibility of producing a book every year. In one way that's a pity; it would have been fascinating to hear the responses of fans who had aged at the same rate as Harry; who started the books aged 11 and finished the series aged 18. Fascinating too, that JKR finds book series where the children aren't allowed to grow up 'sinister'. Not for Harry the security and familiarity of an unchanging world, nor indeed the security and familiarity of an unchanging Harry for the reader. As the series progresses the themes shift too, reflecting Harry's realisation that the world is not a simple, black and white, easily categorised place. All part of growing up, of learning to cope, of shedding the childlike view that the world revolves around you. Life isn't fair, it isn't equitable, just rewards or desserts are not guaranteed, and so it is for Harry. His life so far hasn't been a bed of roses and though he shows a remarkable level of acceptance of and resilience to the way he's been treated, along the way he's also been presented with knowledge, information that he'd really rather not have to assimilate but that sooner or later he'll have to come to terms with. While the POV presented is almost exclusively Harry's, the readers and fans addicted to sites like this inevitably put their own spin on plot developments and revelations. Usually, though not always, this involves considerations of how the revealed nugget will affect the plot; it's less common to ask what will be the effect on Harry or his view of the world. I'm not a fan of assigning RW psychological theories of cause and effect to fictional characters; it's a losers game IMO. Harry can't be compared to a real child in his treatment or his reactions. The only viewpoint we have is Harry's and he obviously considers that his view is perfectly reasonable. There is zero objectivity. For those that enjoy worrying about such matters this could be considered a definite drawback; but no matter, they'll go ahead and do it anyway. Emotions aren't Harry's big thing; sure he has some, but they're generally used to add a quick, bright splash of colour to a scene or encounter - mostly anger, recently. Consider; Harry has supposedly led a life of utter misery for 10 years at Privet Drive. Has he ever cried? A real child would. But despite emphasising how horrible it all was, JKR has never underlined the misery with tears. Similarly with the wider background; a crowd of 11 year olds leave home for a strange place full of strangers. With no homesickness. Unreal in our world, but quite acceptable within the confines of the story. Emotions are a tool for the author, not a textbook representation of a characters psyche. If they're not useful in a given situation, they're ignored. No; Harry isn't a great one for introspection. There's some thought of course, got to be, otherwise we wouldn't have a clue of what he's liable to do next, or why. But this is separate from the cliched brooding teenage angst of "Why does everybody hate me?" Harry already knows why people hate him - and it doesn't seem to bother him much that they do. He gets by quite satisfactorily with hating them back. This would be seen as a definite failing in our world where it would be considered as 'judgemental', 'inappropriate' or any one of a list of similar terms and the 'sufferer' would be urged to delve into the relationships, look for motivations, see the other's point of view, try modify their behaviour or to seek a compromise. Can you imagine what all the Harry - Draco confrontations would result in outside the WW? A pile of files, profiles, assessments and recommendations three feet high. Fortunately we're spared this modern obsession with forcing all to conform with a pre-determined norm and we can get on with the action. For action is Harry's forte. Whenever there's a new development, generally speaking Harry's first response is to *do* something. Any advice to the contrary is unwelcome and usually over-ridden or ignored. Sadly, although action is what he's good at, fitting the right action to the circumstances is a bit iffy. Not only does he leap into action, he usually jumps to conclusions too. Wrong ones. It's a gift, a law of nature, like toast always falling butter-side down. It all adds to the entertainment immensely - but detracts from the suspense. You just *know* he's got hold of the wrong end of the stick and somebody'll suffer because of it. It's just a question of finding out who. And the stakes rise with each book. Escalation, it's called. Those at risk, then those who die, get closer to Harry as the series progresses. Quirrell!Mort cops it in the neck in PS/SS. No big deal - he's a baddy. Argh! Ginny's in trouble in CoS, but it's Tom that's crunched. Phew! Just another baddy, thank heavens. Oh no! Sadlymisunderstood!Sirius in PoA is due for a snogging session with a Dementor! But it's OK, he escapes at the last minute. GoF, Cedric - a sort of friend, not close, dies - leaving behind a girl Harry quite fancies. It's not all bad news, then. OoP - Sirius - someone *very* close - dies. *Gulp* What, or rather who, is next? Dear, oh dear. Can Ron, Hermione or DD be far behind? Or will it be multiples next time? There's one aspect of Harry that would fit very well in our modern society. Nothing is his fault. He accepts no responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. Good intentions excuse everything. It's all a part of his lack of introspection of course. He didn't want, couldn't foresee the outcome. So if it's unpleasant it's not down to him. He did what was right. Blame somebody else. To a greater or lesser extent he's encouraged in this line of thinking by DD. No matter what's just gone catastrophically wrong, no matter who has just departed precipitately to join the choir celestial, he tells Harry that it wasn't his fault. No word of censure passes DD's lips; he never even tells him to be careful next time. Any rule-breaking and the old fool vapours on about "I know I said that further breaches would result in expulsion - but..." A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. Sanctions will probably never be applied, no matter what transpires. DD might regret that, one day. He could be the one caught at ground zero by one of Harry's ideas. Time for the next great adventure, Albus. What happens next? Good question. Second-guessing Jo is a mugs game. We all do it of course, with success rates varying between awful and abysmal. About the only thing we can be fairly sure of is that Harry will survive until near the end of book 7 at least. And weren't there hints that in book 6, at long last, Harry will do some thinking? About time, says I. At long last he might engage his brain long enough to ask all the blindingly obvious questions that never occurred to him previously - you remember, the ones you screamed at the book when he was distracted from an important conversation by a piece of inconsequential trivia. Yes, those. Mind you, it might not be that at all. He'll be brooding over that damn Prophesy (welcome to the club, Harry!), brooding about Sirius; it's unlikely he'll be a happy bunny, least of all with DD. I did suggest last year that he'd try to avoid his ordained fate; that he'd try to abdicate from position of saviour to the WW. Opt out. Refuse to play along with DD's plan. Because he may be beginning to realise that DD has been grooming him for this role since forever, that DD's famed philosophy of choices has not been allowed to him. He's been volunteered and he's not happy about it. ("It's you or him, Harry. Got your wand?") Then some person ostensibly concerned for his well-being and happiness may make 'helpful' suggestions. Don't listen, Harry! Don't do it! Oh dear. Too late. It'll be a disaster. Death(s) ensue. Harry returns to the straight and narrow - remorseful for once, and knuckles down to the greater struggle. We hope. Kneasy From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 22 16:19:43 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:19:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116220 Nora: (speaking of ESE!Lupin living on unproven at the end of Book Seven) > This is certainly *possible*, but ESE!Lupin is of the sort of theory that's less interpretation than speculation, and thus lives on the eventual 'yea' or 'nay'. What *is* eminently possible is to get some sort of character information in book 6 that could drive some strong wedges into the theory--even if we don't get a complete resolution then. I'm too lazy to come up with some things off the bat, but I'm sure Pippin, who has assiduously reworked the theory every time challenges come up, can think of something that would be genuinely damaging--without Revealing All. > Pippin: To tell you the truth, I expected there'd be serious wedges in the theory at the end of OOP...as you would expect if it were merely an artifact...the literary equivalent of the Face on Mars. It would be quite easy to undermine the theory if JKR wished. It's a big bang theory and it stands or falls on the bang -- if there's no horrifying moment of shock and revelation, followed by pity and fear, it just isn't on. That won't be till Book Seven if it comes. But meanwhile nothing should happen to undermine the drama of that eventual moment of tragedy and truth. The relationship between Harry and Lupin may not command much importance in HBP, as it didn't in GoF, but it shouldn't evaporate. We should learn more about the non-human rights struggle in the wizarding world which Rowling has planted as ESE!Lupin's motive. The Order should still be haunted by the spectre of betrayal. The lesser mysteries should be subtly revisted so that they hover on the edge of the reader's consciousness without slipping off the radar altogether. For example in OOP we were reminded about Lupin's boggart, told about Lupin's role in the tension between James and Snape, and informed that there's some way of investigating dementors to see who gave them orders. To those who asked, there isn't a comprehensive version of ESE!Lupin. It has been built up incrementally over several years and many, many posts. It isn't so much a literary theory as a piece of detective work and there have been plenty of false leads and red herrings along the way. I have to admit I am fonder of Lupin as an outright villain than I was when I thought he was a passive-aggressive Snape basher. Still, I had no idea when I started looking for clues to incriminate him that I would find any worth taking seriously. Some of course, would say that I still haven't. Pippin From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Fri Oct 22 16:33:30 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:33:30 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116221 > Del wrote: > > Harry is indeed representative of many kids. But he is not the > absolute model. His example can be useful to many kids, but let's not > make generalisations, shall we ? kmc adds: Here is my take on the "emotions" of the trio: Ron was emotional in GOF, Harry in OOTP, Hermione in POA. Emotions are a part of teenage life. Each year in my youth group, we deal with long time friends having major emotional blowups, (ages late 14 - early 16). This is a basic fact of growing up and has to do with hormones going out of control. Elves and others - Real life support of my theory: A 16 year old youth, a 20 year old Jr. advisor and I were discussing OOTP and Harry's emotional outbreaks while cleaning up the kitchen after a youth event last Saturday. I made the comment "Harry's fifteen, what did you expect" when the 16 year old replied "I wasn't emotional last year". At which point the 20 year old broke out laughing with a "Yes you were". We moved on to discussing some of the past events of the group that were caused by 15 year old emotions and compared them to the incidents in POA, GOF, and OOTP. Ron and Hermione have many emotional battles in POA and GOF with Harry on the observing side. One of the reason the trio has stayed together is that they went through this period at different times in their lives. Both Harry and Hermione had extra stress during their emotional times. Hermione was living a 27 to 30 hour each school day during POA and Harry was suffering from sleep depravation during OOTP. It is the fact that Harry lost control that makes OOTP one of my favorite HP books. It is so true to the life of a teenager. kmc From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 16:50:36 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:50:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116222 SSSusan: > My point is, while JKR is writing the books for herself, to tell the > story in her own way, and while she's said she didn't SET OUT to > write children's books, she *does* reference writing children's books > or writing for children. > > **I** think what she's saying when she says she's writing them for > herself is that she doesn't think of herself as writing *formulaic* > children's books, nor does she think certain topics can't or > shouldn't be brought up [in particular, death]. In that way, she's > not "doing" typical children's books, but I do think she is writing > with children in mind. Finwitch: Also, as I see the matter, her primary target are people of the same age as Harry - or at least, not children age 2-5 but more like 8 and up (kids who can READ, that is). And if we look at Grimms' Fairy Tales or those by H.C.Andersen or other classical fairy tales - original any way, not the over-sweet Disney-versions - that ARE considered as children's books, do they not deal with death? Or sufferance? Or violence? Think of the little girl selling matches, where the heroine freezes to death at the end. Or the Prince and the Sparrow... they died, too. So you can't really say thing X won't be in a book just because it's for children. Harry *can* die, since I certainly see HP-serie being like the classic tales where even heros DO die. And what Harry's missing - well, GOOD things! Life! (Hmm.. what if Harry can get rid of Voldy by *living*... now that would be something, wouldn't it?) Finwitch From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 16:56:13 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:56:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's temptation (was: Harry's experiences : what's missing ?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116223 Alla wrote : > "Do you think that he can be tempted anyway, despite author denying > it, Del?" Del replies : > No no no ! That's not what I meant. I just meant that JKR said Harry > would never be tempted *to go to the Dark Side*. But that's not the > only kind of temptation he could experience. He could be tempted to > abuse his authority, for example. He could be tempted to abuse the > trust people put in him (like someone else we know, name starts > with a L). Things like that. Not the Big Temptation, just a small > one, that would still teach him a lot. SSSusan: He could also be tempted to run away and to choose not face up to the burden he bears by virtue of being the only one who can defeat Voldy. THAT'S a temptation I could see him wrestling with...at least for a short time. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 17:10:28 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:10:28 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116224 Carol: > Snape's reaction does not prove that he broke the vial, only that > he's glad it was broken. SSSusan: True, there's no proof. But it's written this way for a reason, imo! (See below.) Carol: > Harry is furious, to be sure, but even he does not accuse Snape of > breaking the vial. SSSusan: But the REASON he didn't accuse him is the key, isn't it? Here's what I wrote previously: >>>The reason is that we're seeing this from Harry's POV as usual. HARRY isn't supposed to know for certain that Snape broke it-- that way he can't accuse him or report him! That Snape's a smart guy! IMO, he saw what Hermione was doing, saw that Harry's back was turned, made a quick decision to "repay" Potter for the Pensieve incident. Perfect! Potter will "know" from the look on his face and the "Whoops" but he won't be able to DO anything about it because he didn't see it directly. We're supposed to feel it the way Harry felt it--frustration and all, I think.<<< You believe Snape is smart. Hopefully you also agree that he can be a royal asshole, esp. where Harry & Neville are concerned. Add to that that, in this case, he is *justifiably* angry with Harry for having looked in the pensieve. Doesn't 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 pretty clearly here? Of coure there are alternate possibilities, but what's likeliest? What fits best? Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 17:41:07 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:41:07 -0000 Subject: Question to the psys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116225 ---Christelle wrote: > Without the book here, when Neville try to hurt Draco and Harry and > Ron stop him. They almost choked him and Snape said to release him > and took points for fighting. > > And in Umbridge's office, GoyleorCrabbe strangle him and the same, he > said to release him. In a Snapish way "too much paperwork" or > something. In fact I liked this phrase so I'll searched it : snip Potioncat: Oh, how could I have forgotten! I like both these scenes. I think Snape knows what's going on in the first scene. He doesn't really take very many points from Gryffindor (just enough) and he puts an end to the situation. And the second is hilarious! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 18:14:03 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:14:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116226 > boyd: > > DD arrives and walks into > the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to say > something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have your > mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." Neri: How about: "run, you fool!" Neri apologizes for the one liner From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 12:58:01 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:58:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116227 Tina wrote: > > In my most recent reading of GoF, I wondered for the first time (I > kind of hate to bring this up, probably already been debunked...) > if Snape couldn't have been stalling. Not just in the usual "I > want to pester you, Potter" sort of way but in a way to help > Crouch. Crouch/Moody did receive the owl about Crouch Sr's probable > coming- clean. Now that we know what was going on in those few > minutes. > > > > I have a difficult time getting my brain around Double Agent! > Snape but... > Potioncat: > I don't think Snape and Crouch Jr were working together. Crouch! > Moody was giving Snape a hard time that night Harry was stuck on the > stairs. Although, I suppose we could go back and look to see if it > could be read differently. > > I think he was stalling Harry for Dumbledore. Now, a nicer person > might have said, "the Headmaster will be right down. Wait here." > but Snape isn't nice. :-) LisaMarie now: I agree with Potioncat on this one, probably because I love Snape, even though he's horrible to ... well, nearly everyone, I guess. I am hoping relentlessly for DoubleAgent!Snape, with a little MoralConversion!Snape sometime around book 7. But seriously, I think he is, at the very lease, stubbornly loyal to DD and therefore "on Harry's side" in the situation with Crouch Sr. I just don't think he could allow himself to help Harry /nicely/. He loves to provoke Harry, and in this situation, it served two purposes: 1) he got to see Harry absolutly seething with anger, and 2) the commotion summond the necessary attention. Hmmm. Being helpful to DD and horrible to Harry .... Snape's best day in a long time! LisaMarie From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 14:14:13 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juliana Botero) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Crabbe as potential job applicant (or Snape's attitude about his own house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041022141413.87244.qmail@web90102.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116228 Christelle, quoting Snape: > "And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates it > will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I'm afraid I shall have to > mention it in your reference if ever you apply for a job." > > I almost could see a insult for Crabbe in the 'ever apply for a job', > like to remind that he really loathes stupidy. RedLena: >I have always assumed that Crabbe and Goyle were both from wealthy families... mostly because Draco seems like the kind of git that would only want to associate with those he would see as equals. And the important points on which to measure equality to Draco Malfoy would be blood status and economic status. (Draco doesn't appear to care at all about intellectual ability.) >Snape certainly has demonstrated that he loathes stupidity. But as I think about the glimpses of Snape's past that we've been given, he seems to have grown up in a different economic situation than Malfoy, and (I'm presuming) Crabbe and Goyle. Juli Now: I do agree that Snape hates stupidity, maybe that's the reason he *hates* Neville, or why he *thinks* he hates Neville. MM and Lupin have shown as Neville can be in fact intelligent so it's his lack of confidence that kills him when doing magic. We know Crabbe and Goyle are plain stupid, not unlike Neville, even Draco knows it "If you were any slower you'd be going backwards". So why does Draco hang with them? Simply because they're his bodyguards. He doesn't think of them as equals, he thinks they're beneath him. Somewhere i've read (can't seem to remember where right now) that Nott's far more equal than C&G, he's wealthy, pureblood AND smart. So why doesn't they hang together? I think it's because Draco wants to feel he's better than everyone and C&G serve this purpose, Nott on the other hand looks him as an equal, not as the boss. I don't think Snape is poor, he may not be as wealthy as the Malfoys but he's got enough. When we look back at the pensive scene with SS and the Marauders, SS underwear are grey, grey doesn't mean old, old clothes are yellow. And also we know Draco looks up to him, Does anyone think he would take a poor person for a roll model? Juli signing out for now... From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Oct 22 18:28:42 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:28:42 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizards at Large References: <1098404094.17943.51740.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003a01c4b864$f5ece540$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 116229 Carol wrote: >Your remark leads me to wonder (again) how all the wizard parents >disguise themselves when they drop off or pick up their children a >Platform 9 3/4. A Muggleborn or half-blood parent would know how to >disguise him- or herself as a Muggle, but purebloods like the Weasleys >seem somehow (despite seven kids who wear jeans and jumpers on >occasion and despite Arthur's fascination with Muggles) not to know >exactly how Muggles dress. And Lucius or Narcissa Malfoy might know >how Muggles dress but would never (IMO) lower themselves to pass as >one. So how do they hide from the Muggles at King's Cross Station? >Does anyone think they use a "don't notice me" charm like the one >Ffred mentions above, some variation on the Disillusionment Charm or >something like the spell that's used to hide Hogwarts from Muggles? >but might she put one on herself? The answer's probably somewhere in the theory of magic. Some spells seem to be ephemeral and just do the job they are intended to do. But others are "sticky" and don't (apparently) have to be renewed: the one that hides Hogwarts, the ones that keep the Burrow upright, the one that makes the Knight Bus go, and so on. So if you've cast a "don't notice me" on yourself, then maybe it's not something that you ever need to renew, unless something drastic happens. I've speculated, for example, that the reason for the devastation at Godric's Hollow was that one of the effects (intended or otherwise) of the protection on Harry was to short circuit _all_ magics in the vicinity. Perhaps there are other spells that also de-magic a vicinity (for use to clean up after magical accidents, for example...) Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 14:32:45 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:32:45 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116230 Alla writes: > I had been thinking. As some posters probably know, I don't find > Voldemort to be a very convincing villain. Oh, sure, I hate what he > stands for, because JKR tells us so, but as a character I don't > have strong feelings about him. LisaMarie agrees: Voldemort doesn't really make my blood run cold, either. He's just not very scary! I do hate him, though, mostly because he is the evil bastard that has made Harry's (and Neville's, and Sirius', etc) life so hard. Alla writes: > I believe that JKR writes grey or good guys with "partially evil > personalities" MUCH more convincingly that she writes villains. LisaMarie agrees again: Too true. In fact, her most interesting characters, IMO, are the "good guys" with their character flaws. I love them, though it is frustrating to do so!Reckless!Sirius, Inactive!Lupin, IrrationallyAngry!Harry, Jealous/Envious!Ron... There are just so many moral conundrums that are JKR's characters!! I think it's what makes us (or, "me") able to so closely identify: they are so human. Alla: > Personally, I find Umbridge or Snape to be MUCH scarier people than > Voldemort ever managed to be. > Bellatrix Lestrange I could find scary upon proper reflection, I > guess, because she is sooo crazy and because we finally saw WHAT she > did to Longbottoms, but besides her, I don't know. LisaMarie: I disagree about Snape being scary; I am suspicious of him, but I (maybe naively) believe that his loyalty ultimately lies with DD and that he's working to bring about LV's downfall. Umbridge is another story altogether. While I don't think she'd ever join up with the DE, I think she's definitely got a very twisted view of the way things should be, and the means that are allowed to bring about the desired ends are highly creepy, in my book. Setting the Dementors on Harry in Little Whinging? That nasty quill that cuts the back of the writer's hand? Preventing students from meeting freely, and from learning to defend themselves? The INQUISITORIAL SQUAD, for Pete's sake??? Yeah, she's definitely scary in my book, though not the most frightening of all. That post is reserved for dear Bella. IMO, Bellatrix Lestrange is the scariest figure in the Potterverse as we know it. She is obsessed; she worships Voldemort and seems to be willing to go to all ends to help him back into power. There seems to be nothing she won't do, and that is the most frightening thing about her. (I hate to make this comparison, but it works: the Manson murders in the late 60s/early70s seem to be born of this same insane loyalty; Manson himself did not do most of the killing. He just brainwashed his cronies and they acted for him. Sounds an awful lot like LV to me.) LisaMarie From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 18:37:31 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:37:31 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116231 > > Alla: > > Personally, I find Umbridge or Snape to be MUCH scarier people than > > Voldemort ever managed to be. > > > Bellatrix Lestrange I could find scary upon proper reflection, I > > guess, because she is sooo crazy and because we finally saw WHAT she > > did to Longbottoms, but besides her, I don't know. > > LisaMarie: > I disagree about Snape being scary; I am suspicious of him, but I (maybe naively) believe that his loyalty ultimately lies with DD and that he's working to bring about LV's downfall. Potioncat: My 14 year old daughter, who loves horror movies, says that Professor Snape is the scariest person she's ever seen. And to her mind, the scariest movie scene ever is the one in SS where Snape walks up on the trio and says, "Good afternoon..." And to keep this on canon, if my 14 would ever read a book, I'm sure she'd say the same thing about canon!Snape. From red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 22 15:49:14 2004 From: red_light_runner08 at yahoo.co.uk (Jennifer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:49:14 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116232 pippin wrote: > > Here's something else that bothers me. At the beginning of GoF, > > Peter tries to persuade Voldebabe that he should be allowed to > > go fetch another wizard, and Voldebabe thinks this is a plan to > > desert him. But that is very strange. > > > > Voldebabe is very weak, so weak that he cannot survive in that > > form more than a few hours without feeding. Surely all Wormtail > > would have to do is wait, and within a few hours Voldebabe > > would be too weak to hold a wand. What, or who, compels > > Wormtail to stay? > > > > Voldemort says later on in the graveyard that Wormtail returned > > to him only out of fear of his old friends. Yet it seems Wormtail > > thinks he could have left, if only Voldemort gave him permission. > > Why, if his old friends are hunting him...they wouldn't care if he > > had Voldie's permission, right? Carolyn: > It's the persuasive part of Agent!Peter theory. Firstly he didn't > have to hide with the Weasley's for 12 years; secondly he didn't have > to go back to Voldie; thirdly he didn't have to help Voldie with his > plans, especially the resurrection spell. So, why did he? He could > have buggered off to deepest anywhere, and lived as a rat for a very > long time before anyone tracked him down. We've no evidence that the > DEs are an international gang, beyond Karkaroff's job at Durmstrang > (which he may have got post-Vapor!Mort), and Sirius only came after > Peter once he saw the photo in the Daily Prophet. > > And for that matter, why did Peter allow himself to appear in the > photo of the Weasley's on holiday? If he was trying to hide from > everyone, particularly those that knew he was a rat, it was a pretty > stupid thing to do, don't you think? Sounds as though it was a staged > shot, with the Weasley family all grouped together, not a paparazzi > shot using a telephoto lens - plenty of time for him to scarper into > Ron's pocket, bag or down his trouser leg... > > If he's not smart enough to hide from a photographer, how come he was > smart enough to spy for a year, beat Sirius at duelling and > simultaneously blow up a street? > > Instead, is Peter, in his weak, rat-like way gradually nerving > himself to play another role - his part in Voldie's downfall? Jennifer: Of course appearing in the Daily Prophet photo was stupid but then was there really any reason for him to think he may be recognised? Sirius is in Azkaban and happened to see that photo by chance (would he have access to the paper normally?)and Lupin doesn't know the Weasley's, wouldn't it be possible that if you don't know them personally you would simply skim the photo before moving on? Was there anyone else who knew he was an animagus as that point? He wasn't really the focal point of that picture. To really see that there is one toe missing of a rat sitting on a boys shoulder (with the other 8 members of his family around him) wouldn't you have to be really looking at it? It was stupid of him but I don't think it's something he would have given much thought to especially as he seems to be sitting on Ron's shoulder exposed. If Peter used Voldemort's wand to blow up the street would that make any difference to his abilities (power) or none at all? Sorry if that's been answered before I was just curious? I hate to say it but the reason I always assumed Peter didn't just abandon Voldemort was because he was afraid of what would happen if he did and he was being promised all kinds of things and he clearly seems to love the idea of power From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 16:46:38 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:46:38 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116233 Pippin: > > Voldebabe is very weak, so weak that he cannot survive in that > > form more than a few hours without feeding. Surely all Wormtail > > would have to do is wait, and within a few hours Voldebabe > > would be too weak to hold a wand. What, or who, compels > > Wormtail to stay? > > > > Voldemort says later on in the graveyard that Wormtail returned > > to him only out of fear of his old friends. Yet it seems Wormtail > > thinks he could have left, if only Voldemort gave him permission. > > Why, if his old friends are hunting him...they wouldn't care if he > > had Voldie's permission, right? > SSSusan: > Voldebabe [like that term!] *is* weak, and it *would* seem a > reasonable option for Wormtail to just run away. So why doesn't he? > I see two possibilities. > > One: Wormtail is truly committed to Voldy. > > Two: Wormtail *is* afraid of all the old DEs and figures they'll > hunt him down eventually if he runs. If he stays & helps resurrect > Voldemort, though, he'll (he hopes) be held up as an example to the > other DEs and, thus, they wouldn't dare kill him. barmaid: Or Three: Wormtail is truly committed to himself and finds the power he has to keep Voldebabe alive, and the position he believes doing this will put him in when Voldebabe becomes Voldy-back-in-full-body- form, very appealing -- even though the things he must do to hold that position of power are not so appealing. Peter has proven that he is more than willing to do hard things to be close to power. One could think "Hey, killing Voldebabe, or allowing him to die -- that would make Peter even more powerful. You know, single handedly (no pun intended) bringing down the Dark Lord" But that is way to rational a thought for the Peter we know. First, most people do not even believe Voldy is alive at all so why would they believe he killed him, and second, Peter P is supposed to be dead -- a martyr and a hero already -- coming back from the dead would require way too much risk. No, Peter's most sure road to power is to stand close to power, to make himself indispensable to power, to find a spot close enough to the light and heat of power to feel like it is his own. --barmaid From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 18:50:01 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:50:01 -0000 Subject: Harry In-Reply-To: <88A92A88-2444-11D9-829C-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116234 Ooooo -- my very favorite subject. And this time, I don't really have any arguments with your post; just maybe some different shadings of interpretation. Kneasy (though you sound more like Barry today, actually): > Fascinating too, > that JKR finds book series where the children aren't allowed to grow up > 'sinister'. Annemehr: Yes, and I wonder why. Is it because she thinks the authors' secret intentions are to keep their *readers* in a state of childlike naivete? Or does she just have a natural aversion to it in the same way that I have an aversion to most modern architecture? Because I just figured the children never grew up just because it was easier to keep writing them the same. Kneasy: > I'm not a fan of assigning RW psychological theories of cause and > effect to fictional characters; it's a losers game IMO. Harry can't be > compared to a real child in his treatment or his reactions. The only > viewpoint we have is Harry's and he obviously considers that his view > is perfectly reasonable. There is zero objectivity. Annemehr: As I regularly fail to find characters in books quite realistic, this doesn't bother me in the least, even though I'm much more heavily invested in Harry than in the protagonists in other novels. I am satisfied to find him consistent and recognisable, yes, even in OoP. Kneasy: > Emotions aren't Harry's big thing; sure he has some, but they're > generally used to add a quick, bright splash of colour to a scene or > encounter - mostly anger, recently. Consider; Harry has supposedly led > a life of utter misery for 10 years at Privet Drive. Has he ever cried? > A real child would. But despite emphasising how horrible it all was, > JKR has never underlined the misery with tears. Annemehr: "He did not complain during the evening's detention; he was determined not to give Umbridge the satisfaction; over and over again he wrote /I must not tell lies/ and not a sound escaped his lips, though the cut deepened with every letter." -- OoP ch. 15 p.284 UK I figure he learned that early on. He doesn't cry when it's happening, and he doesn't cry later, either, because in a cupboard under the stairs or in a dormitory, you're too likely to be overheard. I think he was about done with his crying at around age six, but we didn't see that part. Which illustrates for me his emotional life in general: emotions are there, but buried under a good hard shell usually. He controls his actions, but not his emotions. When he was angry, he seethed silently, or uncontrolled magic happened, or he worked some off at Quidditch, or, in OoP, the shell finally cracked and the anger spewed out mostly at random. We did *know*, for example, that he hated being suspected of opening the Chamber of Secrets, although the author didn't dwell on it for pages. It's the fact that the shell did crack in OoP which is going to allow him to take the next step (and maybe to point out to people who care, how to help him, though I don't count on that). Kneasy: > No; Harry isn't a great one for introspection. There's some thought of > course, got to be, otherwise we wouldn't have a clue of what he's > liable to do next, or why. But this is separate from the cliched > brooding teenage angst of "Why does everybody hate me?" Harry already > knows why people hate him - and it doesn't seem to bother him much that > they do. He gets by quite satisfactorily with hating them back. Annemehr: You're right -- right up through GoF, anyway. I suspect it's part of his "Dursley Survival Plan" -- they obviously thought him a blot on the universe, and told him so. He reacted with a stubborn belief in his own worth. I'm not talking about modern "self-esteem" here, either. It's also the thing that made him stand up to Voldemort in the Little Hangleton graveyard and saved his life. It would have the effect of tending to blind him to the possibility that there might actually *be* something to dislike about him, I admit (which would in turn bring down upon him the accusation of being "arrogant"). Kneasy: > What happens next? > Good question. > > Second-guessing Jo is a mugs game. We all do it of course, with > success rates varying between awful and abysmal. [between Dreadful and Troll! -- Annemehr] > I did suggest last year that he'd try to avoid his ordained fate; that > he'd try to abdicate from position of saviour to the WW. Opt out. > Refuse to play along with DD's plan. > Then some person ostensibly concerned for his well-being > and happiness may make 'helpful' suggestions. Don't listen, Harry! > Don't do it! Oh dear. Too late. It'll be a disaster. Death(s) ensue. > Harry returns to the straight and narrow - remorseful for once, and > knuckles down to the greater struggle. > We hope. > > Kneasy Annemehr: That's one possibility. I know I've written before that (assuming he does *not* "opt out"), as he learns more about how DD has been steering his life, his already shaken confidence in him crumbles. He loses any assurance that DD knows what he's doing about this war and that ****** prophecy. To me, it's even more interesting than if DD died (the "Hero's Journey" cliche). For the first time ever, DD can be sharing real information with Harry, and Harry no longer trusts in him any more than he trusts in Snape. Then, when the inevitable conflict looms, Harry has to act. In my scenario, he hasn't opted out of the fight, but he still has to decide what to do -- has he made his own plans (that would be a first)? Will he follow DD's plan after all? Or will he find substitute advisors in Ron and Hermione? It looks like another case of Harry being led astray, only Harry is his own temptor. If this comes to a head in the middle of the book, I predict disaster ensuing, but if this is the big June conflict, then I have no idea. ;) Annemehr From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 18:02:43 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:02:43 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116235 > Potioncat: > And it's interesting, Draco dislikes both McGonagall and DD very > much... I suppose because of the DE influence. Certainly Snape > doesn't doesn't dislike either. But I wonder how he keeps from > slapping Draco down at some of the comments he makes. > I have thought about this as well. It's clear (at lest to me) that Draco is > hands down Snape's favorite. And it is odd that Snape would choose such a > child considering his allegiance to DD and the order. My theory is that it > probably has a lot to do with Lucius. big snip barmaid: OK, I admit that I may have been tainted by some fanfic... but I think this idea is as supported by canon as many others we find in this group... so here goes. Isn't it possible that Snape sees some of himself in Draco. We see a hint in CoS that Lucius is not really a kind and loving father. I do think that Snape *has* to make sure Draco does not report anything suspicious back to dear old dad, but I also think that he may care about Draco, may relate to him in some way. I can imagine a Snape that wants to win Draco over or at least be a person Draco can trust when things go wrong for him -- which they have now that Lucius has been exposed. If Draco can see the the side of DD and Harry is not all full of wimpy smarmy goody two shoes (as Draco would see them -- not as I see them), but that there could be a place for him away from the harsh DE world, maybe there is hope for him. Maybe Snape can be a bridge so that we can have the house cooperation the Sorting Hat is calling for. Maybe. --barmaid From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Oct 22 18:59:04 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:59:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > -Ron/Hermy/Other Gryffindors: ESE? Them? Very doubtful. Even Kneasy wouldn't > be so subversive (I hope). "I can call demons from the vasty deep." "Aye, so can I; so can anyman. But do they come when you call?" They do if they're Kneasy. Not that I think the Gryffs are ESE particularly, but one could always be coerced into doing the dirty. Peter was a Gryff, wasn't he? There you are then. No; if Voldy were to take my advice then he wouldn't wait for a walk-in traitor, deary me, no. He'd be a bit more pro-active. Have a sniff around Harry's friends - see if any of them are vulnerable, see if they have weak spots where pressure can be applied. Families, loved ones, that sort of thing. What would Ron do to keep his family alive? Who rates higher - Harry or his mother? What would Neville do to keep his parents safe? Or perhaps a not-so-subtle bribe. Would Hermione co-operate with a seemingly friendly stranger if she were told that what she did would ensure Elf freedom? That's the trouble with Voldy: I don't think he's read Machiavelli. "Father, father - how can you be so cruel?" "Practice, m'dear, practice." Kneasy From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 19:05:45 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:05:45 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: <009801c4b6c3$51a39710$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" > > Sherry now > > I was very bothered with Harry's attitude in OOTP. In hindsight, I thought > that much of it could have been him channeling a lot of Voldemort's anger > and attitude. Sure, he had reasons, Cedric's death, being isolated, > Dumbledore's withdrawal ... But even so it all seemed extreme to me. It was > hard to hang on and like him for the whole book. In fact, not until the DA, > did I start feeling more sympathy for him. When he was teaching the DA, he > was much more likable, especially how he worked with Neville. It was a > pretty abrupt change, now that you have caused me to think about it, and I'm > with you wondering why nobody commented on it. Especially because he was so > rude to his closest friends through much of the book. Finwitch: Interesting that you find Harry's anger *extreme* in OOP as I see it as angry, but no more than any other boy of his age would be, all things considered. In fact, I expect Harry's *extreme* anger to make face in the NEXT book. Like losing control and blowing up Number 4 Privet Drive or something like that. See if Dumbledore can leave him there after THAT. After all, in OOP, Harry was just *yelling* - he's not leaking magic or hitting anyone... Anyway, just one of the ways for Harry to get away from the Dursleys: 1)Blow up the house or the street or what ever. LEAK MAGIC. Accidental Magic Reversal Squad appears and takes Harry to St Mungos to be treated for Dragon Pox or something. (Didn't one of the *diseases* listed in St Mungos include one with symptoms including uncontrollable anger? What if Harry's infected?) 2)Fred&George appear and take him to Diagon Alley (the twins live above their shop now, I think) and Harry stays with them. Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 19:26:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:26:37 -0000 Subject: The voic in Harry's head and the turban dream (Was: replies to: 1500-some posts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116238 Catlady wrote: > When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and still has free will. Carol responds: Or the free will could be Harry's. I think the second voice is his own slowly emerging common sense, as distinct not only from outside voices advising him to do something foolish or evil but from the nagging voice of conscience that (in OoP) reminds him of Hermione. (Harry's own will can resist that voice, too, but not always sensibly. :-) ) > Kneasy wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/114166 : > > << There are clues there, jumbled as in any dream - but if they can be teased out it might (should!) give us a guide to what has happened and what might yet happen. I find Draco melding into Snape particularly intriguing - especially because at this point in the story Harry has not met Snape, he's only seen him from a distance || A tight turban insisting that he must transfer to Slytherin - Malfoy - Snape - and a green light. >> > Catlady answered: > I read much of that dream as memories of that night of his parents' death. The green flash and the high-pitched laughter are familiar from his Dementor-induced memories. The presence of Draco and Snape is a Clue that Lucius and Snape were present at the murder party. Presumably Lucius was brought by LV and Snape may have been brought by LV or come on his own to try to rescue Lily and/or Harry. Carol responds: Neither we nor Harry have seen Dementors or Lucius in SS/PS and it seems overly speculative to bring them in at this point. I think it's an ordinary dream merging ordinary images from daytime experience into the surreal images of a dream that reflects Harry's (mis)perceptions and fears as he moves into the unfamiliar environment of Hogwarts. Not surprisingly Draco (the one Slytherin he has actually talked with and instinctly dislikes) merges into Snape (whom he has been told favors the Slytherins and whom he thinks has caused his scar to hurt). The very odd turban, which wasn't present when Harry first encountered Quirrell and is therefore suspicious, merges into the even odder Sorting Hat (taking on its function but not its appearance), *insisting* rather than suggesting (like the real Sorting Hat) that he belongs in Slytherin. In this respect, the dream reflects Harry's dislike of Draco and of Slytherin in general, and his fear of his own Slytherinlike tendencies, of which we'll see more in CoS and OoP. The green flash and high-pitched laughter are all Harry remembers of the incident at Godric's Hollow, and he now associates them with Voldemort, thanks to Hagrid's explanation of his parents' death, though he doesn't yet know what the green light is or how it relates to the scar. Previously he had associated the light and the pain in his forehead with the fictitious car accident (SS Am ed. 29). The laugh, IIRC, appears for the first time in this dream, and becomes associated with the pain in his scar, which Harry now wrongly attributes to Snape. IMO, the clue here, which relates primarily to SS/PS itself, is that it's the *turban*, not Snape, that is linked to Voldemort. But the dream is also a red herring, leading the reader to think, as Harry subconsciously does, that Snape is in league with Voldemort when, of course, it's Quirrell who has Voldemort inside his head. I see no need to extrapolate beyond this relatively simple interpretation to speculate about the presence of Snape (or Lucius Malfoy) at Godric's Hollow. Carol, who would never be able to condense responses to 1500 messages into one post! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 19:47:54 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:47:54 -0000 Subject: The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116239 > Hickengruendler: > > I don't knopw. I'm all for bringing him back as a teacher but, IMO, > he would be a terrible headmaster. He seems to be one of those people > who try to please everybody, and I don't think that's the right > character trait to become a headmaster. snip. > And Snape as headmaster is a truly scary thought. He's bad enough as > a teacher. I hope it will be McGonagall, she's tough and stubborn > enough to stand up to her believes, and she's also soft enough to > give people second chances, like Dumbledore. If she should die, than > I hope it's flitwick, who I think would make a better headmaster than > Snape and Lupin combined. Alla: You could be right, of course. In fact, I think that McGonagall is likely enough to survive the war, but despite Lupin's obvious desire to be liked , I think he will be fine Headmaster, if he manages to overcome it. I am fine with McGonagall becoming a headmistress, but I want a radical change in WW after the war and I think Lupin represents one From kethryn at wulfkub.com Fri Oct 22 20:18:23 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:18:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What JKR Finds Important References: Message-ID: <001f01c4b874$4a6581e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116240 >>>Finwitch: Interesting that you find Harry's anger *extreme* in OOP as I see it as angry, but no more than any other boy of his age would be, all things considered. In fact, I expect Harry's *extreme* anger to make face in the NEXT book. Like losing control and blowing up Number 4 Privet Drive or something like that. See if Dumbledore can leave him there after THAT. After all, in OOP, Harry was just *yelling* - he's not leaking magic or hitting anyone... Anyway, just one of the ways for Harry to get away from the Dursleys: 1)Blow up the house or the street or what ever. LEAK MAGIC. Accidental Magic Reversal Squad appears and takes Harry to St Mungos to be treated for Dragon Pox or something. (Didn't one of the *diseases* listed in St Mungos include one with symptoms including uncontrollable anger? What if Harry's infected?) 2)Fred&George appear and take him to Diagon Alley (the twins live above their shop now, I think) and Harry stays with them. >>>Finwitch Kethryn now - You know, it's funny, I just mentioned something like this to someone else a minute ago. I was telling her that I was wondering how JKR is going to handle the "rebel" stage of adolesence...one that Harry just so happens to be staring in the face at the moment. Ignoring the fact that I am a freak and didn't hit the rebellion stage til I was 18 (certainly my two sisters rebelled earlier than that), the year before I actually rebelled was about like Harry's 15 year (minus magic, death, Death Eaters, etc) over-emotionally wise. So, I see year 6 as being the Rebel year...all the other little things he has done to this point have really just been a buildup for the big Rebellion. Of course, that leads right into speculation about what he is going to do, acting out wise... Kethryn - who is finding the idea of blowing up Number 4 Privet Drive to be vastly amusing. Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 20:25:28 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:25:28 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116241 Tonks wrote: I think that one important thing that JKR is teaching here, is to show a teenager going through all of this and coping. Not well, but coping. No suicide here. She will show the teenagers of the world how to cope with trauma and loss. Sherry answered: Thanks, Tonks for that post. What you stated above, about JKR showing teens that it is possible to cope, is why I so adamantly and vehemently reject the idea of Harry being so damaged by the end that he commits suicide or something. If he goes through all this and instead of surviving he crumbles under the strain and ends it all, I feel that would be a terrible message to teens who are struggling and already have such a high suicide rate. I considered that route in my teens, due to family trauma, but it isn't in my nature to give up. I'm too stubborn and determined to survive. I think Harry is also too determined to survive, and that having him kill himself would be a cheap cop out, especially for teenagers. I know that JKR is not writing these books for anyone but herself, but it wouldn't seem to match the other lessons she puts forth in the books. Just my two cents. Del replied: Er... I feel very uncomfortable when I read comments like that. First, as Tonks pointed out, Harry does not cope very well. If a teen has to learn how to cope, I'd rather he was taught not to yell at everyone, not to lie about what's going on, not to keep everything for himself, how to go about getting help (instead of waiting until it is forced upon him) and so on. Second, if someone is suicidal, telling them that it is possible to cope is often not going to help. When I was suicidal, no such talk would have changed anything. In fact, it might even have increased my depression, if I felt like everybody else managed to cope but I was too dumb to do it too. Telling me about people who suffered "more" than me and still coped, in particular, was a sure way of making me feel even more miserable and stupid. Third, you say, Sherry, that "it isn't in my nature to give up. I'm too stubborn and determined to survive". And so is Harry. But there are people out there who are simply not like that. And so they won't relate to Harry, and replicate his coping mechanism, no matter how strongly it is drilled into their head. Fourth, as many people have pointed out recently, this is Harry's story, not some Life Handbook for Teens and Kids. If Harry ends up suicidal, it will be sad, but so what? It happens all the time in RL. And if he does commit suicide, it will still be very useful, to "teach" people to take better care of stressed friends. Harry is indeed representative of many kids. But he is not the absolute model. His example can be useful to many kids, but let's not make generalisations, shall we? Another 2 cents, from Kim: Just goes to show you how many people there are who have been depressed enough at one time or other to consider suicide (at least two in this thread and no doubt there are others, yours truly included). My thoughts on this is that each of us, and Harry too, copes or not in our own way and obviously for all of us here, we managed to cope our way out of the abyss or we wouldn't be here discussing it now ;-) But I think it's important in the case of a fictional character like Harry whose story resonates with so many, young and old, that JKR at least save her main character's life. A form of loving intervention via fiction? In a way, JKR is Harry's best friend and how she treats him does matter in the end. And it's part of the symbolic nature of her writing too, isn't it, and of the particular teaching nature of myths (a la Joseph Campbell's interpretation), that life is sacred and ought not be thrown away? Not that I believe people who do kill themselves are guilty, bad, lesser human beings, etc. than anyone else. Of course, Harry committing suicide is a possiblity and would be understandable for anyone who's been through what he has (and we all know it's going to get worse for him before it gets better), but my sense is that suicide would just be out of character for Harry, no mater what happens. Not out of character for every other person necessarily, but for Harry, yes. As you say, it's Harry's (and JKR's) story and nobody else's (and if you relate to Harry, you relate; if you don't, you don't, and there's no reason you should have to). So I think it's important (because he's fiction) to show Harry suffering, coping or not as best he can, in his own individual way, maybe even feeling suicidal, but then coming out of the "fire" alive. Not to be used as some unattainable role model, but as an example of an imperfect person who found the resources they needed right there inside themselves. That's what Harry surviving means to me anyway. >From a slightly different angle, I think I wrote in another post some weeks ago that it would seem gratuitous, as in pointless and gratuitously depressing, IMO for JKR to kill Harry off at the end, whether in battle or by suicide. So I also agree with Sherry (and Tonks?) here. Killing Harry or having him kill himself would leave too many readers saying Huh!? and for good reason. It would definitely leave a very yucky feeling in the pit of my stomach. But then I've never felt comfortable with the traditional "young hero must die to save the world" stories, including the religious ones. I think that's been a big con game (but maybe I should shut up on that topic so as not to offend anyone unnecessarily). But now, after all this, I guess I'm still sort of puzzled as to where the idea that Harry might kill himself came from in the first place. Do we all agree that his suicide at the end is a bit of a long shot? Kim, who feels at this point that she may have just gone around in circles or repeated in different words what everyone else has already said -- so consider yourselves inspirational, folks :-) From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Fri Oct 22 20:36:39 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:36:39 -0000 Subject: Astronomy OWLs (CORRECTIONS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116242 Someone IMd me while I was out today and pointed out something that should have been obvious but that I missed in my half-functioning state of mind - the OWLs would have been in 1996, since they were in June. That said, it doesn't change a whole lot for the sky observations. > "When they reached the top of the Astronomy Tower at eleven o'clock they found a perfect night for stargazing, cloudless and still. The grounds were bathed in silvery moonlight, and there was a slight chill in the air." > This would NO LONGER be accurate. The moon was rising as a crescent moon in the early morning hours, approximately 1:30 AM - well after the OWL would have concluded, not before it started. > Orion would not have been visible. On this date (and for quite a while surrounding this date) Orion was rising during the daylight hours, approximately 7:00 AM. Prominent constellations that would have been visible for Harry would have been Virgo, Leo (very nicely sat on the horizon), Pegasus, Ophiuchus and the circumpolar constellations. > This didn't change. Orion rose about 6:30 AM - all of the constellations would have been rising slightly off the original mark - Leo was just exactly on the horizon. > Venus was also not visible. Venus was the "Morning Star" during this time, rising around 3:00 AM. > Venus was still not visible. Venus is still the "Morning Star", but it rose around 4:30 AM. > "Harry looked down at his own and noticed that he had mislabelled Venus as Mars. He bent to correct it." Probably should have left it. ~_^ Mars was visible during this time, shining nicely at Leo's feet. :) > Mars was NOT visible at this time. Mars was rising in the early morning (approx 3:00 AM) with the constellation Taurus. Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto would have been visible, with Jupiter being by far the most bright. Hopefully my brain doesn't puke out on obvious dates again while I'm doing the rest of my Astronomy analysis. -Lady Macbeth From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 22 20:39:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:39:59 -0000 Subject: Harry In-Reply-To: <88A92A88-2444-11D9-829C-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116243 Responding to a very enjoyable essay by Kneasy, with Major Snippage applied, I'm afraid. Kneasy: For action is Harry's forte. Whenever there's a new development, generally speaking Harry's first response is to *do* something. Any advice to the contrary is unwelcome and usually over-ridden or ignored. Sadly, although action is what he's good at, fitting the right action to the circumstances is a bit iffy. Not only does he leap into action, he usually jumps to conclusions too. Wrong ones. It's a gift, a law of nature, like toast always falling butter-side down. It all adds to the entertainment immensely - but detracts from the suspense. You just *know* he's got hold of the wrong end of the stick and somebody'll suffer because of it. It's just a question of finding out who. SSSusan: Indeed, Harry's modus operandi is ACTION, and not always accompanied by much thought. I find it notable that in PoA, after telling Ron & Hermione what he's learned Sirius Black is after him, Hermione warns Harry not to go looking for trouble. How does Harry respond? "I don't go looking for trouble. Trouble usually finds _me_." Well. Yes & no. Some trouble "seeks him out," as it were. Other times he goes after it, I'd say. Kneasy: And the stakes rise with each book. Escalation, it's called. Those at risk, then those who die, get closer to Harry as the series progresses. Quirrell!Mort cops it in the neck in PS/SS. No big deal - he's a baddy. Argh! Ginny's in trouble in CoS, but it's Tom that's crunched. Phew! Just another baddy, thank heavens. Oh no! Sadlymisunderstood!Sirius in PoA is due for a snogging session with a Dementor! But it's OK, he escapes at the last minute. GoF, Cedric - a sort of friend, not close, dies - leaving behind a girl Harry quite fancies. It's not all bad news, then. OoP - Sirius - someone *very* close - dies. *Gulp* What, or rather who, is next? Dear, oh dear. Can Ron, Hermione or DD be far behind? Or will it be multiples next time? SSSusan: Definitely DD is a very strong possibility, in my book. Perhaps an older Weasley brother. Perhaps, as you suggest, multiples. Kneasy: There's one aspect of Harry that would fit very well in our modern society. Nothing is his fault. He accepts no responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. Good intentions excuse everything. To a greater or lesser extent he's encouraged in this line of thinking by DD. No matter what's just gone catastrophically wrong, no matter who has just departed precipitately to join the choir celestial, he tells Harry that it wasn't his fault. No word of censure passes DD's lips; he never even tells him to be careful next time. SSSusan: While I would agree that DD might've been wiser to do more warning with Harry, I don't agree that Harry accepts no responsibility. First off, is there really that much he'd need to accept responsibility for in SS/PS or CoS? Seems to me the outcomes there DID justify any risks taken by Harry. In PoA, Harry *does* fret that he's let PP escape by not allowing Sirius & Lupin to kill him. He blames himself that Sirius must continue to live on the run, since PP got away and can't be forced to show that the accepted story about Sirius' guilt is a lie. Remember when Harry bemoaned the fact that he'd made no difference? That he'd let Wormtail escape to run to his master? In GoF, Harry *does* blame himself for Cedric's death. Does he not also regret, again, that his saving Wormtail's life has led to Voldemort's resurrection? In OotP it is true that Harry outwardly & initially blames Snape for Sirius's death, but isn't it clear that inwardly he blames himself? If not in the moment of DD's revelations, as the days go by and he *does* reflect on things, talk with NHN, etc.? Kneasy: Second-guessing Jo is a mugs game. We all do it of course, with success rates varying between awful and abysmal. About the only thing we can be fairly sure of is that Harry will survive until near the end of book 7 at least. And weren't there hints that in book 6, at long last, Harry will do some thinking? About time, says I. At long last he might engage his brain long enough to ask all the blindingly obvious questions that never occurred to him previously - you remember, the ones you screamed at the book when he was distracted from an important conversation by a piece of inconsequential trivia. Yes, those. SSSusan: Yes, I screamed at the book, too. Of course, the lack of questioning is often explained either with the "RW" explanation that Harry's been trained not to ask questions or by the authorial need to disguise/hide/befuddle or otherwise annoy us readers. Kneasy: I did suggest last year that he'd try to avoid his ordained fate; that he'd try to abdicate from position of saviour to the WW. Opt out. Refuse to play along with DD's plan. SSSusan: And I still think he will consider this... if only for a brief time Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 20:44:10 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:44:10 -0000 Subject: envy vs. jealousy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116244 Kathi wrote: > > There is a thin line between envy and jealousy, but I always seem to get them mixed up. On one hand, one of the emotions is basically wanting what someone else has, but not necessarily begrudging them for having it On the other hand,however, you want what the other has, you don't want them to have it at all, and you think they didn't deserve to have it in the first place, but *you* do.... Paul replied: > Jealousy is the feeling of anger or bitterness which someone has when they think that another person is trying to take a lover or friend, or a possession, away from them . . . [or when] they wish that they could have the qualities or possessions that another person has. > > Envy is the feeling you have when you wish you could have the same thing or quality that someone else has. If you envy someone, you wish that you had the same things or qualities that they have. > > From the above is quite clear that in GOF and in general Ron is rather jealous than envious as a person. Carol responds: The source of these definitions is unclear, but it appears that you think the difference between jealousy and anger is "the feeling of anger or bitterness" associated with jealousy and that you associate this feeling with Ron. But note that at least part of your definition of jealousy has no application to Ron, at least in relation to Harry. Clearly he does not think that *Harry* is "trying to take a lover or friend or possession away from him" (although I do think Ron feels this way about *Viktor Krum* taking Hermione away in GoF. Ironically, it's *Krum* who thinks that Harry is trying to take Hermione away from him! Boys will be boys, I guess. And we see some jealousy of other girls from Hermione, but that's a topic for another post.) I would also argue that both Harry and Ron display envy as you define it: Harry wishes he had a family like Ron's and had some sort of normal life; Ron wishes he didn't have to worry about money and envies Harry's indifference to a pocket full of gold. (He also envies his older brothers' accomplishments and hopes to emulate them, as we see in the Mirror of Erised.) Although Hermione suggests that Ron is "jealous" of Harry after the GoF incident, Ron's "bitterness and anger" stem not from Harry's greater abilities (which Ron has never denied) but from Harry's refusal to explain how he got across the age line. Harry's "I didn't!" is hardly an adequate explanation. He needs to trust Ron and tell him what "Moody" said, that someone is trying to kill him. Surely he should know by now that Ron would believe him. (No doubt Ron would suspect Snape and we'd have SS/PS all over again.) But Harry remains silent and Ron feels excluded and hurt ("bertayed," to use Del's term). But let's look at some actual dictionary definitions from Merriam-Webster to see if these arguments still apply: Envy: painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage Jealousy, a jealous disposition, attitude, or feeling, that is, the state of being 1 a: intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness b: disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness 2: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage Surely Ron's desire to be like Harry, with money and fame and a chance to compete in the TWT all fall under envy, not jealousy, and usually the "painful" awareness is more apparent than the resentment. As for actual jealousy as defined here, we have not seen him viewing Harry as a rival or seeing Hermione as "unfaithful" to him regarding Harry (he does resent her apparent affection for *Krum*, which would qualify as jealousy in the sense of rivalry for Hermione's affections, but he doesn't yet understand his own feelings). I suppose that his anger at Harry in GoF *could* be interpreted using the secondary definition of jealousy, "hostil[ity] toward . . . one believed to enjoy an advantage," that is, the dubious "advantage" of being chosen by the Goblet of Fire, but since the hostility occurs only after Harry refuses to explain how he crossed the age line, I don't think that's the case. Ron *envies* Harry for being chosen by the Goblet and wants to know how he did it. His anger results from a sense that he has been, if not actually lied to, at least willfullly excluded from a secret that Harry ought to have shared with him. It's a big misunderstanding, not at all indicative of Ron's usual attitude to Harry, and we see the real Ron, whose loyalty exceeds his envy, reappear after the First Task when he fears for Harry's life and abandons the stubborn pride that has kept him from apologizing--much as Harry has stubbornly refused to speak to Ron until he makes that apology. The problem, as I see it, arises from Hermione's "helpful" suggestion that Ron is jealous when she means envious, and her overlooking of the real issue, which is Ron's sense of exclusion from Harry's secret, which, as a friend who has shared many perils with Harry and has loyally followed him into many dangers, he (rightly) feels entitled to know. IMO, Hermione's, and JKR's, misuse of the word of the word "jealous" contributes to a misunderstanding of Ron, not only in this one incident but throughout the books. Carol, once again arguing for the importance of precise diction (word choice) by authors and posters From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 21:04:03 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:04:03 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116245 > barmaid: > > OK, I admit that I may have been tainted by some fanfic... but I > think this idea is as supported by canon as many others we find in > this group... so here goes. > > Isn't it possible that Snape sees some of himself in Draco. We see a > hint in CoS that Lucius is not really a kind and loving father. I do > think that Snape *has* to make sure Draco does not report anything > suspicious back to dear old dad, but I also think that he may care > about Draco, may relate to him in some way. I can imagine a Snape > that wants to win Draco over or at least be a person Draco can trust > when things go wrong for him -- which they have now that Lucius has > been exposed. snip Potioncat: I'm of two minds about Draco. In general I think he's just a rotten kid. You know the type, the kid who picks on other kids. He's bad in first grade and he's still bad in 12th grade. I knew a kid like that in school and my son suffers from one now. I think that JKR has indicated that Draco is a lost cause. On the other hand, I hate to think any kid is "destined" to be bad. And I hate the thought that no one would step forward and intervene. But I don't see anything in canon that indicates that Snape has done anything positive for Draco. If anything, he's just another tool in Snape's information gathering job. Which is almost worse than what Snape does to Harry. As Head of House he does have a responsibility to Draco. And it's OK for JKR to write Draco this way. She's showing us this rotten kid that we all seem to meet along the way. The one that never changes. But I would be very happy to be wrong! Potioncat From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 22 21:06:03 2004 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Possible reason behind the 'half blood prince' In-Reply-To: <001801c4b80d$8b59cba0$25c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <20041022210603.29639.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116246 In J.K.Rowlings world book day chat she was asked if Voldemort had any children and replied with a resounding "NO' Voldemort as a father - now that's not a nice thought". So the HBP can't be LV spawn. Cathy Drolet wrote:ILucy/moochy4ro said: "I'm thinking something about Voldemort's past. Does he have children? Or can he still have children? Is the half blood prince some child of Voldemort's possibly between him and a muggle? Or somehow related to Harry? " DuffyPoo: As DD said LV is the "last remaining descendant" of Salazar Slytherin, it would be difficult for LV to have children, or they would also be descendants, no? ILucy/moochy4ro said: "Hang on - brain working faster than fingers here. Petunia knows about Voldemort but how much does she know? Did she have something to do with the wizarding world - maybe more than we think?" DuffyPoo: Of course Petunia knows about LV....he murdered her sister (and possibly her parents, but that is mere speculation). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/Files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Oct 22 21:12:44 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:12:44 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) Message-ID: <11.36594eb0.2eaad1cc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116247 In a message dated 10/22/2004 11:56:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, aletamay01 at yahoo.com writes: > Potioncat: > And it's interesting, Draco dislikes both McGonagall and DD very > much... I suppose because of the DE influence. Certainly Snape > doesn't doesn't dislike either. But I wonder how he keeps from > slapping Draco down at some of the comments he makes. (the following quote is mine, CHANCIE, not Potioncat's, even though it was included in the post Barmaid quoted for him/her) > I have thought about this as well. It's clear (at lest to me) that Draco is > hands down Snape's favorite. And it is odd that Snape would choose such a > child considering his allegiance to DD and the order. My theory is that it > probably has a lot to do with Lucius. <<>> Barmaid Wrote: Isn't it possible that Snape sees some of himself in Draco. We see a hint in CoS that Lucius is not really a kind and loving father. I also think that he may care about Draco, may relate to him in some way. I can imagine a Snape that wants to win Draco over or at least be a person Draco can trust when things go wrong for him -- which they have now that Lucius has been exposed. Chancie: I guess that it is possible that Snape wants to be a erm..."roll model" for Draco, but I'm not completely sure that's all there is to it. Draco has always seemed to be favored by Snape, from the start of year one. Also IMO Snape doesn't seem like he's very sincitive. He seems like the type of person who would rather laugh at your problem that help to solve it. Well maybe not *laugh* exactly but maybe tell you to suck it up and "be a man" for whining. As far as winning Draco over... I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this exactly. It's not as though Draco seems to distrust Snape in any way. Draco (again IMO) trusts Snape and relishes in knowing there's a teacher who hates Harry as much as he does. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Oct 22 21:14:06 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:14:06 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer" wrote: > > > Of course appearing in the Daily Prophet photo was stupid but then > was there really any reason for him to think he may be recognised? > Sirius is in Azkaban and happened to see that photo by chance (would he have access to the paper normally?) Carolyn: Peter knows that the fourth member of the marauder's is still alive, and not locked up - Lupin - and that he would be as keen as Sirius to ask him some questions, and would recognise him instantly. It was an insane risk to take, unless he intended it as a signal. A separate theory speculates ESE!Fudge in league with Lucius, both knowing about the rat, and both pretty keen that no one goes to help Vapour!Mort. Fudge slips Sirius the paper, arranges for him to escape, and Sirius-the-faithful-dog romps off to commit the murder he was in for. Jennifer: and Lupin doesn't know the > Weasley's, wouldn't it be possible that if you don't know them > personally you would simply skim the photo before moving on? Carolyn: The photo was taken in the summer before Harry's third year. Lupin had probably already been approached by Dumbledore for the DADA job, and been well-briefed about Harry and the other children he was to teach. Since he rarely got paid work because of his condition, I think he would have taken good care to notice any snippet of news about Hogwart's pupils over the summer - and this was a prominent article. We also don't know that Lupin was not familiar with the Weasley's - they are a large, well-known, pure-blood family, related to the Blacks. The WW is small and close-knit; he could easily know them. Jennifer: Was there anyone else who knew he was an animagus as that point? He > wasn't really the focal point of that picture. To really see that > there is one toe missing of a rat sitting on a boys shoulder (with > the other 8 members of his family around him) wouldn't you have to be really looking at it? It was stupid of him but I don't think it's > something he would have given much thought to especially as he seems to be sitting on Ron's shoulder exposed. > Carolyn: Well, he either is or is not a dastardly spy who betrayed his friends. Deep, evil spies don't break cover unless they mean to. Jennifer: > If Peter used Voldemort's wand to blow up the street would that make any difference to his abilities (power) or none at all? Sorry if > that's been answered before I was just curious? Carolyn: We've heard from JKR at the Edinburgh chat that Peter hid Voldie's wand, so he probably did not have either it, or Voldie's robes with him when he blew up the street. He probably used his own wand if he blew up the street himself. Supposing that he did, we had some fun with all this a while ago - he not only had to cut off his finger with his hands behind his back, but also be holding not just Voldie's robes and wand, but another set as well (the 'heap of blood stained robes' that he left behind), and blow up the street. All a bit unbelievable really. Various people think there was a third party involved (either ESE!Lupin or ESE!Fudge are popular choices). Jennifer: > I hate to say it but the reason I always assumed Peter didn't just > abandon Voldemort was because he was afraid of what would happen if > he did and he was being promised all kinds of things and he clearly > seems to love the idea of power Carolyn: I can't find any evidence that Peter was interested in power. All his statements (whether he is acting or not) are of complete subservience and fear, trying to prove his loyalty. If Agent!Peter is true, it is also a very clever strategy to try with Voldie, who expects exactly such behaviour and delights in making a disloyal person do his will. It saves Peter having to mind-wrestle with a formidable Legilimens. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 21:20:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:20:37 -0000 Subject: The location of the DEs at the MoM (Was: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116249 Pippin wrote: > > I needed a chart to figure out where everybody was when Sirius fell through the veil in OOP. > > > > Neri replied: Mastering the location of everybody when Sirius fell through the veil is a key to ESE!Lupin. I hope it won't be a key to Book 7. Carol responds: The location of the DEs in the entire DoM scene is problematic because most of them wore masks and Harry knew the identity of only a few of them. But it's also "important" to those of us who want to know such things as which Death Eater was turned into an ugly baby-head by the time turner and just generally who was where. (It doesn't help with where Goyle Sr. was, but at least it suggests that the babyhead could be Crabbe Sr. Others have argued that it could be Rabastan, but I think he teamed up with Bellatrix and Rodolphus after his partner was incapacitated.) I'm quite aware that these questions are not central to the plot, but I for one would like to have the events in the DoM explained from a POV more reliable than Harry's. (Maybe we'll see the babyhead in St. Mungo's and find out who he is.) I also want to know what spell Dolohov used that nearly killed Hermione, and might have done so if she hadn't deprived him of his voice. IIRC, the light from that spell was purple, so it wasn't an AK or "Stupefy" or anything we've encountered before. No doubt other posters have other questions regarding this chapter (aside from the nature of the Veil) that are not addressed by Dumbledore's explanation, which is shaped by Harry's personal concerns. I agree with Neri that conspiracy theories would require far too much explanation to undo our previous conceptions (canon now indicates that Peter was the traitor, that Sirius is dead, that James's is the voice in Harry's memory of Godric's Hollow, etc.) and while we can't always take what Harry "knows" as indicative of what really happened, I think we should regard the straightforward explanations of these events as probable until given cause to do otherwise. And I do hope we can figure out what happens in Book 7, at least, without a lengthy Dumbledorean explanation that doesn't adequately explain. But the simple questions that can't yet be answered because we can't tell who was where in the DoM are another matter, and until (and unless) JKR provides the information needed to answer them, tracing the movements of the Death Eaters (and DA members and Order members) is the only way to arrive at a plausible explanation of a very confusing chapter. Carol, who still wonders why Draco Malfoy and Vincent Crabbe remain friends with Gregory Goyle when Goyle Sr. was (apparently) absent from the MoM From annegirl11 at juno.com Fri Oct 22 21:14:25 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:14:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] MM crush on DD? (was: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) Message-ID: <20041022.172957.7228.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116250 SS Susan said: > So, what say all ye? Crush or no crush? Is DD aware? Does he share the feeling? Well, I think "crush" is too juvenile a word for people in the, shall we say, winter of their lives. But I think there's affection, mutual respect, trust, friendship, loyalty, and some version of late-life attraction that I don't want to think about because, I'm sorry, but grandparents don't have sex. (Actually, I think it would be lovely if one's sex life can last into one's senior years, but that doesn't mean I want to hear about it.) So I doubt there's any "I like him but I don't know how to tell him" or "She likes me but I don't know how I feel about her" because I think they've both reached a point in their lives where it's, "I like him, so let's just have at it." But I don't think they're having an affair. I think McG is too independant, and DD has reached an age where ... well, not that romance isn't an interest, but.... I dunno how to explain it. "Content with his routine", maybe. He's 150 years old and still playing father figure to prophesized boys and the general of a war; he's earned his stability. However, I liked the friendly, casual flirtation between DD and McG in this fanfic. DD: "Come away with me, Minerva, [effusive pretty words.]" McG, not having it: "Rediculous, romantic old codger. We'd kill each other before the honeymoon was over." And repeat. What worked in this fic was their confidence borne of their age, long acquaintance, and close friendship. There was no coy flirtation or wistful long looks; DD made his intentions clear (repeatedly) and McG shot him down kindly (all the time). It was a game -- though not without its serious side -- that was part of their friendship and served to remind each other that they were still alive and desirable. Side note: I don't think it matters that DD is more than twice McG's age or that he's close to retirement and she's got a few more decades left in her career. As my grandma says, when you get to a certain age, an age difference of ten or twenty years isn't and issue anymore. For wizards who live as long as they do, I don't think a half century is that big a deal, either. :) Aura ~*~ "I sat down to play yesterday and all of a sudden it was 4 hours later and dark -- as if God had hit my double arrow button." - The Sims forum Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 21:46:54 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:46:54 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116251 -Rams wrote: > Also, we do not 'know' that Peter calmly killed Cedric. We only know > that he was effective. And as for Wormtail shivering while > performing the ancient magic to bring Voldy back to life, he was > terrified because he was going to 1. perform a horrible ritual and > also cut off his own arm 2. bring the terrifying Lord Voldemort back > to life (or form or whatever). Carol responds: Well, actually, it was "only" his hand, not his arm (the hand from which he'd already lost a finger), but that brings up a small point that has always bothered me. The incantation that resurrects Voldemort calls for "flseh of the servant, willingly given." Peter conjures up only a teeny bit of bone dust for the "bone of the father" and takes only a drop or two of Harry's blood for the "blood of the enemy," but he chops off his own entire hand with a knife for the "flesh of the servant"? Wouldn't another finger have done as well? And why not use a spell instead of a knife? It seems like willful self-mutilation, cutting off his hand to spite his finger, so to speak. Ideas, anyone? Carol, with apologies for snipping your ideas on Lupin and hoping that people interested in them will go upthread From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 21:55:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:55:02 -0000 Subject: Saint Leucius, Saint Peter and Saint Severus In-Reply-To: <41731DB3.30606@superluminal.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116252 Gabriel Fey wrote: > So far, as my internet connection's inhabited by demons, I haven't been able to get through to the website about the saints, but there's > probably a book around my house somewhere that I can look them up in. > Carol responds: It's not your demon Internet connection. I wasn't able to get through, either, even after supplying http:// and eliminating the ellipses. If the person who started this thread would kindly resupply the complete URl so it will link, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Carol, who notes that St. Gabriel and St. Fabian were also martyrs and may have some connection to the Prewett brothers From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 22 22:38:18 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:38:18 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > > Looking through my notes above, I hope this will highlight why I find > > it odd that Professor McGonagall addresses Dumbledore just by his > > surname. It smacks of the office set-up of a senior speaking to a > > junior and certainly not of two colleagues of approximately equal > > standing. I would have been quite offended had any of my teaching > > colleagues spoken to me as "Bannister" and that would have included > > the Headmaster. > > Carol adds: > What makes it even odder for me, as an American, is that McGonagall is > a woman addressing a man. As I said in an earlier post that went > unanswered (except for your kind information on sherbet lemons), it > seems to me that most of the female characters call very few people by > their first names. With Hermione and the other female students, it's > first names for other students and Professor plus last name for > teachers. (The one exception, as I noted earlier, seems to be that > Hermione follows the boys in referring to Draco Malfoy and his friends > by their last names. This seems to be the only instance of a female > student using the last name alone. > McGonagall, in contrast, rarely uses first names except when she's > addressing certain colleagues (notably Severus Snape) in an unofficial > capacity. I believe she uses first names in the Hog's Head as well. > Ordinarily, though, she'll address her colleagues as, say, Professor > Snape, and her students as "Mr." or "Miss" plus last name. Her use of > "Albus" for that one emotional moment in SS/PS stands out, but so does > her use of "Dumbledore," for the two reasons we've stated: 1) he's her > superior ("boss," as we'd say in America) and 2) she's female. Geoff: It is very unusual for a woman in this situation to use only the surname which makes Professor McGonagall's use of "Dumbledore" so very strange - and almost claiming superiority over him. The only instance I can recall of this type of address was a female teaching colleague and she used the surname-only structure when speaking of a third party, i.e. when the man involved was not present. Carol: > At any rate, and I really want a British perspective on this, it seems > to me that men and women follow slightly different traditions in > Britain. Among schoolboys and male colleagues (in private > conversation), last names are the norm and first names indicate a > close friendship, is that correct? Or do last names denote enmity > ("Malfoy," for example) while anyone who's not an enemy (say Ernie > MacMillan) would be called by his first name? McGonagall, it seems to > me, is trying to follow the first version of this tradition, with > Dumbledore as a colleague except on those few occasions when her > emotions get to her, in which case she treats him as an intimate > friend. But she's following the *male* tradition if she's following > anything at all. Geoff: I though I had covered this fairly well in my last post: I did say that English usage is changing and the "protocol" I grew up with has virtually disappeared. To recap, when I started teaching in an all- male environment, we referred to the pupils using only their surname unless we needed first names to distinguish, as we might with Fred and George. When the girls came after eight years, we became a little mellower and used both first name and surname. By the time I left teaching in 1993, I used first names only except when I needed to distinguish, as, for example, having more than one Amy in the class. Even today, though, I notice in the boys' club at our church, friends may use first names or nicknames in addressing each other - sometimes softening the surname by using "Jonesy" for "Jones" - and might use surnames only for folk they know as acquaintances but do not count as close friends. I think with girls, there is more of the first name/nickname pattern than surname. But again, among adults nowadays in a work envirnoment, referring to a person to their face just by their surname would be considered brusque or rude. The usage is of course flexible. If you were to compare forms of address in, say, a poor rundown area with an office, you might well get different patterns. Hope this makes sense. Geoff Enjoy views of Exmoor and preserved West Somerset Railway steam at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From barbara_mbowen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 22:39:30 2004 From: barbara_mbowen at yahoo.com (barbara_mbowen) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:39:30 -0000 Subject: Harry's betrayer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116254 Boyd wrote: ? - So here's the likeliest scenario in my mind. Harry, fresh from a particularly gut-wrenching scene in the WW, where the latest vexing mystery has been solved (but not before something horrible nearly happened to Ron and/or Hermione), arrives back at Platform 9 3/4 utterly alone and exhausted. He gets in the car with Petunia and suddenly he realizes that there are still 52 pages left in the book! He tries to get away, but Petunia binds him with *her late sister's wand*, then tells him how she hates all you wizard freaks, and wishes the WW would keep to itself and away from her and her ickle Duddykins. And that's why she delivers Harry to a place full of DEs...and LV himself. She leaves as LV preaches fanatically to his DEs while they leisurely Crucio Harry, drink apple martinis, and discuss the relative merits of autocracies vs. theocracies. DD arrives and walks into the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to say something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have your mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." And, of course, his eyes gleam. Then Snape appears from nowhere, grabs Harry, and leaves with him just as LV AKs DD. AFAIK, QED, IMHO. (Um, sorry, got carried away with the acronyms.) There, now DD is apparently dead and Harry must trust Snape at last. And the plot has finally moved forward that last step before the conclusion in book 7.> Now me. Okay, I buy all this. Dumbledore dies in Harry's place and Snape gets Harry safely away. Harry is humbled, apologetic, forgives and begs Snape to forgive him. He no longer suspects Snape of evil, but looks up to and trusts him. Then, in book 7, Snape really does betray Harry. Motivation? Snape still hates James, Harry is still James' kid, and furthermore, Harry caused DD's death. DD was very emotionally significant to Snape: perhaps the first to respect and believe good of him; maybe even the only person Snape allowed himself to love. Any takers? Marmelade Mom From jrpessin at mail.millikin.edu Fri Oct 22 22:44:51 2004 From: jrpessin at mail.millikin.edu (Jonathan Pessin) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:44:51 -0500 Subject: What JKR Finds Important Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116255 Tonks wrote: " I thing that one important thing that JKR is teaching here, is to show a teenager going through all of this and coping. Not well, but coping. No suicide here. She will show the teenagers of the world how to cope with trauma and loss." I reply: I don't honestly believe that JKR is writing this as a teaching tool at all; I know that morality is a major part of the story, but this particular aspect, Harry's responses to his past and his situation, strikes me more as a reflection of life. If JKR is teaching in this instance, I would think it's almost a "don't do this" sort of situation. What I mean is, Harry isn't reacting as some sort of idealized, perfect world kid would. He DOES get angry at the wrong people, he acts irrationally, he's impulsive, yadda yadda yadda. Unfortunately, this opens up the possibility that Harry *MIGHT* commit suicide at the end - JKR just needs to show the negative results of this action to make it a learning experience. Hobbit_Guy who wishes he had about 10 more hours a day to look through stuff like this, because college schtinks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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 bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 22:56:04 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:56:04 -0000 Subject: Wizards at Large -short note on the odd. In-Reply-To: <003a01c4b864$f5ece540$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Carol wrote: > >Your remark leads me to wonder (again) how all the wizard parents > >disguise themselves when they drop off or pick up their children a > >Platform 9 3/4. .... > Ffred: > > ...edited... > > So if you've cast a "don't notice me" on yourself, then maybe it's > not something that you ever need to renew, unless something drastic > happens. > > ..edited.. > > Cheers > > Ffred bboyminn: Just a short note: I was corresponding with someone recently on this very subject, and they pointed out to me that they had recently ridden the London subway during rush hour wearing an elaborate period costume, and not a single person so much as blinked an eye. I suspect all over London and Britian, it is quite common to see people in period costumes. Example, the traditional guards at Parliament typically wear silk tights and carry swords. When one of the main indoor markets closes at night, the 'keeper of keys' comes out in his period costume, again consisting of tights and very puffy short pant and an equally puffy top plus an odd looking hat. Just another day at the office for him. I think Londoners are very used to odd looking people lurking about the train stations. In addition, that means the magical folks can do just a mediocre job of trying to look muggle and still ramain passable. Now combine that with Mods, Rockers, Rudeboys, Hip-Hop, Punks, cross-dressers, Glam, Goth, Ravers, pierced, tatooed, and other assorted riffraff, and odd people lurking about London is no big deal. You never know... Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 22 23:17:33 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:17:33 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116257 Alla wrote: > > I suppose come to think of it JKR does portray some evil fairly > > convincingly - some DE are very scary, same with TR. I just wish > > Voldemort could be the same way. Kneasy replied: > TR is just a snide teenager, most of the DEs are fairly standard > heavies - thuggish rather than evil, and Bella - well, in the past > I've had girl-friends that were more frightening than she is. > More could be made of other characters, I think. > Am I the only one that sees more than a touch of Uriah Heap in > Ollivander? or O'Brien (from 1984) in Lucius? Hannah now: I agree with Alla that LV isn't particularly frightening. I don't think that the red eyes and snake-features help, they make him into an implausible monster. Also, with LV you know what you're getting; ie. big-style evil. The Sauron comparisons are spot on. I found TMR more chilling, because he seemed to be a good guy (ok, maybe I was just very gullible for not seeing through him straight away). I like Kneasy's Ollivander-Heap and Malfoy-O'Brien comparisons. We haven't really seen enough of Ollivander yet, but he's certainly a bit creepy (just wait for him to say 'I'm ever so 'umble'). The O'Brien-Lucius similarity is really interesting. But I would find O'Brien more sinister, in that he is again a character that we trust (tentatively, but relatively speaking he seems to be a 'good guy'). With Lucius, as with LV, you get what you expect. There isn't that 'oh no, it was him all along!' moment. For me, that ambiguity makes a character more scary. OTOH, I never found Quirrel scary, even after the big revelation. Trouble is, I don't know what JKR can do to really convey the evil of characters like LV, partly because it's a childrens book and she has to draw the line somewhere, but also because I think it is quite difficult to really comprehend that sort of evil. All the same, I do hope LV gets a bit more competent, otherwise the whole saga will be slightly less plausible. Him and twelve of his most loyal and feared followers were outwitted by a bunch of school children, and we're supposed to believe that he terrorised an entire country! Hannah, who guesses if she can believe Snape is secretly a wonderful person (which I do) then perhaps she can also stretch her imagination a little about the awfulness of LV! From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 23:17:34 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041022231734.74952.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116258 --- hickengruendler wrote: > And Snape as headmaster is a truly scary thought. He's bad enough > as a teacher. Okay, I've just got to share this with everyone and hope the elves don't thump me. I'm not a huge fanfic fan but this is the best Snape fanfic ever written - and he doesn't appear in it at all. He's just died after being Headmaster for 70 years and Harry Potter is giving the eulogy at his funeral. It's the most canon!Snape fanfic you'll ever read and it's a great picture of what Snape would be like as Headmaster. http://www.thedarkarts.org/authors/viridis/E.html Anyone think this picture is inaccurate? Still think he'd be a terrible headmaster? Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 23:29:40 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041022232940.76547.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116259 > Dungrollin: > However, what I suspect that DD and MM aren't aware of, is the > venomous malice with which Snape treats Harry when there aren't > any adult witnesses. They're both aware that Snape can be unfair, > but since they don't see the full extent of his unpleasantness, > they assume that it can't be doing that much harm.... > If they were fully aware of how nasty he can be, I think they'd > disapprove somewhat. Many people assume that Snape's nastiness is some kind of "thin edge of the wedge", that it's a harbinger of some truly viscious urge barely restrained and dying to get out, that if Snape had his way he'd really be sadistic physically to the kids. But I think it's more likely that the snide gittishness is a safety valve, a way he lets off steam when the pressure's on and he has order yet another cauldron because Neville's melted his again or Potter's been caught yet again breaking rules all over the place. This is how he lets it out - he vents, then it's over and done with and life goes on. And they know him better than Harry does - they've known him longer and in many more situations than Harry has. Whatever he's doing to Harry, Neville and the many years worth of kids going through potions is apparently seen by both of them as worth putting up with because of some greater good or advantage to having Snape around. What that is yet, we don't know. Hopefully we'll find out before the end... Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 22 23:45:14 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:45:14 -0000 Subject: The location of the DEs at the MoM (Was: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116260 > > Carol, who still wonders why Draco Malfoy and Vincent Crabbe remain > friends with Gregory Goyle when Goyle Sr. was (apparently) absent from > the MoM Potioncat: I don't think it's an issue, really. It's who was assigned to do what. As far as the good guys go,for example, Black should not have been at MoM, nor should Snape. It doesn't make either of them less of an Order member, just their duty was elsewhere. Same for Goyle. He had a different assignment. Now, if Crabbe and Goyle are employees of Malfoy (as I suspect) and if he made up the team, he may have chosen to leave one behind to protect the Malfoy estate. I could see Theodore having some real problems with his Housemates if he ever discovered how his father was left behind. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 23:57:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:57:46 -0000 Subject: Lupin's estrangement from WPP (Was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116261 Tammy wrote: > > We know that Lupin was shut out (at least to a certain extent, as he wasn't at the wedding or at Harry's christening/baptism/naming ceremony thingy), who's to say that the other three saw Peter enough to notice a change? Carol responds: We know from JKR's website rather than from canon that only Black, the godfather, attended Harry's christening and Lupin was indeed shut out. We also know (from canon) that Black was best man at the Potters' wedding, which certainly implies "best friend" as well. But do we have any indication that Lupin (or Pettigrew) did not attend the wedding? That appears to have been a more public and elaborate affair, implying that the Potters didn't yet sense their danger (or suspect a traitor in their midst). The christening would have been at least nine months after the wedding (this is a children's book, after all, and JKR isn't going to imply any premarital hanky-panky.) Given James's ardor, I suspect that they married very soon after leaving Hogwarts, say in June or July of that year (1978). At the latest they must have been married by the end of April 1980, nine months before the christening in early August 1981. By that time they must have been aware of the Prophecy, which occurred four months before Harry's birth, and Peter (if Sirius is right) had already been spying for Voldemort for about eight months. The Potters would have seen Pettigrew, Lupin, and Black at Order meetings, at least, and we have the photo of Pettigrew sitting between them at one of those meetings, but it's not clear when the photo was taken or whether it implies that Lupin was already being shut out. Interestingly, Black clearly was not--he was still the godfather and James's choice for Secret Keeper. I'm guessing that the relations among the four friends were still "normal" when the wedding occurred (that is, Sirius and James as best friends; Peter as hanger-on; Remus wanting to be liked and afraid to oppose Sirius or James), but that the friendship began to deteriorate after that because the others were no longer schoolboy pranksters wishing the moon were full so they could run with a werewolf. Remus must have sensed that his value to them had diminished as the adventures ended. As he felt that friendship cooling, he may even have chided himself for being afraid, in his Prefect days, to speak out against their bullying for fear of losing their friendship. Differences in priorities were emeging, too. James had a wife and later a child to think of. Sirius was slaking his thirst for adventure through the Order. Peter, unnoticed, was quietly spying for Voldemort, and beginning to name names. Remus was facing the consequences of being a werewolf without a Shrieking Shack to hide in and without the monthly companionship of the Animagi. Perhaps he was increasingly lonely, impoverished, and afraid. By the time of the christening, he must have felt that the others had come to suspect him as being a spy or traitor. And he must have noticed Peter sitting between Lily and James at that meeting, and yet he suspected Sirius. Peter had always flattered and fawned on James. What else was new? I don't think he would have seen that change, or suspected Peter, any more than Sirius did. It was the continuing and increasing closeness of Sirius and James that he could not help but notice, and perhaps resent. Whether he was jealous of Sirius or not (and I think he originally wanted to be friends with both of them, to be trusted by both of them, by Sirius as well as James), by the time of Godric's Hollow, fifteen months after the christening, he must have felt himself fully excluded. Knowing there was a traitor in their midst, seeing the ever-tightening bond between Sirius and James, not even considering the apparently inconsequential Peter, he must have suspected Sirius as the traitor, exactly as he says in the Shrieking Shack, and suspected Sirius of blackening James's mind against him. I see a progression here, followed by a regression. Discovery that Remus is a werewolf; excitement about this discovery; decision by James and Sirius to explore Transfiguration to beccome Animagi; eagerness of Peter to benefit from their expertis and become an Animagus, too. Successful transformation into animals. Increase in arrogance of James and Sirius as they pride themselves on their accomplishment; increased "devotion" to James by Peter (perhaps secretly proud to be an Animagus but loathing himself for being revealed as a rat?) Excitement by all three at being able to "run with a werewolf"; happiness on Remus's part that his friends apparently care enough about him to transform themselves into animals for his sake. Unwillingness on Remus's part to find fault with them or analyze their motives too deeply. Consequent inability to fulfill his duties as a Prefect by keeping S and J in line. The Pensieve incident: Revelation to Remus that James is an arrogant (if rather charming) bully and Sirius is a cold and haughty "berk" who cares nothing about his feelings or Peter's but merely wants to be entertained. Silence on Remus's part against his better judgment because he doesn't want to lose his only friends. Guilt or remorse because Lily speaks out and he doesn't. The so-called "Prank": Indisputable evidence of Sirius's rash disregard for the safety (Severus's) and feelings (Remus's) of others. First indication of the lengths to which Sirius will go for revenge. Gratitude on Remus's part to James for saving him from exposure, ruin, and possible murder (or worse) of a fellow student. Possible understanding on Remus's part of Severus's feelings as well. Beginning of estrangement from Sirius(?) Sirius leaves home and moves in with James's family: Strengthening of the bond between Sirius and James; possible silent envy or jealousy by the other two. Graduation from Hogwarts: end of the friendship as they have known it for about five years. Probable separation as they go their separate ways (except Sirius and James?) Membership in the Order: All four join the Order, along with Lily, allowing some continuity in the friendship. Greater seriousness of purpose for James, at least. James marries Lily: Sirius is best man. The others probably attend as guests or ushers (groom's men?). James's priorities change to those of a husband and later, a father-to-be. Remus begins his struggle to earn a living, probably losing job after job as his identity as a werewolf becomes increasingly harder to hide. Sirius shows no interest in marriage and has no need to earn a living. VW1 intensifies: The DEs begin to pick off the Order members one by one. It becomes clear that someone in the Order is a spy. No one suspects Peter, who begins to insinuate his way between Remus and Sirius, perhaps taking advantage of their growing differences. He pretends continued devotion to James. The Potters defy Voldemort three times. Dumbledore hears the Prophecy: Whether he begins his preparations and tells the Potters (and Longbottoms) at this time is not clear. Harry Potter is born and christened: Significantly, this is a small affair and only the godfather, Sirius Black, (and of course the parents and minister) is present. Remus and Peter are not invited. Snape(?) informs Dumbledore that Voldemort intends to go after the Potters. Dumbledore tells the Potters that their best chance is a Fidelius Charm and offers himself as Secret Keeper. James rejects his offer and chooses Sirius instead. Sirius talks him into choosing Peter instead. James, Sirius, and probably Lily think Remus is the spy. Remus, if he knows of the plan at all, thinks Sirius is the Secret Keeper. Peter betrays the Potters: James and Lily are killed. Sirius goes after Peter and is framed and sent to Azkaban. Peter transforms into a rat and becomes Percy Weasley's pet. Remus disappears from our view. He does not visit Sirius in Azkaban and does not know of Peter's deception. Carol, trying to make sense of these events and hoping that others will point out any errors and inconsistencies From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 01:15:25 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:15:25 -0000 Subject: The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: <20041022231734.74952.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116262 Magda: > Anyone think this picture is inaccurate? Still think he'd be a > terrible headmaster? Alla: It is very IC story. It is a very nightmarish picture of Hogwarts headmaster, IMO. I again can only hope that such thing will never happen in canon, ever, despite some useful reforms. Hogwarts needs a Headmaster who at least respects its students as human beings, IMO From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 01:27:04 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:27:04 -0000 Subject: smashing flasks Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116263 > Potioncat: > And this is part of the reason I don't think Snape broke it. I > think if he were going to break it (and he is that mean) he would > have broken it in front of Harry for the extra bit of "Gotcha!" Alla: Oh, Potioncat, I love you. :o) I feel VERY comfortable disagreeing with you, because you make minor concessions ,while defending Snape overall and it makes me want to concede more. For example here even though you don't think that Snape broke the flask, you concede that he IS mean enough to do it. I definitely see you point - that Snape could have tried to humiliate Harry in MORE open way, not in more hidden way. That I can agree with. Still think Snape did it, though. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 02:00:22 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:00:22 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116264 > LisaMarie agrees: > Voldemort doesn't really make my blood run cold, either. He's just not very > scary! I do hate him, though, mostly because he is the evil bastard that has > made Harry's (and Neville's, and Sirius', etc) life so hard. Alla: Oh, I do hate him, absolutely, because of the consequences of his actions, which happened OFF-SCREEN. You know, I just want to see it. > LisaMarie agrees again: > Too true. In fact, her most interesting characters, IMO, are the "good guys" with their character flaws. I love them, though it is frustrating to do so!Reckless!Sirius, Inactive!Lupin, IrrationallyAngry!Harry, Jealous/Envious!Ron... There are just so many moral conundrums that are JKR's characters!! I > think it's what makes us (or, "me") able to so closely identify: they are so > human. Alla: Oh, perfectly phrased - "love them, though it is frustrating to do so". Absolutely. I definitely want to know what is at the heart of Harry Potter mystery, after all - half of the attraction will be gone without mystery plot, but the main reason I love the series are the trials and tribulations of my favourite characters. Some of them are carrying around so much pain, that I just want to hug them. :) And some of them are doing so many stupid things that I just want to slap them. I think "unconditional" Snape fans should be very proud since Snape invokes VERY strong reactions, even if they are often negative ones. I wish I could hate Voldemort just as passionately as I want to slap Snape sometimes. >> LisaMarie: > I disagree about Snape being scary; I am suspicious of him, but I (maybe naively) believe that his loyalty ultimately lies with DD and that he's working to bring about LV's downfall. Alla: I am not talking about him serving Voldemort, I doubt that he does that. I am talking about his reactions to his students. I find it to be quite scary. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 23 02:20:10 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:20:10 -0000 Subject: smashing flasks Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116265 Alla wrote: > I definitely see you point - that Snape could have tried to > humiliate Harry in MORE open way, not in more hidden way. That I can > agree with. > > > Still think Snape did it, though. :) Potioncat: I wonder if this is something we'll find the answer to, or if it'll stay a mystery? With our luck, JKR would say, "Isn't it obvious?" and each of us will still think she/he is right. ;-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 23 02:39:29 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:39:29 -0000 Subject: The new headmaster (Was: Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Magda: > > > Anyone think this picture is inaccurate? Still think he'd be a > > terrible headmaster? > > > Alla: > > It is very IC story. It is a very nightmarish picture of Hogwarts > headmaster, IMO. I again can only hope that such thing will never > happen in canon, ever, despite some useful reforms. > > Hogwarts needs a Headmaster who at least respects its students as > human beings, IMO Potioncat: The attitude is very IC. But some of the actions aren't. But unless JKR tells us Snape will be Headmaster, it is the wildest of speculation. (not that there is anything wrong with wild speculation.) From dk59us at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 02:40:47 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:40:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > boyd: > > > > DD arrives and walks into > > the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to > say > > something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have > your > > mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." > > Neri: > > How about: "run, you fool!" > > Neri apologizes for the one liner Eustace_Scrubb: Or...there's a broomstick at hand, so DD cries: "Fly, you fool!" Eustace_Scrubb, who apologizes for responding with another one liner From apeiron at comcast.net Fri Oct 22 17:12:36 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:12:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's temptation (was: Harry's experiences : what's missing ?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1098465156.39803.26.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116268 On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 16:56 +0000, cubfanbudwoman wrote: > SSSusan: > He could also be tempted to run away and to choose not face up to the > burden he bears by virtue of being the only one who can defeat > Voldy. THAT'S a temptation I could see him wrestling with...at least > for a short time. He started to do exactly that, in a way, in OotP -- around Christmastime. It's detailed toward the beginning of chapter 23. Fortunately, he was stopped by Phineas who gave Harry an order from Dumbledore -- "stay where you are". -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From apeiron at comcast.net Fri Oct 22 17:19:05 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:19:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1098465545.39803.33.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116269 On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 16:50 +0000, finwitch wrote: > And if we look at Grimms' Fairy Tales or those by H.C.Andersen or > other classical fairy tales - original any way, not the over-sweet > Disney-versions - that ARE considered as children's books, do they > not deal with death? Or sufferance? Or violence? Think of the little > girl selling matches, where the heroine freezes to death at the end. > Or the Prince and the Sparrow... they died, too. Or my favourite when discussing this topic -- the ubiquitous "Ring Around the Rosy", which deals with death, sufferance, and violence (manifested in the increased lawlessness made possible by the lack of any real law enforcement) all at once. Anyone remember doing the song and dance for that as a youngster? Anyone in that set of people also remember their reaction when they learned what it really meant? > So you can't really say thing X won't be in a book just because it's > for children. Harry *can* die, since I certainly see HP-serie being > like the classic tales where even heros DO die. I -- not being of the evil-loving, cynical, pessimistic, or paranoid persuasions -- would rather not enjoy this. Let's hope that Harry's death would be so horrible that JKR would be unable to write it. :) > And what Harry's missing - well, GOOD things! Life! (Hmm.. what if > Harry can get rid of Voldy by *living*... now that would be > something, wouldn't it?) Well, Harry kind-of sort-of did that once already. And up till the end of GoF, Harry's being alive has kept Voldemort at bay -- he's been quite a meddlesome kid. -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 18:26:40 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:26:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116270 boyd: > big snip > So here's the likeliest scenario in my mind. Harry, fresh from a > particularly gut-wrenching scene in the WW, where the latest vexing mystery > has been solved (but not before something horrible nearly happened to Ron > and/or Hermione), arrives back at Platform 9 3/4 utterly alone and > exhausted. He gets in the car with Petunia and suddenly he realizes that > there are still 52 pages left in the book! He tries to get away, but Petunia > binds him with *her late sister's wand*, then tells him how she hates all > you wizard freaks, and wishes the WW would keep to itself and away from her > and her ickle Duddykins. And that's why she delivers Harry to a place full > of DEs...and LV himself. She leaves as LV preaches fanatically to his DEs > while they leisurely Crucio Harry, drink apple martinis, and discuss the > relative merits of autocracies vs. theocracies. DD arrives and walks into > the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to say > something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have your > mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." And, of course, his eyes gleam. > Then Snape appears from nowhere, grabs Harry, and leaves with him just as LV > AKs DD. AFAIK, QED, IMHO. (Um, sorry, got carried away with the acronyms.) > > There, now DD is apparently dead and Harry must trust Snape at last. And the > plot has finally moved forward that last step before the conclusion in book > 7. barmaid: Oh this is sweet! I LOL at the DE's sipping apple martinis -- hum it is a little early in the day but that apple martini mix in the cupboard is calling to me right now for some reason! I think this is a great theory. It may not be what happens in JKR's books, but if not you should write your own. I am completely in the camp of somehow Snape and Harry are forced to bond in some moment like the one you discribe. They have to look each other in the eye at some point and realize that they *have* to trust each other. I see this potential moment as somewhat redemptive for both of them -- by seeing that the other is trust *worthy* they are released from some or much of the baggage they both carry..... From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 03:05:24 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:05:24 -0000 Subject: Harry In-Reply-To: <88A92A88-2444-11D9-829C-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116271 Kneasy snipped: I'm not a fan of assigning RW psychological theories of cause and effect to fictional characters; it's a losers game IMO. Snow: Have to disagree! There is a bit more to it than that. There is one simulation to real life that can't be ignored (imo); this is the fact that people aren't always who they first appear to be. Heaven knows that Quirrel, Lockhart, Sirius at first (still questionable), Snape (again could be questionable) and Moody weren't. There are many more to come that appear to be something or someone they are not. The books are filled with these types of people, why stop now? I'm sure the author herself has attributed her own "real life" views in her dialogue to believe in someone only to find that they are not what they appeared to be. I suspect that we all have encountered this type of misplaced trust especially given the age and stage of Harry's life and circumstances. "Real life" is a contributing factor in writing. This isn't even my belief but that of the author when she mentions that Hermione is a formal portrayal of herself and that Harry depicts her later self. Bravery, like Harry's, appears to be something she had been pushed to learn in her own life. Ron, although not intentionally, has been described somewhat like a former best friend to JKR and also a best friend to Harry. The Mirror of Erised has been an emotional desire of the author to see her own mother one last time and the dementors appear to be based on the soul sucking of happiness in her own life. Can we assume that real life situations have had an effect on the Potter series, yes! (at least to me) The story itself was not created by the author's circumstances but those circumstances are inevitably intertwined into the story as much as her religious beliefs. Is this a story of the author's life, no, but her emotions, beliefs are evitable in its background. JKR has stated that this is her story to write and she will not change for anyone else's satisfaction. The ending must be her ending even how she perceives Harry to see or not see, what appears to be evitable to us as readers at the time, will become clear in due time to Harry. Isn't it always easier for someone else to detect the mistakes that they see you are making, but you still make them because it is your life, your choices. Harry may not see everything clearly yet, but he will. Just as JKR realized that it was best to leave the father of her baby and move on to the unknown in the face of adversity to overcome and succeed to the phenomenal conclusion. I have very little doubt that her series will fail us. Her own real life circumstances have had tremendous influence on her books that has caused so many to not only to read them but also to become involved in them to such an unprecedented degree. Should "real life" be submitted for study in the Potter series, yes, as it pertains to the author. Kneasy snipped: For action is Harry's forte. Whenever there's a new development, generally speaking Harry's first response is to *do* something. Any advice to the contrary is unwelcome and usually over-ridden or ignored. Sadly, although action is what he's good at, fitting the right action to the circumstances is a bit iffy. Not only does he leap into action, he usually jumps to conclusions too. Wrong ones. It's a gift, a law of nature, like toast always falling butter-side down. It all adds to the entertainment immensely - but detracts from the suspense. You just *know* he's got hold of the wrong end of the stick and somebody'll suffer because of it. It's just a question of finding out who. Snow: There are two words I would use to describe Harry, gullible and na?ve. Both of these traits can defiantly cause danger to himself and others. There is hope though! Harry didn't want Neville, Ginny or Luna to go with him to save Sirius because he, again, misjudged people for who they are but learned differently. This may be the beginning of Harry's understanding that people are not always what he perceived them to be. Kneasy snipped: And the stakes rise with each book. Escalation, it's called. Those at risk, then those who die, get closer to Harry as the series progresses. Quirrell!Mort cops it in the neck in PS/SS. No big deal - he's a baddy. Argh! Ginny's in trouble in CoS, but it's Tom that's crunched. Phew! Just another baddy, thank heavens. Oh no! Sadlymisunderstood!Sirius in PoA is due for a snogging session with a Dementor! But it's OK, he escapes at the last minute. GoF, Cedric - a sort of friend, not close, dies - leaving behind a girl Harry quite fancies. It's not all bad news, then. OoP - Sirius - someone *very* close - dies. *Gulp* What, or rather who, is next? Dear, oh dear. Can Ron, Hermione or DD be far behind? Or will it be multiples next time? Snow: You just named all of Harry's mentors! Ron for someone so young has intuition to teach Harry, Hermione has the book-learned knowledge and Dumbledore has the answers (if he would just tell him). These are Harry's teachers. Harry can't lose any of them, at least yet. I'm certain Harry will break away from these mentors when he has learned what they have to teach but not until he has learned the realization that everyone is not who they appear to be. Snow From apeiron at comcast.net Fri Oct 22 22:07:35 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:07:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1098482855.849.8.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116272 On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 21:46 +0000, justcarol67 wrote: [pretence snipped] > The incantation that resurrects Voldemort calls for "flseh of the > servant, willingly given." Peter conjures up only a teeny bit of bone > dust for the "bone of the father" and takes only a drop or two of > Harry's blood for the "blood of the enemy," but he chops off his own > entire hand with a knife for the "flesh of the servant"? Wouldn't > another finger have done as well? And why not use a spell instead > of a knife? It seems like willful self-mutilation, cutting off > his hand to spite his finger, so to speak. His whole hand may serve as proof of how willing he is. He's willing to make a larger sacrifice. Some people would make do with a finger -- but Peter? Oh, Peter uses his whole hand! Why not use a spell? Ceremonious reasons, perhaps. Perhaps it's also do to with the willingness / devotion aspect. I'm sure that using a knife would be far more painful (even describing the process is more than a bit disturbing for me, which is why I chose the phrase "using a knife" instead), and said pain would serve as proof of his willingness. And at least in the real world, sacrifices of this and similar sorts have been made traditionally with knife cuts. -- Best regards, Christopher Nehren I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From cat_kind at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 20:42:08 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:42:08 -0000 Subject: DADA job (was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116273 Potioncat: > > > > Snape fans don't want him in DADA (come to think of it, neither do > > his foes.) The assumption is that if a person teaches DADA they must > > come to a bad end at the end of the book. So, would JKR be arrested > > if someone lasted to the following book? Would we be on the edge of > > our seats waiting for the ax to fall...and could there be a > > satifying resolution to a happy ending for the DADA teacher? (Be it > > Snape or Alberforth or person of your choice) bboyminn: > > The easiest and smoothest transition seems to be number Three. But we > know that the DADA teachers rarely last more than a year. That would > imply deep deep trouble for Snape. It would seem that Snape would > either be dead or disgraced by the end of the next book. > > As to the curse on the DADA job, first I don't think, as others have > speculated, that a curse was cast upon the job by someone. Sometimes > things just get jinxed by a fickled twist of fate, and I think the > fickled twist of fate that has jinxed this job is Harry. Once Harry > goes, the jinx goes with him. catkind: In every book yet we have had a new character as DADA teacher, and they've come to a sticky end as Potioncat says. Therefore I predict that NEITHER of these things will happen in the next book. I don't think JKR is that unoriginal, and it would be too obvious - it only worked in OotP because of the twist that it was clear from the very start that Umbridge was nasty and had to go. We've done nice teacher who has to leave. We've done disguised nasty teacher twice. We've done incompetent teacher. We've done openly nasty teacher. What else is there? So surely it has to be someone we know? Snape, one of the members of the Order, an Auror, maybe even Dumbledore or Harry himself in a pinch. I'm rooting for Snape because I think it would be the most interesting read. Whoever gets the job we'll all be on the edge of our seats waiting for something dire to happen to them, and they'll be thoroughly scrutinised for evil tendencies. Sounds to me like a great front for interesting happenings elsewhere! So I'm for a known character, and a strong red herring that they're up to no good/ about to get killed in a nasty way, but that they should survive. catkind From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Oct 23 03:34:11 2004 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:34:11 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Astronomy OWLs (CORRECTIONS) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <417A5DD3.6488.45507CE@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 116274 On 22 Oct 2004 at 20:36, Lady Macbeth wrote: > Hopefully my brain doesn't puke out on obvious dates again while I'm > doing the rest of my Astronomy analysis. Just worth pointing out that I've done this type of thing before well over a year ago - July 2003. Message can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/68982 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 frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 03:45:25 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:45:25 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116275 A long time ago, in a post far, far away (which I can no longer find), I vented my theory that occlumency might be rare because it can't be taught, that it might hinge on the mentally closed off frame of mind of people/kids in abusive situations. Basically we know of four Occlumens--Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort and Harry--and three of them seem to share is a crappy childhoods. Dumbledore we just don't know about. Hopefully with Aberforth, in future books, we'll learn more about his past Basically, I have to believe that Dumbledore is sane and not-evil. I just have to for myself. Manipulative, yes; cruel-to-be-kind, yes; out-and-out evil, no. I have to believe he has some kind of good reason for the questionable things he's done and isn`t just a balmy old codger. Harry's Home Life There has to be a good reason justifying Dumbledore letting the Dursleys treat Harry as they did--yes, Lily's blood, protecting, yes, yes--but it was well within his power to *demand* better treatment. I mean, wizards obliviate muggles all the time, simply demanding better treatment, by fear, blackmail or spell, was well within his power and far less of a human rights violation. And yes, Dumbledore is a humanitarian who probably would disapprove of using oblivate at the drop of a hat, but he's done plenty of other morally questionable things in the name of defeating Voldemort, zapping happy-charms on the Dursleys would be *nothing*. Unless their behavior was serving his war effort. But if occlumency is dependent on a closed-off frame of mind, Dumbledore might have felt it was necessary. Not that I'm saying it's an act, mind you, I think Vernon and Petunia are both certifiable and criminal. I just think Dumbledore might have used their animosity to instill the mental defenses Harry needed to not become a mini-Quirrel. Alienating Slytherins I almost didn't read the second book because the end of the first, when Dumbledore arbitrarily gave the trio enough points to win the House Cup--after it had been given to the Slytherins--pissed me off that much. All through the books, the blatant favoritism is hard to except if Hogwarts is a decent school. And just like Dumbledore not being evil or nuts, I think we have to assume that Hogwarts is suppose to be a good place. So I think Occlumency and mental openness might just explain how the school is run. I think Snape and Dumbledore, two occlumens, are playing good-cop/bad- cop with the Slytherins and Griffindors. Dumbledore alienates the Slytherins, Snape favors them, they feel more warmly toward Snape, and he clandestinely picks their brains. They reverse roles for Griffindor. Basically, with the number of Death Eater kids in Slytherin, Dumbledore couldn't expect them feel fuzzy and friendly towards *him*, but whether or not their folks like Snape or think he's still loyal to Voldemort, he's more likely to be excepted by their kids. Hence the necessity of his being unfair to Slytherin: to serve them up on a silver platter to Snape. Potioncat posted that: > But I don't see anything in canon that indicates that > Snape has done anything positive for Draco. If anything, he's just > another tool in Snape's information gathering job. Which is almost > worse than what Snape does to Harry. As Head of House he does have a > responsibility to Draco. --which is what got me off my butt to type up all this theory that I've been batting around in my head. I think that's exactly what Draco is, an information-gathering tool, but I don't think he's doing it consciously. And I do think it's worse, *way* worse than what Snape does to Harry. Occlumency Lessons If it requires a frame of mind, it explains the occlumency lessons, both how Snape went about them and why Dumbledore thought Snape would be able to teach Harry in the first place. No, I don't think that Snape was/is acting, I think he totally detests Harry. But I think Dumbledore might take advantage of that. That might be why he himself didn't take the time to teach Harry this very important magic himself. Teaching Harry to be mentally defensive of Dumbledore might hurt the war effort, but the defensive mindset with Snape is already in place. Imperio (and this is the weakest part of my theory) The Imperious Curse seems to be a sort of mental magic, though you could argue it works on the morals, or soul, or whatever, too, but free will (or lack thereof) is clearly involved, so I'd call it mental. In GoF, we had the scene where Harry is Imperio'd by Fake!Moody in DADA. During the curse, it's as if he's carrying on a little conversation in his head about why he should or shouldn't do it. It wasn't automatic submission of will, he was able to think about it. Fake!Moody had them doing innocuous things, which no kid would find objectionable, but what if he had ordered them to do something really wrong? A harder fight to resist seems likely. That sounds like an occlumency connection to me. Harry was the only one in the class able to fight it off, maybe because he's got an occlumens frame of mind? But Harry says it gets easier to resist each time. He likes and wants to please Fake!Moody who is telling him to resist, which I don't think Barty Jr expected or wanted him to be able to do, but anyway... If it works a bit like occlumency, then maybe mental closeness matters, even when someone's over-riding your will. Now, I'm not suggesting that Snape *has* Imperio'd any of the Slytherins. Yet. But I think they might be tenderizing them in case they need to. Something like: Snape/your protector + Imperio'd orders = less mental resistance. If so, then what Snape's in a position to do to Draco might be WAY worse than what he's done to Harry. I don't know if Dumbledore would or could do Unforgivable curses, but I'm sure Snape could and would And the Order includes Aurors, who can do it *legally*. --Frugalarugala, who can also think up some "interesting" ways to use a pensieve From kb1195 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 03:45:20 2004 From: kb1195 at hotmail.com (katevldz) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 03:45:20 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116276 I'm a newcomer to this group, so I apologize if I'm repeating things that have already been thoroughly discussed - I'm just getting acclimated. :) I am very happy to be here! > "justcarol67" wrote: > > >still can't figure out *what* Lupin was thinking In my opinion, Lupin wasn't thinking, he was angry. Angry all over again that James and Lily were betrayed, angry that for 12 years he thought Sirius was guilty of betraying his friend and committing murder, angry at the discovery that Sirius had unjustly spent 12 years in Azkaban when he was innocent. Maybe he felt it would be closure for them if they ended Peter in the Shrieking Shack. "eggplant107" wrote: I don't see that this is the biggest mistake Harry has made in his life. At the end of PoA, DD says that the time may come when [Harry] will be very glad [he] saved Pettigrew's life. I can't help but think JKR is setting us up for something with that! Come on! Perhaps Peter will aid Harry in the final battle with LV, finding redemption, or Peter will somehow be involved in helping Sirius return (yes, I am in SAD DENIAL :)). Speak of SAD DENIAL, can someone please point me towards where/when that thread began or give the specifics and latest on the theory? I have searched the archives, but so far, it has been in vain. I would really appreciate it as I am very interested in thoughts on the future of Sirius. kate From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 04:19:26 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:19:26 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116277 > Potioncat: > I'm of two minds about Draco. In general I think he's just a > rotten kid. I think that JKR has indicated that Draco > is a lost cause. > > But I don't see anything in canon that indicates that > Snape has done anything positive for Draco. If anything, he's just > another tool in Snape's information gathering job. Which is almost > worse than what Snape does to Harry. As Head of House he does have > a responsibility to Draco. > > And it's OK for JKR to write Draco this way. She's showing us this > rotten kid that we all seem to meet along the way. The one that > never changes. barmaid here again: I will not be surprised at all if you are right. However, I find that so much of what makes these books great is the huge amount of grey. Hardly anyone is all good or all bad. So, when I am confronted with Draco I wonder -- could it really be that simple -- is he just bad with no hope? How can a story that seems to scream out "nothing and no one is that simple" have such a simply bad kid. I certainly knew some bad eggs in my school days. Being from a small rural area I did go from 1st grade - 12th with many of the same 30 kids or so, and yes, there were some kids that were bullies that whole time! But I also know that they were not monsters, but real people -- and they had moments of humanity over those years. I think Draco's dad being taken away is an opportunity for some sort of change in Draco -- it seems like the time for something to happen if it is going to happen. I *do not* think he will turn into some sort of goodness and light kinda kid, but I hope for him to at least become somehow more humanized. If not -- that is ok too. As you say, being shown the reality of the rotten kid we have all known is a completely valid choice for JKR! --barmaid From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 04:37:15 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:37:15 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse (Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote > Oh, perfectly phrased - "love them, though it is frustrating to do > so". Absolutely. > > Some of [the characters] are carrying around so much pain, that I just want to hug them. :) And > some of them are doing so many stupid things that I just want to > slap them. > I wish I could hate Voldemort just as passionately as I want to slap Snape sometimes. LisaMarie: As my students would say, "True dat!" The urges to comfort and/or shake them till they are dizzy come over me quite often as well, and not the least of these are evoked by dear Severus himself. He, apart from Harry, seems, IMO, to be the most emotionally damaged character, and by far the most complex. JKR has done a wonderful job of making his character a huge presence in the books, but without giving us the luxury of knowing anything concrete about him. As far as I can tell, most readers have very strong reactions to his character and form strong opinions about him, even more so than with Harry, because Harry we know; Snape, we don't. Alla: I am talking about [Snape's] reactions to his students. I find it to be quite scary. LisaMarie again: Very good point. I sometimes get so wrapped up in EmotionallyCrippled!Snape that I forget to take into account UnnecessarilyMeanTeacher!Snape. Part of that "unconditional Snape fan" business, I think. Anyway, you are certainly right. Most of the scenes between him and Harry leave me wanting to shake him (Snape) and scream, "What is wrong with you???" I wonder what his fellow Hogwarts teachers think of him. (I've enjoyed the recent posts on the Snape/McGonagall thread, though I have a hard time envisioning Severus being chatty with his fellows in the staffroom. Maybe it's just me.) A testament to JKR's prowess, I think. :) LisaMarie, wondering how everything she posts here ends up being about ComplexityRiddled!Snape!! :) From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 04:42:16 2004 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:42:16 -0000 Subject: Timelines & a troubling passage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116279 I was re-reading PoA (UK paperback edition), and, well...listen to this. "...Lily and James Potter had not died in a car crash. They had been murdered, murdered by the most feared Dark wizard *for a hundred years*, Lord Voldemort" (pg10, emphasis mine). "for a hundred years"...what's going on? As far as we can tell, PoA is set in 1993, right? So, what happened in 1893; and what about Grindelwald, was he not evil enough to be as 'feared' as LV? Is the book really set in 2045 (hm...don't think so). I don't know, what, if any relevance this has, but I'm really confused...somebody help me! Do other versions of the book have this same wording? Why did JKR use that specific wording? I can't imagine that it will have any real consequence in the story, but then why is it included? Is it merely a turn of phrase, or a way to make LV seem more intimidating? I don't have any answers, myself...does anybody else have any ideas? Beatnik, who is admittedly more confused/intrigued with this passing phrase than she really should be. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 23 05:58:48 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (nardo218) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:58:48 -0000 Subject: Star draco Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116280 I put this before the group: So, I was feeling ambitous tonight and decided to find sirius the star in canus major. While I was researching stars, I discovered that there's a star called draco. First think I thought was, "wow, JKR really did plan her books from the beginning." The next thing was, "wow, proud Lucius allowed his heir to be named in his mother's family's tradition." I wonder why. In the WW, does the family line/inheritance pass through the mother's family? Was Lucius gutter trash before he married money? (Gawd, would that be hilarious.) Aura who finally figured out sirius and the big dog (who has a galaxy in his heart) and ran outside to find him -- but the sky was veiled in clouds. From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 04:35:45 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:35:45 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: <11.36594eb0.2eaad1cc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116281 > Chancie: > As far as winning Draco over... I'm not sure I understand what you > mean by this exactly. It's not as though Draco seems to distrust > Snape in any way. Draco (again IMO) trusts Snape and relishes in > knowing there's a teacher who hates Harry as much as he does. barmaid: I mean win Draco over to the side of the good guys. DD and Harry and the Order and all the anti-LV troops. So yes, Draco is already "won over" by Snape the smart, dark, "right sort of wizard" teacher, but he is not won over to Snape as fighter against LV. You are right though, Draco does trust Snape. That is in fact one of the reasons I see some hope for Draco. If Snape, with all his struggles, can be against LV, then maybe Draco can find place in that part of the WW too. I am not sure about this *at all*. But I hope for it. I want to see a little more of "still sorta bad guys" trying to find a spot on the side of the angels I guess. --barmaid From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 23 06:57:44 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:57:44 -0000 Subject: Wizards at Large -short note on the odd. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: bboyminn: > > Just a short note: I was corresponding with someone recently on this > very subject, and they pointed out to me that they had recently ridden > the London subway during rush hour wearing an elaborate period > costume, and not a single person so much as blinked an eye. I suspect > all over London and Britian, it is quite common to see people in > period costumes. Geoff: But not necessarily on the London Underground. The Underground - especially the Circle Line - is usually jampacked with tourists; as a Brit, I feel strangely alien on the odd occasions I use it as they range from Japanese visitors hung around with the latest photo equipment and perhaps folk from African countries dressed in flowing robes to large Aussies with huge backpacks trying to read a fully opened Ordnance Survey map standing in the doorway entrance(!).... You expect to find people in different uniforms and clothing around London - Beefeaters at the Tower of London, Guards at Buckingham Palace and Horse Guards Parade for example - and you will find some folk in local costumes etc. around the UK but these latter would be in tourist areas; people in Welsh national costume spring to mind. The only unusual clothing we get in my area, which depends a lot on tourism, would be the appearance of the Town Crier from one of the local towns on a special occasion such as the village Carnival. I think in regard to your contact's experience that you will find the occasional person travelling to and from work dressed like that - not "quite common" but familiar enough not to evoke comment. So it is possible that "a tiny man in a violet top hat..." or a "wild- looking woman dressed all in green..." or a "bald man in a very long purple coat..." (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.27 UK edition) might catch people's attention. Although, mark you, "the weirdest thing about all these people was the way they seemed to vanish the second Harry tried to get a closer look" (ibid. p.27). Hmmm. Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 23 07:14:13 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:14:13 -0000 Subject: Timelines & a troubling passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" wrote: Beatnik: > I was re-reading PoA (UK paperback edition), and, well...listen to > this. "...Lily and James Potter had not died in a car crash. They > had been murdered, murdered by the most feared Dark wizard *for a > hundred years*, Lord Voldemort" (pg10, emphasis mine). "for a > hundred years"...what's going on? As far as we can tell, PoA is set > in 1993, right? So, what happened in 1893; and what about > Grindelwald, was he not evil enough to be as 'feared' as LV? Geoff: Possibly not from Harry's point of view. He may have latched on to a hundred years as just a figure, drawing on bits and pieces of information Hagrid and others have produced. He may not have picked up on Grindelwald in particular; he's merely someone mentioned on Dumbledore's Frog Card along with his other achievements. Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 23 08:50:03 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:50:03 -0000 Subject: Possible reason behind the 'half blood prince' In-Reply-To: <20041022210603.29639.qmail@web52010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116284 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bee Chase wrote: > In J.K.Rowlings world book day chat she was asked if Voldemort had any children and replied with a resounding "NO' Voldemort as a father - now that's not a nice thought". So the HBP can't be LV spawn. > Pity. In my file of "Truly Evil Ideas" (normally securely locked in case they escape and upset the delicate sensibilities of members) is the 'Rosemary's Baby' scenario. At Godrics Hollow, Voldy came to collect his own..... Kneasy From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 12:14:59 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:59 -0000 Subject: Wizards at Large -short note on the odd. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116285 > bboyminn: > > > > Just a short note: I was corresponding with someone recently on > > this very subject, and they pointed out to me that they had > > recently ridden the London subway during rush hour wearing an > > elaborate period costume, and not a single person so much as > > blinked an eye. I suspect all over London and Britian, it is > > quite common to see people in period costumes. > > Geoff: > I think in regard to your contact's experience that you will find > the occasional person travelling to and from work dressed like > that - not "quite common" but familiar enough not to evoke comment. > > So it is possible that "a tiny man in a violet top hat..." or > a "wild-looking woman dressed all in green..." or a "bald man in a > very long purple coat..." (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.27 UK > edition) might catch people's attention. > > Although, mark you, "the weirdest thing about all these people was > the way they seemed to vanish the second Harry tried to get a > closer look" (ibid. p.27). Attention-grabbing, perhaps. And I'd have to agree that seeing people in period costume is not my routine experience on the tube every day. However, I frequently see people in some truly bizarre get-ups. But, come on! We're British! Even if someone looks ridiculous, we don't point or stare or comment. We all (well, maybe not all, but I certainly did) wore stupid things as teenagers. And not one single person ever told me I looked absurd. (I've burned all the photos.) Dungrollin Wishing fervently that the power behind the door, the one that Voldy despises so much, is the power to laugh at oneself. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 23 12:40:09 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:40:09 -0000 Subject: DADA job (was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116286 > catkind wrote: In every book yet we have had a new character as DADA > teacher, and they've come to a sticky end as Potioncat says. > Therefore I predict that NEITHER of these things will happen in the > next book. > > I don't think JKR is that unoriginal, and it would be too obvious - > it only worked in OotP because of the twist that it was clear from > the very start that Umbridge was nasty and had to go. We've done > nice teacher who has to leave. We've done disguised nasty teacher > twice. We've done incompetent teacher. We've done openly nasty > teacher. What else is there? > > So surely it has to be someone we know? Snape, one of the members of > the Order, an Auror, maybe even Dumbledore or Harry himself in a > pinch. I'm rooting for Snape because I think it would be the most > interesting read. > > Whoever gets the job we'll all be on the edge of our seats waiting > for something dire to happen to them, and they'll be thoroughly > scrutinised for evil tendencies. Sounds to me like a great front > for interesting happenings elsewhere! > > So I'm for a known character, and a strong red herring that they're > up to no good/ about to get killed in a nasty way, but that they > should survive. > > catkind Hannah: I agree that maybe JKR has lulled us all into a false sense of security with the DADA teacher pattern (last one year, leave in dramatic circumstances). It doesn't seem like JKR to use a formula like that for every single book. And catkind's quite right that we'll all going to expect the character to either be evil or killed off, just going on past experience. I would be surprised if Snape didn't get the chance to do the DADA job eventually, but maybe not until the epilogue (if he survives that far). I don't think it will be in the next book because of the potential awkwardness with his DE role. I suspect he will remain Potions teacher, especially as JKR seems to be setting Harry up (in the careers advice session) to continue with Potions in years 6 and 7. It definitely can't be Harry. For one thing, DADA teacher is a full time job, and he needs to finish his education. Secondly, he wouldn't be able to teach NEWT level classes since he's not reached that standard himself - and how would he be able to properly control students his own age and older than him (DA is different as it is a club and they are there voluntarily), oarticularly Slytherins. I like the idea of DD taking on the role, though he'd have a job to fit it into his busy schedule - he's already Headmaster, Cheif Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, and Commander-in-Cheif of a paramilitary organisation in the middle of a war. He'd definitely have to use the time turner! I still think it will be a new character. It could be Tonks, or Kingsley, or Bill, or Krum, or whatever, but it just doesn't seem that likely. They all have their roles to play in events already, I don't see them deciding to teach. The whole DADA teacher thing also gives JKR a very easy way of introducing new characters, and allowing them to become important in a short space of time. My bet is that it will either be someone who knew Lily Potter (and can supply that revelation which we never seemed to be given in book 5), or it will be a relative of an existing staff member, hence JKR's secrecy about it. Then I hope Snape gets it in book 7. Hannah From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 23 13:15:19 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:15:19 -0000 Subject: Star draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116287 Aura wrote:> > So, I was feeling ambitous tonight and decided to find sirius the > star in canus major. While I was researching stars, I discovered that > there's a star called draco. > > First think I thought was, "wow, JKR really did plan her books from > the beginning." The next thing was, "wow, proud Lucius allowed his > heir to be named in his mother's family's tradition." I wonder why. > In the WW, does the family line/inheritance pass through the mother's > family? Was Lucius gutter trash before he married money? (Gawd, would > that be hilarious.) Hannah: I doubt that Lucius was 'gutter trash' though it would be funny if he had been. But remember Sirius' comment about pureblood marriages (I think that 'pureblood' for the Blacks really meant 'rich and pureblood', ie. not a Weasley). I don't think that it fits with Lucius' general demeanor either, though that sort of generalisation can be very misleading, I know. The Malfoys all seem to be proud of being *Malfoys.* If the Black family were more important, I think Draco would make more it, perhaps be called Black-Malfoy. Also with the WW's antiquated views, I think it's unlikely that the family line would pass through the mother's side. I can see the logic behind the theories that Lucius is not as pure blooded as he thinks, or isn't as aristocratic, but I just don't believe them myself, for no better reason than gut feeling. I always thought Draco was named that because of it's meaning 'dragon.' It's the sort of pretentious name that Lucius and Narcissa would chose for the Malfoy heir. OTOH, stars and astronomy and so on seem to be important in the HP books, so perhaps there is a connection. I personally suspect JKR chose the name because she liked it and thought it fit the character, but who knows. JKR may not even have realised that there was a star called Draco, or thought of it as not having any significance. She's good with sneaky clues, but rather like DD, she is also fallible. Hannah, who admires Aura's dedication in looking up the star! From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 13:42:46 2004 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:42:46 -0000 Subject: Timelines & a troubling passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" > wrote: > > Beatnik: > > I was re-reading PoA (UK paperback edition), and, well...listen to > > this. "...Lily and James Potter had not died in a car crash. They > > had been murdered, murdered by the most feared Dark wizard *for a > > hundred years*, Lord Voldemort" (pg10, emphasis mine). "for a > > hundred years"...what's going on? As far as we can tell, PoA is set > > in 1993, right? So, what happened in 1893; and what about > > Grindelwald, was he not evil enough to be as 'feared' as LV? > > Geoff: > Possibly not from Harry's point of view. He may have latched on to a > hundred years as just a figure, drawing on bits and pieces of > information Hagrid and others have produced. Annemehr: Alternatively, the "hundred years" might be the narrator inserting something Harry does not know (which does happen sometimes). Dark Wizards must occur from time to time; Grindelwald and Voldemort can't be the only ones. Perhaps there was a really bad one around 100 years ago. Since you never hear about Grindelwald except on that Chocolate Frog card, and since nobody ever seems to compare Voldemort to him, I wouldn't be surprised if LV had turned out to be much worse than Grindelwald. Especially since Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald but never seemed to be able to vanquish LV, indeed the old Order was on the losing side until LV attacked baby Harry. Annemehr From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 23 13:45:58 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:45:58 -0000 Subject: Star draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116289 Hannah: I personally suspect JKR chose the name because she > liked it and thought it fit the character, but who knows. JKR may > not even have realised that there was a star called Draco, or > thought of it as not having any significance. She's good with > sneaky clues, but rather like DD, she is also fallible. > > Hannah, who admires Aura's dedication in looking up the star! Potioncat: Take a look at the mythology of Draco. There's a connection to Minerva. http://www.comfychair.org/~cmbell/myth/draco.html From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Sat Oct 23 14:17:35 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 09:17:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Star draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116290 Aura wrote: So, I was feeling ambitous tonight and decided to find sirius the star in canus major. While I was researching stars, I discovered that there's a star called draco. Lady Macbeth replies: Draco is the name of a prominent contellation. You'll find Draco in the Northern sky winding between several other cirumpolar constellations as the lot of them circle the North Star. Aura wrote: First think I thought was, "wow, JKR really did plan her books from the beginning." The next thing was, "wow, proud Lucius allowed his heir to be named in his mother's family's tradition." I wonder why. In the WW, does the family line/inheritance pass through the mother's family? Was Lucius gutter trash before he married money? (Gawd, would that be hilarious.) Lady Macbeth replies: There's also the possibility that Narcissa's family and Lucius's family are not that distantly removed. Sirius went off on a tangent at one point about how he was related to the Weasleys - plus, there's at least two surnames besides the Weasleys on his tree. Phinneas Nigellus was a prominent person on his family tree, yet Sirius's surname is Black. That suggests close interconnectedness between the families. Aura who finally figured out sirius and the big dog (who has a galaxy in his heart) and ran outside to find him -- but the sky was veiled in clouds. Lady Macbeth replies: I put up charts to help you (and anyone else who is curious) find the others. :) http://ladymacbeth.us/starsharrypotter.html In case the text is hard to read because of the compression factor in the images, they are: 1. Draco (with Beta Draconis, or "Rastaban" - this is commonly cited as the origin of the name "Rabastan", as in "Rabastan Lestrange".) 2. Orion (with Bellatrix) and Canis Major (with Sirius) 3. Andromeda (the Andromeda Galaxy is that smear between the o and m in "Andromeda") 4. Leo (with Regulus) -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 14:29:16 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:29:16 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116291 Kim wrote : "Of course, Harry committing suicide is a possiblity and would be understandable for anyone who's been through what he has (and we all know it's going to get worse for him before it gets better), but my sense is that suicide would just be out of character for Harry, no mater what happens. Not out of character for every other person necessarily, but for Harry, yes. As you say, it's Harry's (and JKR's) story and nobody else's (and if you relate to Harry, you relate; if you don't, you don't, and there's no reason you should have to). So I think it's important (because he's fiction) to show Harry suffering, coping or not as best he can, in his own individual way, maybe even feeling suicidal, but then coming out of the "fire" alive. Not to be used as some unattainable role model, but as an example of an imperfect person who found the resources they needed right there inside themselves. That's what Harry surviving means to me anyway. " Del replies : OK, this I agree with. I also think it would be out of character *for Harry* to commit suicide. Considering everything we know about him, I personally think that suicide is not an option Harry would even think of. He might accept to give up his life, like he did in OoP, but I don't think he would consider the idea of ending his own life. In my idea, he would rather leave the country and go far away, where nobody knows him, but he wouldn't just give up. That's not his type. IMHO, of course. Del From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Oct 23 15:30:46 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:30:46 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) Message-ID: <11.366d7a14.2eabd326@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116292 In a message dated 10/22/2004 11:08:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, aletamay01 at yahoo.com writes: > Chancie: > As far as winning Draco over... I'm not sure I understand what you > mean by this exactly. It's not as though Draco seems to distrust > Snape in any way. Draco (again IMO) trusts Snape and relishes in > knowing there's a teacher who hates Harry as much as he does. ************************************************************************* barmaid: I mean win Draco over to the side of the good guys. DD and Harry and the Order and all the anti-LV troops. So yes, Draco is already "won over" by Snape , but he is not won over to Snape as fighter against LV. Draco does trust Snape. That is in fact one of the reasons I see some hope for Draco. If Snape,, can be against LV, then maybe Draco can find place in that part of the WW too. *********************************************************************** Chancie: Ok, I understand what your saying now. The only question I still Have about this is, in order for this to happen, Snape has to be "outed" as a Order member! With Draco's new found hatred for Harry, (due to the fact he's the reason Lucius is in Azkaban) I have a hard time thinking he's going to back down from his vendetta. I too would like to see Draco as more than a just all out bad kid. (I personaly don't think there is such a think as a person who has no hope of being a productive member of society....but that's a WHOLE other story, so I'll spare you from that =D ) I just don't see Draco turning his back on his father whom he clearly admires to go to Harry's side! I see Draco as the type of person who would be spiteful enough to fight for something, just to piss his enemies off. Does anyone else see this? Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 16:59:54 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:59:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hogsheadbarmaid" wrote: > > boyd: > > > big snip > > > So here's the likeliest scenario in my mind. Harry, fresh from a > > particularly gut-wrenching scene in the WW, where the latest vexing > mystery > > has been solved (but not before something horrible nearly happened > to Ron > > and/or Hermione), arrives back at Platform 9 3/4 utterly alone and > > exhausted. He gets in the car with Petunia and suddenly he realizes > that > > there are still 52 pages left in the book! He tries to get away, > but Petunia > > binds him with *her late sister's wand*, then tells him how she > hates all > > you wizard freaks, and wishes the WW would keep to itself and away > from her > > and her ickle Duddykins. And that's why she delivers Harry to a > place full > > of DEs...and LV himself. She leaves as LV preaches fanatically to > his DEs > > while they leisurely Crucio Harry, drink apple martinis, and > discuss the > > relative merits of autocracies vs. theocracies. DD arrives and > walks into > > the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to > say > > something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have > your > > mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." And, of course, his > eyes gleam. > > Then Snape appears from nowhere, grabs Harry, and leaves with him > just as LV > > AKs DD. AFAIK, QED, IMHO. (Um, sorry, got carried away with the > acronyms.) > > > > There, now DD is apparently dead and Harry must trust Snape at > last. And the > > plot has finally moved forward that last step before the conclusion > in book > > 7. > > > > barmaid: > > Oh this is sweet! I LOL at the DE's sipping apple martinis -- hum it > is a little early in the day but that apple martini mix in the > cupboard is calling to me right now for some reason! > > I think this is a great theory. It may not be what happens in JKR's > books, but if not you should write your own. > > I am completely in the camp of somehow Snape and Harry are forced to > bond in some moment like the one you discribe. They have to look > each other in the eye at some point and realize that they *have* to > trust each other. I see this potential moment as somewhat redemptive > for both of them -- by seeing that the other is trust *worthy* they > are released from some or much of the baggage they both carry..... Antosha: Depressing as this scenario is, it has a lot going for it.... I would add just one more twist, because it seems to me that Snape and Harry have to learn to trust each OTHER. So let us imagine that Harry is hauled in by Petunia (nice if really despicable turn, that) and that one of the martini-sipping DEs is, in fact, none other than Secret Agent Severus. In the WW equivalent of James Bond's ever-present tuxedo, no doubt. When DD comes in, wand flaming, eyes twinkling, he gets Harry free. As the DEs and LV converge on DD, SS suddenly realizes he must help DD, which he tries to do. Harry, at this point, can cut and run (DD has made his last Yoda-esque remark), but he realizes that if he does, not only will DD's body be left to the nasties, but SS will most certainly die a horrible death, just when he has demonstrated the depth of his true loyalty. So Harry stays and helps, and together, he and Snape get DD's corpse (and Fawkes's fledgling, natch) out safely. Probably doing LV some really unpleasant damage. And Snape and Harry are suddenly forced to treat each other as comrades, if not friends. And SS, rather than expiating his life-debt to Clan Potter, is in even deeper. Works for me as an End-of-HBP scenario. Since I firmly believe that Book 7 will be DD- less. From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 18:20:57 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:20:57 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eustace_Scrubb" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" > wrote: > > > > > boyd: > > > > > > DD arrives and walks into > > > the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages > to > > say > > > something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you > have > > your > > > mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." > > > > Neri: > > > > How about: "run, you fool!" > > > > Neri apologizes for the one liner > > Eustace_Scrubb: > > Or...there's a broomstick at hand, so DD cries: "Fly, you fool!" > > Eustace_Scrubb, who apologizes for responding with another one liner Bookworm: Nope. That's Gandalf's line Ravnclaw Bookworm at least we are keeping the posts short ;-) From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 18:42:32 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:42:32 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116295 Potioncat: But I don't see anything in canon that indicates that Snape has done anything positive for Draco. If anything, he's just another tool in Snape's information gathering job. Which is almost worse than what Snape does to Harry. As Head of House he does have a responsibility to Draco. Bookworm: We get only snippets to see Snape and Draco interacting; we don't see anything that happens outside Harry's presence. Maybe Snape tries to nudge Draco and is ignored. Then, again, Harry doesn't interact with McGonagall very much that we see. Ravenclaw Bookworm From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 18:44:49 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:44:49 -0000 Subject: DADA job (was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116296 > Hannah: It definitely can't be Harry. For one thing, DADA teacher is a full > time job, and he needs to finish his education. Secondly, he > wouldn't be able to teach NEWT level classes since he's not reached > that standard himself - and how would he be able to properly control > students his own age and older than him (DA is different as it is a > club and they are there voluntarily), oarticularly Slytherins. Finwitch: That's why Harry would/could only do it for kids who are younger than him -1st-3rd years or some such. As *assistant* teacher. And of course, he'd have to be *pre-educated* in the HQ of the Order. It *could* happen you know... Hannah: > I like the idea of DD taking on the role, though he'd have a job to > fit it into his busy schedule - he's already Headmaster, Cheif > Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, and Commander-in-Cheif of a paramilitary > organisation in the middle of a war. He'd definitely have to use > the time turner! Finwitch: Or take Harry in as assistant teacher? Or better yet, use *both* Harry & Time Turner. Or send someone else (Lupin?) disguised by Polyjuice Potion... Not to mention Fawkes' extraordinary speed... and no wonder he needs a pensieve! Hannah: > I still think it will be a new character. It could be Tonks, or > Kingsley, or Bill, or Krum, or whatever, but it just doesn't seem > that likely. They all have their roles to play in events already, I > don't see them deciding to teach. The whole DADA teacher thing also > gives JKR a very easy way of introducing new characters, and > allowing them to become important in a short space of time. > > My bet is that it will either be someone who knew Lily Potter (and > can supply that revelation which we never seemed to be given in book > 5), or it will be a relative of an existing staff member, hence > JKR's secrecy about it. Then I hope Snape gets it in book 7. Finwitch: Indeed, it is time we see some relatives/spouses of Hogwarts staff. One reason why Aberforth Dumbledore is my candidate, being the one *known* relative, and a brother to the headmaster, no less. And I believe that DADA *can* be taught without any reading or writing involved. Who says he's to assign any essays he'd need to read afterwards? You can always have practical exam (Lupin did, why not Aberforth?) After all, you'd need a wand and wits more than ability to read or knowledge of what someone else thinks of it when facing a Dark Wizard (who probably won't do things as they tell you in text-books) or a Dark Creature for that matter. You don't learn to defeat a boggart by books (as Hermione shows us in PoA). You might learn the theory on how to cast a Patronus out of books, but to do it, you need that HAPPY thought and further, defeating a Dementor with the Patronus is yet another, more difficult matter where no books can help you. To be able to find and keep a happy thought long enough to cast patronus when a Dementor is trying to suck it out of you... Not a thing a book can teach you, I'd say. DADA is self-defence, both in mind and body. I don't know if anyone but Aberforth would think to add physical fitness into the curriculum, even if he doesn't add some sort of martial arts as well. Fitness *would* give you a better chance to survive - and to RUN. Also, as Aberforth Dumbledore was a member of the original OOtP, and was probably there when Grindelwald was about, why not? Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 19:46:44 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:46:44 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important/Harry suicidal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116297 Kim: > Of course, Harry committing suicide is a possiblity and would be > understandable for anyone who's been through what he has (and we all > know it's going to get worse for him before it gets better), but my > sense is that suicide would just be out of character for Harry, no > mater what happens. Not out of character for every other person > necessarily, but for Harry, yes. As you say, it's Harry's (and > JKR's) story and nobody else's (and if you relate to Harry, you > relate; if you don't, you don't, and there's no reason you should > have to). So I think it's important (because he's fiction) to show > Harry suffering, coping or not as best he can, in his own individual > way, maybe even feeling suicidal, but then coming out of the "fire" > alive. Not to be used as some unattainable role model, but as an > example of an imperfect person who found the resources they needed > right there inside themselves. That's what Harry surviving means to > me anyway. ----- > > But now, after all this, I guess I'm still sort of puzzled as to > where the idea that Harry might kill himself came from in the first > place. Do we all agree that his suicide at the end is a bit of a > long shot? Finwitch: I think that, well - it IS possible for Harry to feel too tired, too depressed etc. particularly now that Sirius has gone behind the veil. Also his comment to Hermione: "They'll[Dursleys] be disappointed. All these opportunities to get myself killed and I missed it". I think it's possible that Harry attempts suicide, but someone saves him. And that, of course, not happening in the END but early on, so that he's NOT staying in Dursleys anymore, not if he prefers to die. Then again, I think Harry would be more likely to try and find Voldemort... Or even call out for Voldemort to come and fight... riddicule old Voldy in that way. Just a new way to deal with unpleasantness for Harry: call out for Voldemort loudly, and announce that he much prefers to fight Voldemort than the current unpleasantness. And then, as Voldemort isn't there, say loudly he's a disappointingly big coward so he might as well go with what ever the unpleasant thing was. See if that doesn't do something to people being afraid to say Voldemort's name aloud... (It would be funny, but more like Fred than Harry - but maybe the twins will teach him that trick?) Then again, Harry might try to mix Wormwood & Asphodel to produce the Draught of the Living Death (Two *muggle* plants so he WOULD be able to find the ingredients, possibly even from Petunia's garden) just to be able to sleep without nightmares. Some might see it as a suicide attempt, while Harry just wanted a sleeping potion... Finwitch From red_rider4 at lycos.com Sat Oct 23 15:43:50 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (Hester Griffith) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:43:50 -0000 Subject: Timelines & a troubling passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116298 > Beatnik: > > > "...Lily and James Potter had not died in a car crash. They > > > had been murdered, murdered by the most feared Dark wizard *for > > > a hundred years*, Lord Voldemort" (pg10, emphasis mine). "for > > > a hundred years"...what's going on? As far as we can tell, PoA > > > is set in 1993, right? So, what happened in 1893; and what about > > > Grindelwald, was he not evil enough to be as 'feared' as LV? > > > > Geoff: > > Possibly not from Harry's point of view. He may have latched on > > to a hundred years as just a figure, drawing on bits and pieces > > of information Hagrid and others have produced. > > Annemehr: > Alternatively, the "hundred years" might be the narrator inserting > something Harry does not know (which does happen sometimes). Dark > Wizards must occur from time to time; Grindelwald and Voldemort can't > be the only ones. Perhaps there was a really bad one around 100 years > ago. Hester: The 1890's were a surprisingly dark time. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle introduced Sherlock Holmes as a fictional character who saw much of the evil prevalent at that time. Jack the Ripper introduced the concept of mass murder. It was a time of great upheaval as tchnology was growing in leaps and bounds. The introduction of the automobile brought new danger and excitement. Socially women were entering the workforce and that led to controversies and the suffragist movement. I'm currently reading "The Devil in the White City," a non-fiction novel about a mass murderer much worse that Jack the Ripper who had a murder spree at the 1993 Chicago Worlds Fair. Remember also these are the years leading up to WWI. This is all to say that "100 years ago" would have been a great opportunity for any "dark wizard" of the Potterverse to do his deeds and the muggle world would have been completely oblivious. It's quite possible that the years preceding WWI would have been rife with powerful dark wizard and Harry and his fellow students would be learning about them from Binns in History of Magic. Possibly this was a glory era for the predecessors of the Death Eaters. Lord Voldemort may have/be trying to resurect this era. Hester, whose mind is a bit muddled at the moment from sleepless nights with a newborn. So forgive me for not remembering every detail. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 16:13:21 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:13:21 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116299 > "eggplant107" wrote: > > done in the Streaking Shack to Wormtail was the biggest mistake > Harry ever made in his life, even bigger than believing the dream > in book 5.> kate wrote: > I don't see that this is the biggest mistake Harry has made in his > life. In retrospect it's clear to me that both Lupin and Sirius were thinking far more clearly than Harry was. Yes, Dumbledore said the day may come when he was very glad he saved Peter's life, but Book 5 has shown us that Dumbledore can be wrong, disastrously wrong. And even if Peter does aid Harry in the final battle with the Dark Lord, if he had just let them kill Peter in book 3 there would be no need for a final battle at all and Cedric and Sirius and no doubt many more would not be dead. Remember, JKR has repeatedly told us this is a WAR, this is not a tea party, and sometimes in war very good people have to do very unpleasant things, like kill other good people, people who deserve death far less than Peter did. The Ministry was corrupt and incompetent, Harry should have known he could not expect justice from those fools and let Sirius and Lupin get on with it. No, I think the biggest mistake Harry ever made in his life was in book 3. Eggplant From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 20:54:14 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:54:14 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape In-Reply-To: <11.366d7a14.2eabd326@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116300 Chancie: I see Draco as the type of person who would be spiteful enough to fight for something, just to piss his enemies off. Does anyone else see this? Bookworm: I see it too. Up until the end of OoP, the was a very small possibility (IMHO) that Draco could help unite the houses. After his reaction to his father's arrest, it is highly unlikely. Ravenclaw Bookworm From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Oct 23 21:00:58 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:00:58 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Hands_up,_who=92s_been_possessed=3F_(long)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116301 I've been trawling through the back-posts with that trusty companion, Yahoo!Mort, searching for `possessed' right back to June 20th 2003. I know I should have done possess, possesses, possessing and possession too, (possibly along with posessed, possesed, posesed, and all the variants thereon), but relations between Yahoo!Mort and I are getting a little tense now, and we could do with a breather from each other. So this is it. (Warning ? I've inadvertently polished off half a bottle of red wine, so I may get a fit of the giggles and write something silly.) Here are some credits: Annemehr (74992, 76353); Carol (98789, 115612); Annunathradien (107595); Erica (92983); LDP (82557); Bohcoo (82530). And, not forgetting that just being a member of this site means I'm naturally using others' ideas. Thank you all very much. Lets start with the animals. According to Voldy, the night he attacked Harry he lost *his powers and his body*. He continues: "... I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost ... but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know... I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself ... for I had no body, and every spell which might have helped me required the use of a wand ... Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others ... I sometimes inhabited animals - snakes, of course, being my preference ? but I was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies were ill-adapted to perform magic ... and my possession of them shortened their lives; none of them lasted long..." (GoF, Ch 33: `The Death Eaters') So he lost all his powers except the ability to possess. He was not dead, nor was he a ghost, and it was the fact that he didn't have a body that meant he couldn't perform magic, and possessing animals wasn't much use as they couldn't hold a wand (which he didn't have anyway). Verdict? Yup ? I'd say that (despite the fact that we only have Voldy's word for it) they were truly possessed. Now on to Quirrell. In PS, nobody actually uses the words `possessed', `possess', `possession' or `possessing'. Voldy says `...I have form only when I can share another's body...' DD later says `...perhaps looking for another body to share...' Then later still `Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort...' However, in GoF Voldy says: `I took possession of his body, to supervise him closely as he carried out my orders.' There are some conflicting messages here. But I'd take DD's word over Voldy's. So they were *sharing* body *and* soul, then? Quirrell's awareness is apparently separate from Voldy's. They converse with each other out loud, Voldy audibly says `he lies' when Harry fibbed about what he saw in the mirror, and Quirrell speaks to Voldy out loud too, though we don't hear what Voldy is saying. Voldemort is definitely *inhabiting* Quirrell, and can punish him by causing him pain, but he never seems to act *through* him; rather, he just gives him orders. Doesn't sound entirely like possession to me. However, Quirrell does need to drink Unicorn blood. The unicorn blood can't be to stop Voldy dying, though, since he managed for years in Albania without it. At the end of PS, Voldy *does* say "... you saw faithful Quirrell drinking it *for me*..." (my emphasis). But it's possible that Voldy meant he'd ordered Quirrell to do it. It's more likely that Quirrell drank it to ameliorate the effects of carrying Voldy around ? so the arrangement may well have been just as fatal to Quirrell as it was to the Albanian wildlife. But, hang on... Voldy moves into his body after the failed attack on Gringott's, July 31st, and the detention with Hagrid takes place on 26th May (according to the Lexicon). Hagrid says "... it's the second time in a week. I found one dead last Wednesday." ? Which would have been May 20th. From Hagrid's tone throughout the detention, it seems to me that the attacks on the unicorns are a recent phenomenon. So Quirrell's lasted a good while carrying Voldy around without snuffing it. It appears (to me) that there was a sharing agreement (sounds like a holiday-home in the Algarve) but Voldy would occasionally possess Quirrell to punish him. If he were possessed the whole time, he would not "...find it hard to follow my master's instructions..." The problem is that we don't know how quickly full-time possession kills, we don't know if a short-term possession can be recovered from, or whether the effects are cumulative, and we don't know if witches and wizards can last longer while being possessed than can rodents and reptiles. Verdict? Sometimes, possibly; but not most of the time. Lets move on to Ginny. In CoS, again, nobody actually uses the words `possessed', `possess', `possession' or `possessing'. Riddle says `...I've always been able to charm the people I needed...' Then later: `So I made Ginny write her own farewell on the wall and come down here to wait. She struggled and cried and became *very* boring. But there isn't much life left in her: she put too much into the diary, into me...' After the fun, DD says `...how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant Ginny...' And later `Older and wiser wizards than she have been hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort.' The biggest problem with Ginny's (so-called) possessions, is that she doesn't remember anything about them. Which has led many to believe that either the possession was of a different nature to those effected by present-day Voldy, or that she wasn't truly possessed. However, lets just look at what Diary!Tom says in the chamber ? when he quotes what Ginny ended up writing "...There was another attack today and I don't know where I was. Tom, what am I going to do? I think I'm going mad ... I think I'm the one attacking everyone, Tom!" It's fairly certain that if Ginny had known from the beginning what she was doing, she'd have stopped trusting the diary immediately. Diary!Tom also says "Of course, she didn't *know* what she was doing at first." Well, if you were Diary!Tom and you'd spent a while charming the girl, being sympathetic and kind, getting to know her. Realising what kind of Gryffindor she was, would you then let her keep the memory of what she was doing if you had an alternative? No. I wouldn't either. Verdict? Possibly possessed for short periods of time with memory- modification afterwards. Or, possessed in a different way to the way the present-day Voldy does it. Or, not possessed at all ? something different. Now lets get on to Harry. The one clear instance we have of possession is in the MoM. It's unbearably painful for Harry ? so much so that he wishes he could die. He's "...wrapped in the coils of a creature with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, bound by pain, and there was no escape ? And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth... Blinded and dying, every part of him screaming for release..." And so on and so forth. Harry was clearly possessed. But what about the other incidents? What about the night of Mr. Weasley's attack? What about the vision of Rookwood? What about the eye-contact with DD...? "At once, Harry's scar burned white-hot, as though the old wound had burst open again ? and unbidden, unwanted, but terrifyingly strong, there rose within Harry a hatred so powerful he felt, for that instant, he would like nothing better than to strike ? to bite ? to sink his fangs into the man before him ?" Is this also possession? There's the pain, true enough, but it's centred in the scar, not all-encompassing. It's not really very similar to the true possession in the MoM. This is just after the attack on Mr. Weasley, and Voldy has (apparently) just figured out the connection. DD says later "I thought I saw a shadow of him stir behind your eyes..." (Now, I know DD's a clever chap, and all, but how exactly does one see a shadow of LV stirring behind someone's eyes? Couldn't be something to do with the red/green eye thing, could it?) I suspect that this instance is Voldy seeing Harry's point of view, in the same way that Harry saw Voldy's before. But because of the scar, Harry can also feel Voldy's emotions - the hatred that is a result of Voldy seeing DD through Harry's eyes. Which makes me wonder... Voldy doesn't have a scar ? so is he able to feel Harry's emotions? Or is the link equal in both directions? If it is equal in both directions, then... Well, Voldy seeing through Harry's eyes should happen when *Voldy's* `mind is most relaxed and vulnerable ... asleep, for instance...' I can't imagine that it's because his mind just happens to be relaxed and vulnerable ? Voldy's an accomplished Legilimens, I'd imagine he's a damned fine Occlumens too. Which would mean that in order to take advantage of the mind-link, in order to gather information from seeing through Harry's eyes, he'd have to chill out. And I can't imagine him being very good at that, to be honest. Could it be that in this instance Voldy needs recuperation time after the possession of Nagini at the MoM? The visions that Harry sees through the mind-link with Voldy are not, IMO possession. They are something entirely different. They are the only events in the books, that we have seen, that break the rule that `time and space matter in magic.' Just briefly back to Ginny and Diary!Tom, before I go back to the rest of that red wine... If Diary!Tom can create himself a body by stealing Ginny's soul, why can't Vapo!Mort? There must be something fundamentally different about the two. Diary!Tom can do a whole load of things that Vapo!Mort can't. Particularly if he *was* possessing Ginny, and wiped her mind afterwards. JKR refused to say what would have happened if Ginny had died, except that it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably. So what exactly *was* Vapo!Mort? Even Himself admits that he doesn't know. Less than the meanest ghost, but not as powerful as memories... I'm beginning to think that this is a very important question. Any theories lurking out there? (Sighs)... This has taken me much longer than I expected. (Though, admittedly, much of that was spent trying to decide whether to use a question mark or exclamation mark in the subject heading). Hope it's provoked some ideas, though. I remain, as ever, Dungrollin. BTW, a quote for the FEATHERBOAS: "We're more of the love, blood and rhetoric school ... Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three, concurrent or consecutive; but we can't do you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory." - Stoppard. From cat_kind at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 18:43:25 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:43:25 -0000 Subject: DADA job (was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116302 > Hannah: > I would be surprised if Snape didn't get the chance to do the > DADA job eventually, but maybe not until the epilogue (if he > survives that far). I don't think it will be in the next book > because of the potential awkwardness with his DE role. > > It definitely can't be Harry. For one thing, DADA teacher is a > full time job, and he needs to finish his education. > > I like the idea of DD taking on the role, though he'd have a job > to fit it into his busy schedule - he's already Headmaster, Chief > Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, and Commander-in-Cheif of a paramilitary > organisation in the middle of a war. He'd definitely have to use > the time turner! > > I still think it will be a new character. It could be Tonks, or > Kingsley, or Bill, or Krum, or whatever, but it just doesn't seem > that likely. They all have their roles to play in events already, > I don't see them deciding to teach. The whole DADA teacher thing > also gives JKR a very easy way of introducing new characters, and > allowing them to become important in a short space of time. catkind: Yeah, I guess Harry as DADA teacher was a bit far- fetched. On the other hand, we have seen he is a good teacher, and he will be somewhat less busy with only NEWT classes. I could see him for example taking practical lessons for the younger classes, with someone else there for authority and theory, and for example Lupin making lesson plans. (I'm sure this has been discussed already, but can't find it. ) Is Dumbledore really that busy? I think Umbridge ousted him from most of those impressive-sounding titles. It's not clear how much he actually has to do as Headmaster. We also don't know what the Order does much, apart from staking out the DoM every day except for those when DEs are visiting. I admit this was also a rather far- fetched suggestion, and is not what I am expecting. I don't see why Snape's role in the Order should conflict with his teaching DADA more than his teaching Potions. But looking at it from the inside for a moment... Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in England. There can't be many good DADA teachers kicking around, because there are no other schools for them to be working in. DD has already failed to find a suitable candidate one year, and the year before that he asked a retired Auror. It is vitally important the kids have a good practical education in Defence, after all, there's a war on. So it seems likely to me that either DD goes for an experienced teacher or someone experienced in practical defence, i.e. an Auror. It could, of course, be a new Auror, but on the whole if we already know a character who would fill a role, JKR tends to use them and not introduce others. The suggestion of Krum is intriguing though. What would Hermione and Ron make of it? catkind (somewhat stuck in meta-mode) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 21:03:49 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:03:49 -0000 Subject: Timelines & a troubling passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116303 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "beatnik24601" wrote: > > > I was re-reading PoA... and, well... "...Lily and James Potter had not > died in a car crash. They had been murdered, murdered by the most > feared Dark wizard *for a hundred years*, Lord Voldemort" (pg10, > emphasis mine). "for a hundred years"...what's going on? > > Beatnik, bboyminn: Well, I'm sure you were looking for something grander and more elborate than I am going to give you, but I think it is merely a figure of speech; the turn of a phrase, and not a literal statement of time. For example- I just started reading CoS (US Hb pg 4) and Voldemort is referred to as "...the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time". I'm sure that the books refer to Voldemort using various phrases of time; 'in a century', 'of the age', 'for a hundred years', 'who ever lived', 'of all time', etc.... I'm not exactly sure how I would search them all out since Voldemort is referred to by an assortment of names, but I'm confident that there are a variety of references and they simply attempt to express /a long time/ and are not meant to be taken as precise measurements of time. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but until then, I'm sticking with this view. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 21:37:27 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:37:27 -0000 Subject: DADA job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: > > > Hannah: > > I would be surprised if Snape didn't get the chance to do the > > DADA job eventually, but maybe not until the epilogue (if he > > survives that far). I don't think it will be in the next book > > because of the potential awkwardness with his DE role. > > > catkind: > Yeah, I guess Harry as DADA teacher was a bit far- > fetched. On the other hand, we have seen he is a good teacher, and > he will be somewhat less busy with only NEWT classes. ... bboyminn: Let's not forget the DA Club. I have predicted in the past that the DA Club will continue with Dumbledore's approval in the next book. If Snape is the DADA teacher, he would logically be the faculty advisor to the DA Club. I also speculated that the DA Club would be required to be a school-wide club which means including Slytherins. Although, I don't predict anyone other than the 'Good Slytherins' will last very long in the Club. This brings Snape, Harry, Draco, and other assorted characters together in potentially awkward but interesting situations. > catkind: > > Is Dumbledore really that busy? ... > > I don't see why Snape's role in the Order should conflict with his > teaching DADA more than his teaching Potions. bboyminn: I have to agree, Dumbledore simply doesn't have the time to teach a full time class. It's easy to picture him teaching Harry's class, but it's also easy to overlook the fact that there are 4 houses and 7 years for a total of 14 double classes per week. Given fewer students, NEWT level classes might combine houses, that would reduce the total number, but even with that, it's a lot of time for a busy man like Dumbledore. > catkind: > > But looking at it from the inside for a moment... it seems > likely to me that either DD goes for an experienced teacher or > someone experienced in practical defence, i.e. an Auror. > > ...edited... > > catkind bboyminn: One last comment about DADA teachers. I think hiring DADA teachers is something like electing Presidents. The people who are truly qualified don't want the job. There is a saying, 'in the U.S., any bright, intelegent, hardworking young person can grow up to become President' to which the response is usually, 'then why doesn't one?'. The problem with DADA teachers isn't that there aren't any qualified people in the wizard world. It's that nobody really wants the job in the first place, and even more so, now that people think the job is jinxed. I mean really, if you are a capable and competent Dark Wizard/Dark Arts fighter, do you really want to spend all your time fighting with unwilling, uncooperative, and uninterested kids? I think not. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 21:38:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:38:57 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: snip. The Ministry was corrupt and incompetent, Harry should have known he could not expect justice from those fools and let Sirius and Lupin get on with it. > No, I think the biggest mistake Harry ever made in his life was in > book 3. Alla: I agree with you in a sense that Peter is much much better off dead (to warn you I am speaking as someone who does not believe in agent Peter, but only in trator and Voldemort spy Peter), I also think that Remus and Sirius should have go ahead and killed him and produced his body to Dumbledore and Ministry. I have very little doubt that Harry would have forgiven them later on. After all his justification for getting Peter to the minsitry was that he does not want his father's best friends to become killers, not that he (Harry) had warm and fuzzy feelings for him. I think it also shows how much both Remus and Sirius love Harry - that they were able to put aside perfectly justifiable feelings of revenge over their traitorous friend because Harry said so. But I am also hesitant to call what Harry did a biggest mistake of his life. He did what was right. Thirteen year old does not know that Ministry is corrupt and expects justice. I see nothing worng with that. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sat Oct 23 22:47:15 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:47:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Star draco Message-ID: <20041023.184910.5412.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116306 Lady Mcbeth said: >I put up charts to help you (and anyone else who is curious) find the >others. Oh, cool! Thank you! Does Canis Major rise in N. America in October? The myth you posted was interesting, too. I now expect McG blast Draco off the astronomy tower out of self-defence, right before he's about to hex her. I had a chuckle, too, that Draco the myth could relate to some dragon; sounds like the Basilisk myth that roamed across the ancient world, picking up different stories and connotations over the years. Maybe they're related. Hannah said: > I doubt that Lucius was 'gutter trash' though it would be > funny if he had been. True dat. Am I the only one who doesn't think he's sexy, just evil and mean? :) Hannah: > (I think that 'pureblood' for the Blacks really > meant 'rich and pureblood', ie. not a Weasley). Yeah, you're probably right. Narcissa probably would have been blasted off the tapestry if she'd married beneath her. Unless the Noble House of Black doesn't care what their daughters did, only the sons. But I kinda doubt that. BTW, anyone else think the Black marriages are all arranged? Hannah: > I don't think that > it fits with Lucius' general demeanor either, though that sort of > generalisation can be very misleading, I know. Not that I'm really advocating that Lucius was poor, but a person can change a lot in however many years since he was a kid. Maybe he always had high falutin airs. Maybe he fooled Narcissa into thinking he was rich, and the secret came out after the marriage. As someone noted, the way he flaunts his money and power can be interpreted as nuvo riche. Hannah: > Also with the WW's antiquated > views, I think it's unlikely that the family line would pass through > the mother's side. People tend to assume that the WW's is old fashioned in the way the *muggle world* was old fashioned, but that isn't true. The WW isn't gender-biased. Witches have equality. Hannah: > I always thought Draco was named that because of it's > meaning 'dragon.' I personally suspect JKR chose the name because she > it and thought it fit the character, but who knows. JKR may > not even have realised that there was a star called Draco Considering the carefulness with which JKR picks her names and draws her characters, I have no doubt she knew it was a star. Out of all the star names, JKR picked the one that sounds like a spoiled little dragon. Hanna: > who admires Aura's dedication in looking up the star! Thanks. I got curious from a R/S fanart. Was I looking at the nekkid boys? Nope, cuz I'm gay; I was looking at the strange tattoo just above Sirius' tush and wondering which constellation it was. Aura ~*~ "I sat down to play yesterday and all of a sudden it was 4 hours later and dark -- as if God had hit my double arrow button." - The Sims forum Fanfic and original stuff at www.homepage-host.uni.cc/w/ofnone From siriuslove71 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 23:12:34 2004 From: siriuslove71 at yahoo.com (Diana_Sirius_fan) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:12:34 -0000 Subject: philosopher's stone, alchemy, violet flame Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116307 I found this interesting infomation regarding the philosopher's stone on www.thevioletflame.tripod.com. The violet flame was very important to the ancient Egyptians. The website says: "The violet flame is a tool of transformation. In alchemy, base metals are transformed into gold and this is symbolic of what the violet flame does. The alchemy of self-transformation. The violet flame has the capacity to bring this transformation by transmuting negative elements within ourselves. It has a unique ability to transform fear into courage, anxiety into peace and hatred into love. The coveted philosopher's stone -'the stone which is no stone' was not physical, but spiritual, and created out of fire. Some alchemists did discover the secret. The stone was a self-transforming fire that would lead their souls upward, by drawing up to the spirit all qualities which dragged downward and opposed the spiritual essences. In the process, the 'hard and refractory materials' in their bodies would be transmitted into a rare and more luminous material. The alchemist would become 'like the gods' pursuing the gold of the wise and not the vulgar metal. Transmutation was not just a process that turned base metals into gold, but a spiritual process which raised the soul into a state of unity with the divine." My first thought was that this is the secret that Voldie used so he didn't die in PS but then I realized that it is a spiritual process and it couldn't be. Then I thought it was interesting that at the end of PS, Harry had the stone and he could be 'like the gods' pursuing the gold of the wise (Dumbledore). Diana From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Sun Oct 24 00:33:16 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:33:16 -0000 Subject: Such a searing pain... (Re: Harry's experiences : what's missing ?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116308 Hi , Del wrote: "Physical pain ? Well, I don't know for you, but I'm getting tired of being told 10 times in each book that "Harry had never felt such intense pain before". To which SSSusan replied: "Hallelujah & amen, Del!! I know some people find JKR's (over)use of adverbs to be annoying. Well, I find her "searing" scar pain and "never felt such intense pain before" lines to get really old. There *has* to be a new way to express scar pain!" Speaking of the `searing pain' expression It can sound odd, but there's at least one advantage when you are not a native English speaker: you need to read the books with your dictionary at hand. As you did, I noticed the repetitive use of `searing pain', and needed to check my dictionary, because I didn't know what `searing' meant. That's how I learned it comes from `to sear', a very interesting verb if you consider it is associated with the double idea of burning and drying out (if I'm mistaken, please be kind enough to correct me). Burning and drying out: that's precisely what an Alchemist has to do with the Materia Prima of the Work in order to create the Philosopher's Stone. In many treaties, it is said that the Alchemist has to make the Materia Prima `suffer' to purify it and to improve it. The alchemist uses the fire of his melting pot as an instrument of torture. The Materia Prima suffers, but at the end of its long agony, it becomes the Philosopher's Stone. In other words, every time Harry's scar inflicts `a searing pain' on him, the boy steps up to what he has to become: a human Philosopher's Stone, i.e., the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord and `heal' the wizarding world of his evil influence (I wish him good luck). Of course, you have to agree with the possibility of an alchemical reading of the series. If it happens to be relevant, then we can say the expression `a searing pain', though repetitive, is the best JKR could find to symbolize what is actually happening to Harry every time his scar makes him suffer. And we can also say Voldemort, though trying to destroy Harry, is finally working for his benefit. The more he suffers, the stronger Harry becomes, even if it's not a conscious process, even if the boy considers it's a sign of weakness, or a defeat. It's the old `what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' story. Apparently, the Dark Lord doesn't know that proverb. But he's not the only one As for the "Harry had never felt such intense pain before" repetition, it could work the same: the use of `before' implies a comparison, and implicitly an evolution. It could simply mark the evolution in the process, every new `intense pain' being like a point of no return. Of course it's just my point of view, and maybe it's completely pointless. Amicalement, Iris From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Sun Oct 24 00:56:01 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:56:01 -0000 Subject: DADA job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116309 Steve/bboyminn > The problem with DADA teachers isn't that there aren't any qualified > people in the wizard world. It's that nobody really wants the job in > the first place, and even more so, now that people think the job is > jinxed. I mean really, if you are a capable and competent Dark > Wizard/Dark Arts fighter, do you really want to spend all your time > fighting with unwilling, uncooperative, and uninterested kids? I think > not. > kmc writes: What about Bill Weasley for the DADA teacher? He was head boy and got twelve owls. He worked as a curse breaker for Gringotts. He went to assist the MOM during the Quidditch Cup when trouble broke out. I think Bill Weasley with his cool clothes, long hair, earring and dislike of Snape would provide a lot of interesting reading as the new DADA professor. Kmc From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 24 00:57:00 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:57:00 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > In retrospect it's clear to me that both Lupin and Sirius were thinking far more clearly than Harry was. Yes, Dumbledore said the day may come when he was very glad he saved Peter's life, but Book 5 has shown us that Dumbledore can be wrong, disastrously wrong. And even if Peter does aid Harry in the final battle with the Dark Lord, if he had just let them kill Peter in book 3 there would be no need for a final battle at all and Cedric and Sirius and no doubt many more would not be dead.< Pippin: Aren't you putting an awful lot of faith in Peter's confession, considering it was extracted from him at wandpoint by two people who were suspects themselves? There were three crimes: the espionage which revealed the identity of the Secret-Keeper, the betrayal of the Potters by the Secret-Keeper, and the murder of the twelve Muggles. Sirius has evidence linking Peter to only one of them. It is self-evident that only the real Secret-Keeper could have betrayed the secret -- that incontrovertible fact kept even Dumbledore believing in Sirius's guilt for twelve years. But it is not self-evident that only the Secret-Keeper could have been the spy, or that only the Secret-Keeper could have killed the Muggles. Peter was on the scene, looked and acted guilty -- he's definitely a likely suspect. But that is not proof of anything, especially in the Potterverse. There is no more evidence that Peter was the spy or the Muggle-murderer than that Draco Malfoy was the Heir of Slytherin. Besides suspecting Lupin of being the spy at one point, Sirius also suspected the wrong person in GoF--he thought Karkaroff had put Harry's name in the goblet. If Sirius was wrong, and someone else was the spy, then Peter probably knows who it is -- and killing him would prevent Peter from ever telling what he knows, leaving the spy free to betray the Order a second time. Pippin From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 02:56:58 2004 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:56:58 -0000 Subject: DADA job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > The problem with DADA teachers isn't that there aren't any qualified > > people in the wizard world. It's that nobody really wants the job in > > the first place, and even more so, now that people think the job is > > jinxed. I mean really, if you are a capable and competent Dark > > Wizard/Dark Arts fighter, do you really want to spend all your time > > fighting with unwilling, uncooperative, and uninterested kids? I > think > > not. > > > kmc writes: > What about Bill Weasley for the DADA teacher? > He was head boy and got twelve owls. > He worked as a curse breaker for Gringotts. > He went to assist the MOM during the Quidditch Cup when trouble broke > out. > > I think Bill Weasley with his cool clothes, long hair, earring and > dislike of Snape would provide a lot of interesting reading as the > new DADA professor. Bill would be very good for the job, but this is what I'd do if I was Headmaster: The students would begin taking doubled DADA lessons. Lupin *and* Mooney would both return; Lupin will teach the younger students, and Moody teaches the older students the rough stuff. Harry will be a teaching assistant, leading the DA, which is now an official Hogwarts practice group of the fifth, sixth, and seventh year NEWT DADA students. How is this possible? Dumbledore is large and in charge now; Fudge's objections to a werewolf or to Mad-Eye don't count for anything anymore. The parents will go along with anything Dumbledore thinks is good and in the best interests of protecting the students. Here's another reason for arranging things this way: Lupin and Moody will be close to Harry and his friends. Protecting Harry Potter and his friends is an absolute strategic necessity for the wizard world. Bill's got an important part to play, I'll bet. Jim Ferer From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Sun Oct 24 03:30:08 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:30:08 -0000 Subject: DADA job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116312 > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > > The problem with DADA teachers isn't that there aren't any qualified > > > people in the wizard world. It's that nobody really wants the job in > > > the first place, and even more so, now that people think the job is > > > jinxed. I mean really, if you are a capable and competent Dark > > > Wizard/Dark Arts fighter, do you really want to spend all your time > > > fighting with unwilling, uncooperative, and uninterested kids? I > > think > > > not. > > > > > kmc writes: > > What about Bill Weasley for the DADA teacher? > > He was head boy and got twelve owls. > > He worked as a curse breaker for Gringotts. > > He went to assist the MOM during the Quidditch Cup when trouble broke > > out. > > > > I think Bill Weasley with his cool clothes, long hair, earring and > > dislike of Snape would provide a lot of interesting reading as the > > new DADA professor. > > Jim Ferer wrote: > Bill would be very good for the job, but this is what I'd do if I was > Headmaster: > > The students would begin taking doubled DADA lessons. Lupin *and* > Mooney would both return; Lupin will teach the younger students, and > Moody teaches the older students the rough stuff. Harry will be a > teaching assistant, leading the DA, which is now an official Hogwarts > practice group of the fifth, sixth, and seventh year NEWT DADA students. > > How is this possible? Dumbledore is large and in charge now; Fudge's > objections to a werewolf or to Mad-Eye don't count for anything > anymore. The parents will go along with anything Dumbledore thinks is > good and in the best interests of protecting the students. > > Here's another reason for arranging things this way: Lupin and Moody > will be close to Harry and his friends. Protecting Harry Potter and > his friends is an absolute strategic necessity for the wizard world. > > Bill's got an important part to play, I'll bet. > kmc replies: Lupin will not return as DADA professor. He resigned because in the heat of the moment he forgot to take his potion and put the students at Hogwarts in danger. If Moody was willing to return, DD would never had to accept Umbridge as a Hogwarts professor. JKR has used the DADA post as a catalyst for each book. IMO she will continue to do this with a different DADA teacher for book 6 & 7. If as you say "protecting Harry" is a necessity, why hasn't Harry been protected for the first 15 years of his life? These are Harry's stories therefore he must be the one to get into and out of mortal peril. I think Molly's boggart was a hint for us to except some deaths in the Weasley family. I don't think the trio is in danger prior to book 7. I also do not think the attack on Hogwarts will come before the final book so Ginny is probably safe for at least one more book. I don't expect to see much of G&F in book 6 unless they open a branch store in Hogsmeade. This is possible but I think that is more a book 7 than book 6 possiblity. That leaves Bill, Charlie, and Percy. Percy has questionable status as good/bad guy and JKR is not likely to resolve that in book 6. Charlie is still with the dragons and would be more likely to take over Hagrid's job than the DADA so that leaves Bill as the most likely Weasley to die in Book 6. kmc From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 24 04:08:12 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:08:12 -0000 Subject: Curse of the Truth (was:Re: the Dark Arts Job) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116313 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shallowdwell" wrote: > > imamommy wrote: snip > > If anything,I think perhaps Dumbledore hires (or allows people to be hired) people to reveal them. Possibly he has put a charm/curse on the job. I'm not sure where this fits in with the ESEDumbledore theories (I don't personally subscribe to them) but if this is the case I am curious about his methods/motives. > > Andrea: > Ooo, well spotted, and I really like the idea of the curse being self-revelation. And none of these previous characters could stand up to the revelation (with the possible exception of Lupin, who at least had the grace to resign before he was fired or shouted down by the wizarding world. > > Now to extend it, what happens when Snape gets the DADA job? Why the answers so many of us have been eagerly waiting for! We get to really figure out who he is and what makes him tick. (I doubt it will be pretty-- but just maybe he'll have what it takes to hold out in spite of what is revealed.) > imamommy: Perhaps this is exactly *why* DD won't let Snape have the job: he can't blow his cover yet. > Anyone else notice that in the HBP fax JKR is recorded declining to answer a question about whether there will ever be a DADA teacher who lasts more than a year? She said it would give too much away. Now I suppose its possible she just wants to keep people always in suspense about the fate of the current prof. But I'm crossing my fingers that Snape will be the curse-breaker. Especially if this self-revelation thing holds water. That way, we get one year to reveal Snape's true character and one year more or less (I figure) to see if being forced to work together (without DD's intervention) can reconcile who Snape really is to Harry, and vice versa. > Andrea imamommy: I wonder if Dumbledore might not actually teach DADA himself in the sixth or seventh book, thus subjecting himself to the curse, if it exists, and possibly culminating in his demise, which many of us feel to be inevitable. imamommy From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 04:46:48 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:46:48 -0000 Subject: Curse of the Truth (was:Re: the Dark Arts Job) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116314 > imamommy: > > I wonder if Dumbledore might not actually teach DADA himself in the > sixth or seventh book, thus subjecting himself to the curse, if it > exists, and possibly culminating in his demise, which many of us feel > to be inevitable. > > imamommy I've said this before--I would be not at all surprised if DD took the DADA job in the sixth book--since he is almost certainly going to have a REALLY hard time finding someone to answer the annual ad in the Daily Prophet. I believe this will set up DD's death at the end of book 6 and Snape's taking on the job (Molly for Potions Mistress?), finally either succumbing or breaking the curse at the end of book 7. But that's just me. Antosha From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 24 04:47:18 2004 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 04:47:18 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important/Harry suicidal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116315 > > ... my sense is that suicide would just be out of character for > > Harry, no mater what happens. Not out of character for every > > other person necessarily, but for Harry, yes. As you say, it's > > Harry's (and JKR's) story and nobody else's ... > Then again, Harry might try to mix Wormwood & Asphodel to produce > the Draught of the Living Death (Two *muggle* plants so he WOULD be > able to find the ingredients, possibly even from Petunia's garden) > just to be able to sleep without nightmares. Some might see it as a > suicide attempt, while Harry just wanted a sleeping potion... > > Finwitch JKR is aware of the role model status she and Harry has. Suicide or drugs that can make a person into a vegetable would only be an option if she would wish it on fans all around the world. No, for Harry to be killed of from anyone but a Death Eater, it would have to be something like eating some of Hagrid's cooking. ~aussie~ From CindyJ2 at cox.net Sun Oct 24 04:55:54 2004 From: CindyJ2 at cox.net (Cindy Jenkins) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:55:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DADA job (was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) References: Message-ID: <004601c4b985$beaeeb60$a19a6744@DEAN> No: HPFGUIDX 116316 Hi everyone, I haven't posted for months, but wanted to respond to the DADA speculation. Hanna wrote: > I would be surprised if Snape didn't get the chance to do the > DADA job eventually, but maybe not until the epilogue (if he > survives that far). I don't think it will be in the next book > because of the potential awkwardness with his DE role. I think DD is a likely choice. JKR uses the DADA position as a literary device; I suspect DD will take it on himself and end up getting killed at the end of the year. That only leads to further confirm that the job is jinxed. Regardless, I don't see DD surviving book 7. Having him spend his last year teaching DADA would be a nice exit for him, and would let him pass the torch on to the next generation. I also feel the same could be true for Snape. He finally gets the job, and gets killed at the end. In this way he redeems himself for his past DE role. And maybe (pure speculation here) that's the reason DD hasn't given him the job yet. He knows that if Snape ever gets the DADA job he'll be killed somehow. Nonetheless, my money is on DD as the DADA prof in book 6. Cindy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 24 05:28:41 2004 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:28:41 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116317 > Tina wrote: > > > In GoF, I wondered if Snape couldn't have been stalling. ... > > in a way to help Crouch. Crouch/Moody did receive the owl about > > Crouch Sr's probable coming- clean. ~aussie/norbertmummy~ OOTP: Did Snape also stall when Harry and DA went into the Forbidden Forrest? The DA had time to ride thestrals to London, and meander through to the prophesy and battle DE before OoTP troops apparated to save them. How much time lapsed? Snape informed DD he would cantact Moody and the others at HQ straight away when they didn't come out of the forrest. That was a long time to wait for them to "come out ot the forrest". From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 05:43:25 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:43:25 EDT Subject: Star draco Message-ID: <147.36df6b37.2eac9afd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116318 > Hannah said: > >I doubt that Lucius was 'gutter trash' though it would be > >funny if he had been. Aura said: > True dat. Am I the only one who doesn't think he's sexy, just > evil and mean? :) > Nothing about the Lucius Malfoy in the books is the least bit sexy. It's Jason Isaacs who's sexy in that medium-which-must-not-be-named ;-) Mrrrowww! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feklar at verizon.net Sun Oct 24 05:47:12 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 01:47:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Star draco References: Message-ID: <012301c4b98c$e8d045e0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 116319 > I always thought Draco was named that because of it's > meaning 'dragon.' It's the sort of pretentious name that Lucius and > Narcissa would chose for the Malfoy heir. OTOH, stars and astronomy > and so on seem to be important in the HP books, so perhaps there is > a connection. I personally suspect JKR chose the name because she > liked it and thought it fit the character, but who knows. JKR may > not even have realised that there was a star called Draco, or > thought of it as not having any significance. She's good with > sneaky clues, but rather like DD, she is also fallible. Feklar-- There's also the Athenian Draco, famous for strict laws with harsh punishments (also the source of draconian) which reminds one of Inquisitorial Squad Draco. Feklar From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 05:52:06 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 05:52:06 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important/Harry suicidal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116320 All this talk of suicide. That was just a passing comment, to say that Harry was coping as best he could and would not turn to anything like that. I didn't expect everyone to pick that part up and run with it. The part I was mostly talking about is why Harry was acting the way he was in OOP. That his behavior was normal given the experience that he had. Tonks_op Slinking away into the flowers on the wall... From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 06:54:40 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:54:40 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Hands_up,_who=92s_been_possessed=3F_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: Dungrollin: > Lets move on to Ginny. > > In CoS, again, nobody actually uses the > words `possessed', `possess', `possession' or > `possessing'. > Riddle says `...I've always been able to charm the people I > needed...' > Then later: `So I made Ginny write her own farewell on the wall > and come down here to wait. She struggled and cried and became > *very* boring. But there isn't much life left in her: she put > too much into the diary, into me...' > After the fun, DD says `...how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant > Ginny...' > And later `Older and wiser wizards than she have been hoodwinked > by Lord Voldemort.' > > The biggest problem with Ginny's (so-called) possessions, is that > she doesn't remember anything about them. Which has led many to > believe that either the possession was of a different nature to > those effected by present-day Voldy, or that she wasn't truly > possessed. Geoff: However, she believes that she was.... '"We wanted to talk to you, Harry," said Ginny, "but as you've been hiding ever since we got back - " "I didn't want anyone to talk to me," said Harry who was feeling more and morenettled. "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 where you don't 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.' (OOTP "Christmas on the Closed Ward" pp.441-442 UK edition) A bit more ammunition for your case? Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 07:38:32 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:38:32 -0000 Subject: Such a searing pain... (Re: Harry's experiences : what's missing ?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116322 Iris: > > Speaking of the `searing pain' expression > It can sound odd, but there's at least one advantage when you are > not a native English speaker: you need to read the books with your > dictionary at hand. Finwitch: Depends more on which level you are, I'd say. I'm not a native speaker either, but I don't need to use a dictionary anymore when reading a novel in English. Reading novels in English is a good way to learn the language, though. Although, there have been times when I read my Finnish-English-Finnish dictionary (Thought that sort would be boring enough to help me sleep at first - didn't work for that, I just got *excited* for all the new words, but I guess the habit helped me to learn a good vocabulary at least). As it is, I occasionally read English books about English language just for the fun of it... Iris: > As you did, I noticed the repetitive use of `searing pain', and > needed to check my dictionary, because I didn't know what `searing' > meant. That's how I learned it comes from `to sear', a very > interesting verb if you consider it is associated with the double > idea of burning and drying out (if I'm mistaken, please be kind > enough to correct me). > Burning and drying out: that's precisely what an Alchemist has to do > with the Materia Prima of the Work in order to create the > Philosopher's Stone. In many treaties, it is said that the Alchemist > has to make the Materia Prima `suffer' to purify it and to improve > it. The alchemist uses the fire of his melting pot as an instrument > of torture. The Materia Prima suffers, but at the end of its long > agony, it becomes the Philosopher's Stone. > In other words, every time Harry's scar inflicts `a searing pain' on > him, the boy steps up to what he has to become: a human > Philosopher's Stone, i.e., the one with the power to vanquish the > Dark Lord and `heal' the wizarding world of his evil influence (I > wish him good luck). --- It's the old `what doesn't kill you makes you > stronger' story. Apparently, the Dark Lord doesn't know that > proverb. But he's not the only one > As for the "Harry had never felt such intense pain before" > repetition, it could work the same: the use of `before' implies a > comparison, and implicitly an evolution. > It could simply mark the evolution in the process, every > new `intense pain' being like a point of no return. Finwitch: I like this theory. Except that the Dark Lord is planning to *kill* Harry, rather than just make him suffer. What I see, is that each 'he had never felt such intense pain before' - well, as that *before* includes all previous times it happened, it makes it more intense each time. Finwitch From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 23:19:46 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:19:46 -0000 Subject: Draco & Snape (Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall) In-Reply-To: <11.366d7a14.2eabd326@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116323 > Chancie: > Ok, I understand what your saying now. The only question I still Have about this is, in order for this to happen, Snape has to be "outed" as a Order member! With Draco's new found hatred for Harry, (due to the fact he's the reason Lucius is in Azkaban) I have a hard time thinking he's going to back down from his vendetta. I too would like to see Draco as more than a just all out bad kid. (I personaly don't think there is such a think as a person who has no hope of being a productive member of society....but that's a WHOLE other story, so I'll spare you from that =D ) I just don't see Draco turning his back on his father whom he clearly admires to go to Harry's side! I see Draco as the type of person who would be spiteful enough to fight for something, just to piss his enemies off. Does anyone else see this? > barmaid: I guess one way (I wrote *the only way* and then realized how arrogant *that* sounded!) my idea could happen is this: Draco, angry and hurt, and believing Snape is his ally and his fathers good friend, turns to him for help in getting revenge on Harry et al. Snape listens carefully and provides whatever the Snape and Draco version of "a shoulder to cry on" would be -- but encourages Draco to wait and be cautious, patient, on his path to revenge. Bit by bit Snape lets Draco know that, while Harry is a bit of a git, everything Harry stands for is not in fact rubbish. And everything LV and dear old Dad stand for is not necessarily so good. Finally Snape tells Draco whatever horror story it was that flipped Snape to "our" side. (This would be a great way for us to hear about it too!) Draco, now with some distance from the constant influence of Dad, starts to see things slightly differently. He still does not like the Trio (unless you are a SHIPer for some combo there) but he does start to understand the pain LV has caused him and his family and vows to help bring down LV and the DE's. Yes, I do think he would fight for something -- it is a matter of who he sees as the bigger enemy. Just my thoughts... --barmaid (who now goes to use her skills on some hot schnapps and cider) From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 23:47:18 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:47:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's Betrayer: was: Harry's experiences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116324 boyd: > So here's the likeliest scenario in my mind. Harry, fresh from a particularly gut-wrenching scene in the WW, where the latest vexing mystery has been solved (but not before something horrible nearly happened to Ron and/or Hermione), arrives back at Platform 9 3/4 utterly alone and exhausted. He gets in the car with Petunia and suddenly he realizes that there are still 52 pages left in the book! He tries to get away, but Petunia binds him with *her late sister's wand*, then tells him how she hates all you wizard freaks, and wishes the WW would keep to itself and away from her and her ickle Duddykins. And that's why she delivers Harry to a place full of DEs...and LV himself. She leaves as LV preaches fanatically to his DEs while they leisurely Crucio Harry, drink apple martinis, and discuss the relative merits of autocracies vs. theocracies. DD arrives and walks into the path of the Crucio, but as he writhes in pain still manages to say something inspirational yet unfathomable, such as "Harry, you have your mother's eyes" or "win one for the Gipper." And, of course, his eyes gleam. Then Snape appears from nowhere, grabs Harry, and leaves with him just as LV AKs DD. AFAIK, QED, IMHO. (Um, sorry, got carried away with the acronyms.) > There, now DD is apparently dead and Harry must trust Snape at last. And the plot has finally moved forward that last step before the conclusion in book 7.> barmaid: Oh this is sweet! I LOL at the DE's sipping apple martinis -- hum it is a little early in the day but that apple martini mix in the cupboard is calling to me right now for some reason! I think this is a great theory. It may not be what happens in JKR's books, but if not you should write your own. I am completely in the camp of somehow Snape and Harry are forced to bond in some moment like the one you discribe. They have to look each other in the eye at some point and realize that they *have* to trust each other. I see this potential moment as somewhat redemptive for both of them -- by seeing that the other is trust *worthy* they are released from some or much of the baggage they both carry..... Antosha: > I would add just one more twist, because it seems to me that Snape and Harry have to learn to trust each OTHER. > So let us imagine that Harry is hauled in by Petunia (nice if really despicable turn, that)and that one of the martini-sipping DEs is, in fact, none other than Secret Agent Severus. In the WW equivalent of James Bond's ever-present tuxedo, no doubt. > When DD comes in, wand flaming, eyes twinkling, he gets Harry free. As the DEs and LV converge on DD, SS suddenly realizes he must help DD, which he tries to do. > Harry, at this point, can cut and run (DD has made his last Yoda- esque remark), but he realizes that if he does, not only will DD's body be left to the nasties, but SS will most certainly die a horrible death, just when he has demonstrated the depth of his true loyalty. So Harry stays and helps, and together, he and Snape get DD's corpse (and Fawkes's fledgling, natch) out safely. Probably doing LV some really unpleasant damage. > And Snape and Harry are suddenly forced to treat each other as comrades, if not friends. And SS, rather than expiating his life- debt to Clan Potter, is in even deeper. > Works for me as an End-of-HBP scenario. Since I firmly believe that Book 7 will be DD-less. barmaid again: Oh Yes. The wizarding equivalent of the tux is a must at this martini-drinking bash. Do you think it would be depressing because of DD's painful end? If you think he will be gone by book 7 then do you imagine a less depressing way for this to happen? Or do you think it would be depressing for Petunia to really be that evil? I completely agree that they must learn to trust each OTHER -- and your idea of SS tries to save DD and therefor HP must save SS is a great way for that to happen -- apple martini drinking DEs or not. Snap being at the bash all along is also good. Harry has a moment of doubt seeing him with the others. SS never casts the Curio on Harry, but Harry can't tell if he is enjoying the show, or just playing his role. Only the appearance of DD makes it clear which side SS is on. I like this one a lot. --barmaid (who likes her martinis without the apple, gin not vodka, and a little dirty -- you know -- with a splash of olive juice -- and would never drink with -- or serve drinks to -- unless they were poisoned -- LV and The Death Eaters) From sunflowerlaw at cox.net Sat Oct 23 23:57:21 2004 From: sunflowerlaw at cox.net (Lindsay W.) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:57:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Star draco & Malfoy Family Relations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041023161245.03ebf420@pop.west.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 116325 Aura wrote: >So, I was feeling ambitous tonight and decided to find sirius the >star in canus major. While I was researching stars, I discovered that >there's a star called draco. > >First think I thought was, "wow, JKR really did plan her books from >the beginning." The next thing was, "wow, proud Lucius allowed his >heir to be named in his mother's family's tradition." I wonder why. Lawless replies: I've actually been meaning to bring this up for a while, but you beat me to it! =P Yes, there is a constellation named Draco, and ever since OotP when we "learned" about the Black naming tradition, my mind has been a-whirrin' with the implications of this. I definitely don't think it's some wizarding tradition for the mother to name the son - after all, I honestly don't see Hagrid's mother naming him "Rubeus." I think naming process happens just like any family today - an agreement by both parties. We know Narcissa sends her son sweets, that she convinced Lucius to send Draco to Hogwarts instead of Durmstrang - knowing full well that Draco would get the "proper" education at Durmstrang, instead of being surrounded by all the "mudbloods" at Hogwarts, and furthermore, it appears that she even named him according to her family traditions! I mean, c'mon...every proper wizard name we've seen in this book ends with -us (or -as in Phineas's case, but pretty much same thing). Lucius, Severus, Remus, Sirius, Regulus, Rudolphus, Cornelius, Rubeus, Albus, Filius...must I go on? Yes, there's names like Rastaban, Blaise, Vincent, Gregory, etc - but there seems to be a strong tradition among the "proud" or traditional for the "-us" ending. So why, of all the names, Draco? Draco himself knows that his name sounds a little corny - remember the Hogwarts Express scene from PS/SS, when Draco first introduces himself, and Ron sniggers? Draco immediately assumes (correctly, probably) that Ron is laughing at his name. And I can't imagine for one second that if Draco's name was just an abbrv. of something longer - Draconis, maybe - that he wouldn't introduce himself as thus? Or that McGonagall wouldn't call him that for the Sorting? Or certainly on the Black Family Tree, it would be listed in full? But no! No! Instead of some more proper-sounding wizarding name of Draconis, the Malfoys name him just "Draco", in all its full-glory. And I can't *imagine* Lucius (who is big on appearances and being respectable) agreeing to that without a bit of convincing on Narcissa's part. Three options as to how this happened: a) Lucius actually cares for Narcissa enough to give into her whims, although I don't mean care in such a way that Lucius is some radically different man around Narcissa - bringing home flowers and serenading her in the moonlight definitely isn't Lucius, in my mind. b) Narcissa is a strong-willed and, furthermore, powerful witch that Lucius respects. Their relationship is very equal - it doesn't imply actual love or caring or even affection, but a respect for each other and especially, the two powerful bloodlines from which they come. They are truly the arrogant creme de la creme of the wizarding world in their mindsets. There would be some convincing on Narcissa's part, and perhaps some Slytherin sneakiness to get Lucius to agree. I like this option best! c) Pre-nup. of some sorts, lol. Enough that so it was agreed before marriage that Narcissa would be able to name her son, she would have the final word on where he goes to school, etc. Even after suggesting this, I have a bit of a problem with it - I can certainly see some sort of pre-nup. agreement over Draco's name, but not his schooling. I don't see the Malfoy family "giving in" to too many demands. But anyway, even WITH c, there is strong evidence, in my mind, that Draco has a very loving mother - and that furthermore, he doesn't have an abusive father. And abusive father wouldn't give in to the demands of a loving mother, and a loving mother - especially one who is as theoretically powerful as Narcissa, with all her family connections - letting her son be abused. There's been one non-stop argument about Lucius's treatment of Draco in CoS, and what it implies of family relations. And it's odd, because before I joined HP4GU, I never once saw the CoS scene of Lucius and Draco as abusive. Rather, I always saw it as a rather pissed-off Lucius having his home *raided* by the Ministry, having to sell off his Dark Arts artifacts (which *has* to be a real inconvenience and annoyance) to keep them from turning up, and furthermore, Draco seems oblivious to the position his family is in, and is whining. Yes, whining! So therefore, I can quite sympathize with Lucius at that moment, and if I strike out this scene as the only "evidence" of abusive family life for Draco... ...I would have to say, based on all that we've seen, that Draco is just as loved and, furthermore, just as spoiled as we've ever imagined. Lucius may torture Muggles, but he wouldn't harm a hair on Draco's head...unless, of course, Draco betrayed him. =P But I'm going to stop now before I start to argue against my own points, --Lawless, winded...I'm not a Malfoy lover, but I'm not going to unnecessarily damn them, either! From kb1195 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 24 00:19:50 2004 From: kb1195 at hotmail.com (katevldz) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:19:50 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116326 wrote: > And even if Peter does aid Harry in the final battle with the Dark > Lord, if he had just let them kill Peter in book 3 there would be > no need for a final battle at all and Cedric and Sirius and no doubt > many more would not be dead--- You make a very good point here, but just a thought...if they had killed Peter, Sirius would never have any proof that he was innocent. If he was ever caught, he would return to Azkaban with no questions asked. At least if Peter was spared and was forced to confess what he had done, Sirius could be free. I know Sirius is supposedly dead now, but at that point in time in Book 3, sparing Peter's life was the only way for Sirius to be found innocent. kate From jiggsvelasco at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 08:36:31 2004 From: jiggsvelasco at yahoo.com (john paul velasco) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:36:31 -0000 Subject: Fountain of the Magical Brethen Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116327 I have a question about the Fountain of the magical brethen in the MoM. Why are merfolks not included in it? Is being a merfolk a sickness like being a werewolf? Or are they (merfolks) treated like magical creatures? Just wondering...thanks! "jiggsvelasco" From darkthirty at shaw.ca Sun Oct 24 08:49:51 2004 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:49:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's temptation In-Reply-To: <1098465156.39803.26.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116328 SSSusan: > He could also be tempted to run away and to choose not face up to the burden he bears by virtue of being the only one who can defeat Voldy. THAT'S a temptation I could see him wrestling with...at least for a short time. Christopher Nehren > He started to do exactly that, in a way, in OotP -- around Christmastime. It's detailed toward the beginning of chapter 23. Fortunately, he was stopped by Phineas who gave Harry an order from Dumbledore -- "stay where you are". Dan: Is it really the ONLY reason Harry would run away? To avoid "the burden?" I always thought, if he did run away, it would be with perhaps the intention to drawn Voldemort to him, and away from those he cherishes. Perhaps, once he is able to incorporate the knowledge he has about the prophecy into some kind of framework for surviving, it will come down to, finally, the point where he feels that he CAN take on Voldemort, can handle himself without the potential intervention of Dumbledore or the Order. I mean, if he's going to win, doesn't he have to, at some point, start planning how to do that? That will make the final books different from the lazy Harry we knew in GoF. And really, don't we all eventually "run away" from home, in one way or another? Dan From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Sun Oct 24 10:12:47 2004 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:12:47 -0000 Subject: Such a searing pain... (Re: Harry's experiences : what's missing ?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116329 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > I like this theory. Except that the Dark Lord is planning to *kill* > Harry, rather than just make him suffer. Thanks for liking the theory, and for giving me the opportunity to add a couple of things. You are right when you say Voldemort's goal it to kill Harry, not just to make him suffer. It proves Voldemort didn't understand at all what being a wizard means, and what magic is, especially if we consider the problem from an alchemical point of view. Alchemy and magic are not destructive means. They work on the contrary with life, with creation. The Alchemists see themselves as students, as servants of the Creation. They try to understand it, in order to improve it. And if they happen to make it `suffer' in their athanors, it's to make it grow stronger. They are like Prometheus, the fire and life thief; they serve. Voldemort uses his power not to serve, but to enslave. He doesn't want to create, but to destroy. He doesn't work with life, but against life. That's his main weakness: he just doesn't understand why he is there; he makes a total misinterpretation of what a true wizard is. So that's why he fails: he tries to use in on a destructive and oppressive purpose what has to be used on a creative and liberation purpose. That's why he doesn't manage to kill Harry: because Harry is a child, i.e a promise of life. Even Voldemort's battle name proves he didn't understand what magic is: he presents himself like a death thief. Just the contrary of Prometheus. Voldemort is everything but a true wizard. And he claims he's the greatest of all. It's the contrary. Hagrid understands much better than him how it works. And I hope Harry will understand too what he has to do. Amicalement, Iris From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 24 12:24:34 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:24:34 +0100 Subject: With enemies like these..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116330 There's been a recent thread on the shocking state of villainy in the WW. There've been complaints about this before (my own 109355 among them). They really are a cack-handed bunch of incompetents. Haven't they studied the training modulle? Or read the textbooks? There's more to it than having a wand and an attitude, you know. If you're gonna do a job, do it right. I suppose that having a role model like Voldy doesn't help. If that's the best an ambitious youngster with dreams of murder, torture, repression and all-round nastiness is offered as an exemplar, then it's no wonder they don't make the grade. He's never really decided what he's doing. Keeps changing his mind. Shocking. Unforgivable. Not what one would expect from a thrusting go-getter aspiring to be chairman of a world-wide organisation. We first meet him down the trapdoor in PS/SS. He has nice, clear objectives - get the Stone, become immortal. Good thinking. Pretty good trump card, immortality. Once that's achieved then it's difficult to see the opposition coming up with a successful counter-move. (There are a few standard possibilities beloved of writers looking for short-cuts to the final chapter wash-up; eternal imprisonment for one. But it's much more problematical than you'd think; we're talking eternity here. Continents drift, strata erode, people die, forget where they've put the key, even forget why that door's kept permanently locked. "I wonder what's in here?" Opens door to be engulfed in smokey mist. "Oh dear, I've come over all funny. Any Muggles about?" [Which is more-or-less what I've suggested happened to TR when he entered the Chamber; see Possession posts passim.] Loss of powers is another fairly common fantasy ploy for ridding the local neighbourhood of almost invincible, supremely evil wizards. Not likely in this case, I think - the powers are ones Voldy has developed, they're in his immortal mind, they don't depend on some mystic gizmo - the Bicycle Pump of Power or the Cuckoo-clock from the Pit of the Damned - that he's stupidly poured all his powers into. Never could understand villains that did things like that. Asking for trouble - only needs some light-fingered little scrote to come along and before you know it there's a new head on the postage stamps.) But I digress. Right. Nice clear Mission Statement - until Pest!Potter turns up. Curses! Foiled (again)! But we don't find out about the 'again' until later. Next time we meet Voldy he's on a sentimental journey - finding his roots in Little Hangleton. We eavesdrop on his conversation and what do we find? He's only gone and changed his agenda, that's all! Immortality is not top of the list any more and eventually we find out Potter is. Grievous error. Swapping Thestrals in mid-flight is not recommended; goes against every tenet in the book. Even so success could have been salvaged, right up until the last minute. Some may make excuses by claiming it was thrown off track by two bodies appearing instead of one. Getting rid of the spare made Voldy lose his place in the script. Sorry. Can't accept that. He just hadn't thought it through. The rat should have killed Potter too. Needed him for the blood, right? Plenty of blood in a dead body. So, "Bone of my father...... Flesh of the servant..... Squeezin's from the heart of an enemy....." (Can't say the blood wasn't taken forcibly.) As a matter of fact it would have been pretty neat - killing two birds with one stone. New body plus "Goodbye Harry" all in one move. Instead he has to be too bloody clever by three-quarters. Wants to show off, to swank it in front of an admiring audience. As if they wouldn't have been impressed anyway: "Mm! Like the outfit! Plus an eviscerated body as a conversation piece! Ooh! Bella will be spitting feathers with envy when I tell her what she's missed!" Or if it must be taken from a live body (how tiresome), take it, remove the protection, *then* kill him. It's been a long time since Voldy held a wand; his aim might be a bit shaky - very helpful to have a target trussed up like a turkey ready for stuffing. He can use Harry to get his eye in again, get in some practice for the comeback tour. But no. Hubris, that's what it's called. Getting a smack in the teeth from Fate when you push it too far. Instead of looking like an irresistible force, sweeping all before him, he ends up looking like a pillock. Does he learn? Does he heck-as-like. He changes his target *again*! Decides it's time to have a look at this Prophesy whatsit. Can't be accused of rushing things, can he? After all, he's only known about it for 15 years. Why now? Can't it wait? Not only that, everbody knows what these prophecies are like - misleading, enigmatic and about as crystal clear as an adolescents complexion. It'd be different if they gave nice, simple guidance:- "Harry Potter's the one! Should he attack the Dark Lord with the "Enervated!" Godric Gryffindor letter-opener in DD's office and cast the spell "Excrementum Profundis!" he will prevail. So long as there's an 'r' in the month. Or if it's raining. But not both." Clear, concise, helpful. But it ain't like that. They're deliberately obscure. It must be written into a Seer's job description somewhere - "If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em." And they do - this could be very dodgy; easy to make a slip up interpreting the verbal occultation of some demented old bat. So why bother? However, Voldy is adamant. This will do it! This is the way to win the war! Yeah, sure. And astrology will tell you how to win the Lottery. Of course, given how pathetic both his planning and his hench-wizards are, nobody is surprised at his total failure to get it in his sweaty little mitts. Switch to the fall-back option - get Potter to do it for him. Will he never learn? He tricks Harry (fortunately you don't need the brains of a Nobel prize-winner to do this) into rushing hot-foot to the Ministry just in time to be GoH at a surprise party. Now just wait a minute - Harry is exactly where he's always wanted him - at the wrong end of the massed wands of the Voldy Fan Club and Slytherin Appreciation Society. Why not kill him? The Lily/GH protective spell has been nullified and he's not in Privet Drive; cream the creep and go on your way rejoicing. (I'm sure Jo could pad out the last two books somehow, change the title of the next to "Harry Potter was the Half-Blood Prince" and the last could be "Neville pulls it off".) Too obvious, I suppose. Their tiny minds can't grasp the connection between Voldy's obsession with using the Prophecy to determine how to remove Harry from this mortal plane and the reality of blasting the little bugger that's standing right in front of them, giving them lip. You see what I mean? It's embarrassing, positively cringe-making, just how mind-bogglingly stupid the self-proclaimed elite of the WW is. All that in-breeding, I suppose. I've said it before and I'll say it again: that lot are giving evil a bad name. Kneasy From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 13:07:20 2004 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:07:20 -0000 Subject: DADA job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116331 Karen:"Lupin will not return as DADA professor. He resigned because in the heat of the moment he forgot to take his potion and put the students at Hogwarts in danger. If Moody was willing to return, DD would never had to accept Umbridge as a Hogwarts professor. JKR has used the DADA post as a catalyst for each book. IMO she will continue to do this with a different DADA teacher for book 6 & 7." I believe Lupin could be persuaded to return, given the new reality of the now open war the wizard world is in. The old rules are out the window now. The same with Moody; the Ministry would not have allowed Moody, in the interfering atmosphere of last year. So I think the Lupin/Moody dual teaching role is possible. At any rate, I really do think that DADA instruction should increase. Dramatically. I agree, though, with the literary reason you cite, and we probably will get a different DADA teacher for Book 6 and 7. The book 6 teacher (Bill?) is likely to be a war casualty. Karen:"If as you say "protecting Harry" is a necessity, why hasn't Harry been protected for the first 15 years of his life? These are Harry's stories therefore he must be the one to get into and out of mortal peril." He has been protected in many ways; that's not changing, but the need is far more intense in an open war. Voldemort has failed to destroy Harry four times now. Even though Voldemort doesn't know the full Prophecy, he is likely to deduce that Harry is the only one who can truly defeat him; Voldemort almost surely understands that his victory conditions run right through Harry James Potter. It's also necessary to protect Harry's friends. From the MoM battle Voldemort learned, or should have learned, how important Harry's friends are to him. Voldemort has suffered a terrible defeat. Undermining him covertly at school is closed, the convenient stupidity of the Ministry has been neutralized, and the wizarding public is solidly behind Harry and Dumbledore. What's left? Hurting Harry through his friends. What's Harry going to do if Bellatrix Lestrange gets her hands on Hermione for a "girls night out," **for real** this time, not a trick like with Sirius? Or Ron? Karen:"I think Molly's boggart was a hint for us to expect some deaths in the Weasley family. I don't think the trio is in danger prior to book 7. I also do not think the attack on Hogwarts will come before the final book so Ginny is probably safe for at least one more book. I don't expect to see much of G&F in book 6 unless they open a branch store in Hogsmeade. This is possible but I think that is more a book 7 than book 6 possiblity. That leaves Bill, Charlie, and Percy. Percy has questionable status as good/bad guy and JKR is not likely to resolve that in book 6. Charlie is still with the dragons and would be more likely to take over Hagrid's job than the DADA so that leaves Bill as the most likely Weasley to die in Book 6." I think your literary analysis is excellent. The death of one of the Trio (Ron, IOW) is possible near the end of 6 but I wouldn't necessarily predict it. Percy, I suspect, is working under deep cover for the Order and will die getting something very important out. Bill? I agree with you. I think the death we are likely to get in Book 6 is Dumbledore. It will be the Good side's darkest hour. Jim Ferer From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 24 13:32:17 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:32:17 -0000 Subject: Star draco & Malfoy Family Relations In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041023161245.03ebf420@pop.west.cox.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116332 > Lawless wrote: > Three options as to how this happened: > a) Lucius actually cares for Narcissa enough to give into her whims, although I don't mean care in such a way that Lucius is some radically different man around Narcissa - bringing home flowers and serenading her in the moonlight definitely isn't Lucius, in my mind. > > b) Narcissa is a strong-willed and, furthermore, powerful witch that Lucius respects. Their relationship is very equal - it doesn't imply actual love or caring or even affection, but a respect for each other and especially, the two powerful bloodlines from which they come. They are truly the creme de la creme of the wizarding world in their mindsets. There would be some convincing on Narcissa's part, and perhaps some Slytherin sneakiness to get Lucius to agree. I like this option best! > > c) Pre-nup. of some sorts, lol. Enough that so it was agreed before marriage that Narcissa would be able to name her son, she would have the final word on where he goes to school, etc. Even after suggesting this, I have a bit of a problem with it - I can certainly see some sort of pre-nup. agreement over Draco's name, but not his schooling. I don't see the Malfoy family "giving in" to too many demands. > > But anyway, even WITH c, there is strong evidence, in my mind, that Draco has a very loving mother - and that furthermore, he doesn't have an abusive father. And abusive father wouldn't give in to the demands of a loving mother, and a loving mother - especially one who is as theoretically powerful as Narcissa, with all her family connections - letting her son be abused. > > There's been one non-stop argument about Lucius's treatment of Draco in CoS, and what it implies of family relations. And it's odd, because before I joined HP4GU, I never once saw the CoS scene of Lucius and Draco as abusive. Rather, I always saw it as a rather pissed-off Lucius having his home *raided* by the Ministry, having to sell off his Dark Arts artifacts (which *has* to be a real inconvenience and annoyance) to keep them from turning up, and furthermore, Draco seems oblivious to the position his family is in, and is whining. Yes, whining! So therefore, I can quite > sympathize with Lucius at that moment, and if I strike out this scene as the only "evidence" of abusive family life for Draco... > > ...I would have to say, based on all that we've seen, that Draco is just as loved and, furthermore, just as spoiled as we've ever imagined. Lucius may torture Muggles, but he wouldn't harm a hair on Draco's head...unless, of course, Draco betrayed him. =P Hannah: I'd go with b). Pre-nuptual agreements are a fairly modern invention, I can't see the wizarding world having such an arrangement. I also agree that I don't see the Malfoys giving in to, or even the Blacks making, any such demands. JKR says with Lucius in jail, we'll be seeing more of Narcissa. I think she is just as forceful and nasty as Lucius himself. Sirius has no affection for her, neither does Dobby, while Kreacher respects her. She clearly played a big part in setting Sirius and Harry up via the tracherous elf. Plus her absence during the 'muggle baiting' at the World Cup suggests she is a Death Eater herself. I've never bought the 'Draco is abused, Narcissa frightened of/ bewitched by Lucius' theory. It makes a good storyline in Cassandra CLaire's 'Draco' triology, but it doesn't fit in canon, IMO. The Malfoys aren't secretly nice, and at this point in the canon I think it's unlikely that Draco will be redeemed (which is a shame in some ways). Narcissa and Lucius respect each other, both of them spoil Draco. I imagine Narcissa's treatment of Draco being a bit like Aunt Petunia's of Dudley, while Lucius sees him primarily as a possession. As for the name Draco, it's unordinariness is probably a large part of its appeal. I mean, the Malfoy's aren't going to give their precious only son and heir a name that *any old* witch or wizard (or worse still, a muggle) might have. It's nice and pretentious, and probably appealed to both. The schooling issue is more complex, but perhaps Lucius wasn't that serious about sending Draco to Durmstrang. He could also have seen additional advantages to having Draco at Hogwarts, along with Harry Potter, and well placed to keep an eye and ear on what Dumbledore and Snape are up to. Hannah From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 24 13:38:06 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:38:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116333 Hagrid wrote: > ~aussie/norbertmummy~ > OOTP: Did Snape also stall when Harry and DA went into the Forbidden > Forrest? > > Potioncat: I've said it before, this was one of my favorite threads. Neri argued that Snape did stall either out of negligence or intent. Pippin argued he didn't. And a host of others joined in with arguments or scientific information until an agreed upon timeline was worked out...agreed upon, a miracle in itself. Of course, no one changed their minds about Snape. ;-) Neri's point with timeline: 108037 Pippin's points with earlier version of timeline: 107919 And lots of posts all around. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 13:48:54 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041024134854.52569.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116334 --- frugalarugala wrote: > If it requires a frame of mind, it explains the occlumency lessons, > both how Snape went about them and why Dumbledore thought Snape > would > be able to teach Harry in the first place. No, I don't think that > Snape was/is acting, I think he totally detests Harry. But I think > Dumbledore might take advantage of that. That might be why he > himself > didn't take the time to teach Harry this very important magic > himself. Teaching Harry to be mentally defensive of Dumbledore > might > hurt the war effort, but the defensive mindset with Snape is > already in place. > > --Frugalarugala, Interesting points, Frug-etc. I agree that mental connections seem to be increasing in importance as the series goes on, both as metaphor and as actual plot device. Personally I don't think Harry was supposed to learn occlumency at all - at least not the way Snape learned it. Think about it - the way occlumency was described by Snape, you've got to be able to use it when the Dark Lord penetrates your mind and to keep your wits about you at the same time. But Harry's supposed to use it when he's asleep? I think that what Dumbledore wanted Harry to learn was the mind-shielding exercise part of occlumency - the ability to relax, let go of your emotions, etc. The idea was that if Snape was pounding away at him mentally it would give Harry incentive to practice. Didn't work of course, thanks to the Harry-Snape disconnect and the fact that Harry was channelling Voldemort's emotions as well as his visions (that is, the connection was more intense than Dumbledore realized). Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 24 13:57:43 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:57:43 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Hands_up,_who=92s_been_possessed=3F_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116335 Dungrollin: > The biggest problem with Ginny's (so-called) > possessions, is that she doesn't remember anything > about them. Which has led many to > believe that either the possession was of a > different nature to those effected by present-day > Voldy, or that she wasn't truly possessed. Geoff: However, she believes that she was.... "Well, can you remember everything you've been doing?" Ginny asked. "Are there big blank periods where you don't 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.' (OOTP "Christmas on the Closed Ward" pp.441-442 UK edition) A bit more ammunition for your case? Dungrollin: (The following is highly speculative.) Sorry, I was being too concise. Yes, Ginny believes she was possessed, however, her experience was nothing like Harry's, in that she remembers nothing about it. (This is irritating. We have no memories of pain, or of what it felt like in general, for us to compare with Harry's experience). And the assumption that she knows what it feels like is thus a red herring, IMO. If I'm right about Quirrell only being possessed some of the time, and clearly remembering what happened, and Harry remembering everything about his possession in the MoM ...(actually, the only evidence we have of this is that when DD mentions it Harry doesn't go `Huh? What? I was *possessed*?!')... and if Ginny was *really* possessed, then Diary!Tom must have had some hand in altering her memories. Which means that Diary!Tom and Vapo!Mort are very different creatures. It's really annoying me. I'm going off on a tangent now. *How* could Diary!Tom creating a body through stealing Ginny's soul have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably? There would have been the body of a 16-year-old Riddle, with whatever was in the diary controlling it. How could that have helped Vapo!Mort? Possessing the new alive Riddle would surely have resulted in the death of that body too, as it did for Quirrell and the animals. Unless... Well, we don't know *why* possession is lethal. The conflict of having two different souls in one body, perhaps? If the new Riddle had a duplicate of LV's soul, then perhaps Vapo!Mort could have possessed him with no ill-effects. Alternatively, if what was in the diary really was just memories, perhaps the new Riddle would not have had a soul at all, so Vapo!Mort could have moved in sans probl?me. This makes more sense to me, I doubt that LV would have duplicated his soul (if such a thing can be done at all) and put a copy in the diary; too great a possibility for competition, too high a chance of it falling into the wrong hands and being used against him. So what was Diary!Tom, and what was Vapo!Mort? How could Diary!Tom create a body using Ginny's soul? And while we're at it, where do a wizard's powers reside, anyway? In his mind, body or soul? If Vapo!Mort was LV's soul, then it is the soul that is able to possess another body, which would imply that the soul is where the other magical powers reside, too. However, Voldy says in the graveyard scene that he lost his powers *and* his body ? but if he were bodiless and thus unable to use a wand, then, in effect, losing his body did lose him all his other powers too. Apart from the ability to possess. For which, apparently, you need only a soul. (Evidently, it doesn't require a wand and an incantation.) Why is LV the only character (AFAWK) who can possess other beings? Did one of his experiments involve loosening the ties between body and soul, and is that how he gained the ability to possess in the first place? Am I grabbing at straws? Has someone cleverer than me thought this through before? Dungrollin Reflecting that there are few things in life as satisfying as stripping wallpaper. And writing a thesis isn't one of them. From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 24 14:04:50 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:04:50 -0000 Subject: DADA job (was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116336 > > Hannah originally: > > I would be surprised if Snape didn't get the chance to do the > > DADA job eventually, but maybe not until the epilogue (if he > > survives that far). I don't think it will be in the next book > > because of the potential awkwardness with his DE role. > > > > It definitely can't be Harry. For one thing, DADA teacher is a > > full time job, and he needs to finish his education. > > > > I like the idea of DD taking on the role, though he'd have a job > > to fit it into his busy schedule - he's already Headmaster, Chief Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, and Commander-in-Cheif of a paramilitary organisation in the middle of a war. He'd definitely have to use the time turner! > > > > I still think it will be a new character. It could be Tonks, or > > Kingsley, or Bill, or Krum, or whatever, but it just doesn't seem that likely. They all have their roles to play in events already, I don't see them deciding to teach. The whole DADA teacher thing also gives JKR a very easy way of introducing new characters, and allowing them to become important in a short space of time. > > > catkind: Yeah, I guess Harry as DADA teacher was a bit far- > fetched. On the other hand, we have seen he is a good teacher, and > he will be somewhat less busy with only NEWT classes. I could see > him for example taking practical lessons for the younger classes, > with someone else there for authority and theory, and for example > Lupin making lesson plans. (I'm sure this has been discussed > already, but can't find it. ) > Hannah: I think he'll keep up the DA (I hope he does) instead of any official teaching role. If NEWTs are anything like A-Levels, he's still going to be busy even though there are less subjects! Catkind continued: > Is Dumbledore really that busy? I think Umbridge ousted him from > most of those impressive-sounding titles. It's not clear how much > he actually has to do as Headmaster. We also don't know what the > Order does much, apart from staking out the DoM every day except for those when DEs are visiting. I admit this was also a rather far- fetched suggestion, and is not what I am expecting. > Hannah: He was reinstated into all of them, according to the newspaper at the end of OotP. Even so, I actually don't think the suggestion is all that far-fetched, I just think it would be quite impractical. OTOH, JKR rarely lets the nitty-gritty practicality of things get in the way when she has a good storyline in progress. I think I and other fans worry more about the difficulties of time tables and such like a lot more than she does. Maybe he really will use a time turner, or delegate a bit more. Catkind continued: > I don't see why Snape's role in the Order should conflict with his > teaching DADA more than his teaching Potions. Hannah: I see your point here. I suppose its because of the nature of the subject. If Snape was teaching kids to fight LV all day, the Dark Lord might expect him not to do the job properly. It could be tricky. OTOH, Quirrel and 'Moody' both did the job to a reasonable standard (Moody even teaching Harry to resist the Imperious). The whole Snape-DD-LV dynamic is too complicated to really understand what the position would be. Maybe it's more that DD thinks teaching DADA would bring out the worst in Snape (worse than he is in Potions...) > Catkind: > But looking at it from the inside for a moment... Hogwarts is the > only wizarding school in England. There can't be many good DADA > teachers kicking around, because there are no other schools for them > to be working in. DD has already failed to find a suitable > candidate one year, and the year before that he asked a retired > Auror. It is vitally important the kids have a good practical > education in Defence, after all, there's a war on. So it seems > likely to me that either DD goes for an experienced teacher or > someone experienced in practical defence, i.e. an Auror. > > It could, of course, be a new Auror, but on the whole if we already know a character who would fill a role, JKR tends to use them and not introduce others. > > The suggestion of Krum is intriguing though. What would Hermione > and Ron make of it? > Hannah: I've never gone for the Krum theory myself, he doesn't strike me as a likely teacher, and JKR has said we won't see much more of him for a long time. Ron and Hermione's reactions would be interesting. I know what you mean about the Aurors, they would seem a good choice, but for the problem that LV has returned. I should think every Auror available is going to be wanted out there in the front line, tracking down DE's and defying LV. While teaching children to defend themselves is important, I wonder if it will be considered important enough to spare a precious Dark Wizard catcher? Especially since they haven't taken on any new ones for three years (I suspect a complacent winding down under the Fudge regime) and probably lost a lot of the older ones in the first war (not long ago). With the grades they want, there aren't going to be large numbers of them. I reckon even old Moody will be asked back out of retirement (and of course he'll agree). Hannah From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sun Oct 24 14:13:07 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:13:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Professor McGonagall cont. References: Message-ID: <002e01c4b9d3$9bd0b1c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116337 So I was surfing the 'net this morning, looking for a name for my new kitten (something to do with owls...she looks like one) and I thought AHHA Athena...she has an owl. And then I thought, nah, no one will get it so I looked up Athena's Roman counterpart. Rather to my surprise, her Roman counterpart is (drum roll please) Minerva. So now we have our very own resident Goddess at Hogwarts. I did look through yahooMORT! to see if anyone else had tweaked onto that...the less said about that experience the better. Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. What do you all make of it? Kethryn - talk about programing and homework avoidance here! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 14:23:54 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041024142354.33142.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116338 > You make a very good point here, but just a thought...if they had > killed Peter, Sirius would never have any proof that he was > innocent. If he was ever caught, he would return to Azkaban with > no questions asked. At least if Peter was spared and was forced to > confess what he had done, Sirius could be free. I know Sirius is > supposedly dead now, but at that point in > time in Book 3, sparing Peter's life was the only way for Sirius to > be found innocent. > > kate Very true. Producing Peter's dead body at the end of POA would not have altered the main part of the "true" version of events: the only thing that would have changed would have been Peter's supposedly heroic fight to the death. "So he was so terrified of Black - even when Black was in Azkaban! - that he lived like a rat for 12 years rather than risk facing him. Well, perhaps he knew Black well enough to know that he'd escape and come after him eventually. And that's just what Black did! Act of a guilty man!" No, producing a dead body wouldn't have helped at all. What Remus and Sirius SHOULD have done was petrificus-totalis-ed Peter and bound him with strong cord as well, then levitated him up to Dumbledore's office for a bit of veritaserum (which we didn't find out about until GoF but bear with me here...). Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 14:26:25 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:26:25 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: <20041024134854.52569.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: Madga: > I think that what Dumbledore wanted Harry to learn was the > mind-shielding exercise part of occlumency - the ability to relax, > let go of your emotions, etc. The idea was that if Snape was > pounding away at him mentally it would give Harry incentive to > practice. Didn't work of course, thanks to the Harry-Snape > disconnect and the fact that Harry was channelling Voldemort's > emotions as well as his visions (that is, the connection was more > intense than Dumbledore realized). I think this is insightful, but it raises a burning question I've had for some while. Let me indulge in a personal tangent to explain why I've got it. I (to keep myself sane, and because it's fun), am an avid student of aikido, one of the modern Japanese martial arts. One of the big long- range things that it works on is mind-body unification (which is complicated), but has one very interesting facet; you learn how to truly relax both your mind and your body together, and get the two working hand in hand instead of poking at each other. The descriptions of aspects of Occlumency strongly remind me of that. The thing is, learning to really truly relax and have it hold up under testing, with variable amounts of pressure, is really and truly extremely hard, and takes a very good teacher and a lot of time. The way not to learn is to take a beginner, tell him "Relax!", and then hit him to see if he does. If you repeat it enough, he might get one time where he successfully absorbs/deflects the attack. It's a fluke. He hasn't really learned how to do it systematically. Teaching relaxation requires (in my experience) a truly co-operative model, where the amount of force starts very small, and is really primarily an agent of feedback to both the teacher and student. Student learns what force feels like in small amounts that can be dealt with at first, and then you start to crank it up, over time. [It *is* possible to learn just from being hit--but it, as I am told by people far more experienced than myself, takes a lot longer, is not much fun, and is the reason that they are now teaching--to make sure no one else has to learn the way that they did.] When I read the Occlumency passages, I remember thinking: "Dude, he's *never* going to learn how to really actually relax if you go about it like that--he's just going to learn to hit back." I don't know whether my perceptions of relaxation teaching method line up with JKR's, but that's the perspective on it that I brought in. Really, I'm completely not sure it applies, and I'd love to get a little more info about Occlumency mechanics--but it does explain something. -Nora recovers from the operatic two-fer, and notes it's nice when the second one is the short one, not the grand opera extravaganza From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 24 15:02:17 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 24 Oct 2004 15:02:17 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1098630137.13.80433.m24@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116340 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 24, 2004 Time: 11:00AM CDT (GMT-05:00) Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change 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 Hope to see you there! From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 15:09:01 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041024150902.34839.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116341 --- Nora Renka wrote: > Teaching relaxation requires (in my experience) a truly > co-operative > model, where the amount of force starts very small, and is really > primarily an agent of feedback to both the teacher and student. > Student learns what force feels like in small amounts that can be > dealt with at first, and then you start to crank it up, over time. All very true. However, as I understand the book, there were some mitigating circumstances: 1. Dumbledore's determination to protect Harry from the knowledge of the prophesy and the implications of Harry's new connection to VOldemort prevents him (or any other adult) from sitting down and actually telling Harry what Voldemort is trying to do and why he has to resist; 2. The Arthur/snake Christmas vision has shown that the mind connection is stronger and farther advanced than anyone knew, even though nobody - including DUmbledore - really understands what's exactly going on since this is all new territory for everyone, including Voldemort; 3. (This is not canon but I think it's a good assumption) Senior members of the Order kick around some ideas about how to deal with this and although telling Harry would be best, Dumbledore won't hear of it. So the idea of occlumency is brought forward - not because it's the best solution but because teaching it will impart the necessary relax-the-mind techniques that Harry has to learn. Normally the teacher-student relationship should be supportive (see Nora's posting above) but having Harry hate Snape might work too - the right lessons for the wrong reasons. Everybody - especially Snape - has concerns with this but no one has a better idea and time is running out so occlumency it is. Sirius isn't told because he'd go berserk at the whole thing, assumption and solution. 4. The teacher has to be Snape because a) Dumbledore won't do it (for whatever reasons); b) Snape knows occlumency; c) it has to be someone that Harry can have access to on a weekly basis without arousing comment about his disappearance from school or tower on a regular basis (so Remus/Sirius/Moody hiding out in Hogsmeade is out of the question); and d) it has to be someone that Umbridge won't regard as a Harry sympathizer and thus insist on supervising the "remedial" lessons. With all of those constraints, Snape was the only choice. Much of the plot twists involving occlumency only make sense if the goal was for Harry to practice technique rather than to actually learn occlumency. Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 15:21:19 2004 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:21:19 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116342 Kneasy:"There's been a recent thread on the shocking state of villainy in the WW. There've been complaints about this before (my own 109355 among them). They really are a cack-handed bunch of incompetents. Haven't they studied the training modulle? Or read the textbooks? There's more to it than having a wand and an attitude, you know." Absolutely. Voldemort's megalomania certainly leads him to some wacko blunders, no? (My dad told me an Air Force expression once, "there's more to being a pilot than having a big watch." Happens in all walks of life.) There's the concept in abnormal psychology of the "successful" sociopath, a sociopath who isn't an out-and-out lunatic. Think Stalin here, and then think Lucius. For the opposite, you have Hitler, famous for his many strategic and tactical blunders. His parallel seems clearly to be Voldemort himself. The Prophecy thing was V's biggest blunder. His strategy of remaining concealed, keeping the wizard world asleep, and undermining Harry and Dumbledore was working. His agent of influence, Lucius, certainly encouraged Fudge and the idiots around him. The wizard world didn't support Harry, and maybe not Dumbledore, either. Voldemort shouldn't have abandoned that strategy. Instead, he risked exposing the reality of the Death Eaters to the wizard world and in the end outed himself, lost himself a bunch of DE's, and vindicated his two main enemies. Nice going, Lordy. What I wonder is, how long will Lucius put up with this? It's got to occur to him he could do a better job as villain than that slit-eyed nut job whose robe he has to kiss. He was content to bide his time before, being comfortably monied up and all, but now his "leader" has landed him in the can. This isn't what I signed up for, Lucius moans. I fear Lucius. He's smarter, colder, and crueler. He's sanely evil, a successful psychopath. He would have offed Harry the minute he got the blood he needed in GoF. He'll know how to hurt Harry, and he will if he can. I'd like him to stay locked up, but he won't. Jim Ferer From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 15:28:13 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:28:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116343 > Potioncat: > I've said it before, this was one of my favorite threads. > Neri argued that Snape did stall either out of negligence or > intent. Pippin argued he didn't. And a host of others joined in > with arguments or scientific information until an agreed upon > timeline was worked out...agreed upon, a miracle in itself. Of > course, no one changed their minds about Snape. ;-) > > Neri's point with timeline: 108037 > Pippin's points with earlier version of timeline: 107919 > Alla: You know what I still want to know? You probably do. :o) I just reread Neri's post with the timeline and I still wonder - did Snape EVER actually go to Forbidden Forest or he just INTENDED to? To me the answer would say A LOT. Does Snape actually have enough humanity in him to actually fear for kids life or did he just do what was required from him as Member of OOP(since I am in agreement with Neri - I think he did rather sloppy job) and that's it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 15:30:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:30:50 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" wrote: snip. > I fear Lucius. He's smarter, colder, and crueler. He's sanely evil, > a successful psychopath. He would have offed Harry the minute he got > the blood he needed in GoF. He'll know how to hurt Harry, and he will > if he can. I'd like him to stay locked up, but he won't. > Alla: I tend to agree with you. Lucius has potential to be a scarier villain, if only because he is calmer than Voldemort and does not go into hysterics , but it seems that JKR does not intend on giving him a major part to play as "DarK Lord Successor" or whatever. I really want to be wrong on this one. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 15:59:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:59:50 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: <20041024142354.33142.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > Very true. Producing Peter's dead body at the end of POA would not > have altered the main part of the "true" version of events: the only > thing that would have changed would have been Peter's supposedly > heroic fight to the death. "So he was so terrified of Black - even > when Black was in Azkaban! - that he lived like a rat for 12 years > rather than risk facing him. Well, perhaps he knew Black well enough > to know that he'd escape and come after him eventually. And that's > just what Black did! Act of a guilty man!" > > No, producing a dead body wouldn't have helped at all. Alla: This is certainly a possibility. But there is another possibility. Maybe, just maybe some really curious people started to question the story of Sirius guilt simply because Peter turned up alive . So, the story which was toldabout the events twelve yars ago was incorrect. Could it be that Peter being alive led to more revelations? I certainly think it could, bnut of course it is a pure speculative "what if" at this point. I still much prefer Peter being dead. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 24 16:06:36 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:06:36 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116346 > Alla: > > You know what I still want to know? You probably do. :o) I just > reread Neri's post with the timeline and I still wonder - did Snape > EVER actually go to Forbidden Forest or he just INTENDED to? > > To me the answer would say A LOT. Does Snape actually have enough > humanity in him to actually fear for kids life or did he just do > what was required from him as Member of OOP(since I am in agreement > with Neri - I think he did rather sloppy job) and that's it. Potioncat: Well, I'll bet we differ on what we think he did! ;-) Just to show you how open my mind is, in fact it's pretty much a leaky cauldron most of the time, I'll toss this out: DD says twice that Snape reported immediately. How does he know that? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 24 16:08:54 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:08:54 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116347 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" wrote: > > What I wonder is, how long will Lucius put up with this? It's got to > occur to him he could do a better job as villain than that slit-eyed > nut job whose robe he has to kiss. He was content to bide his time > before, being comfortably monied up and all, but now his "leader" has > landed him in the can. This isn't what I signed up for, Lucius moans. > > I fear Lucius. He's smarter, colder, and crueler. He's sanely evil, > a successful psychopath. He would have offed Harry the minute he got > the blood he needed in GoF. He'll know how to hurt Harry, and he will > if he can. I'd like him to stay locked up, but he won't. > Ah! Lucius! "The smiler with the knife under his cloak" as I opined in an offering I made about who pulls Fudges' strings a few days back. Is he Cassius or Brutus to Voldy's Caesar? Or something else entirely? I agree, Lucius would be a much more dangerous opponent than Voldy - he thinks, he plans, he doesn't chew the carpet. You know, I still wonder what part Lucius had to play in Dobby warning Harry in CoS. House Elves are only concerned with 'their' families; they do what they're ordered to. And Dobby flitting backwards and forwards between chez Malfoy and Harry Potter for most of the book just doesn't add up. Once I could accept, circumstances somewhat similar to those that allowed Kreacher to get out - though even then I'd expect him to go to *family* - Andromeda, say. Unless Malfoy was up to something very devious and not in the best interests of Voldy. With a bit of luck Malfoy will show himself as a worthwhile enemy in the next book. Something to look forward to. Kneasy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 16:17:47 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:17:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116348 > > Potioncat: > Well, I'll bet we differ on what we think he did! ;-) > Just to show you how open my mind is, in fact it's pretty much a > leaky cauldron most of the time, I'll toss this out: DD says twice > that Snape reported immediately. How does he know that? Alla: Heee! I just pictured Potioncat's mind as Leaky Cauldron. :o) Actually, we don't necessarily differ on this one. You see, I am HAPPY when Snape does the right thing. I WANT to believe the best of him. The thing is - he dissapoints me oh so often. :o) If Dumbledore said to Harry : "Professor Snape WENT to forest to search for you". I would not question it for a minute. Just as you see ambiguity in the smashed flask scene, I think that the word INTENDED used here for a reason. What Dumbledore's quote are you talking about? I remember this one "he informed the Order as soon as possible about what you had just said" - OOP, p.833 But yes, I remember seeing "immediately" in the other context, I just cannot find it right now. I guess this refers to still unknown to us the means of communications between Members of OOP From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 24 17:01:51 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:01:51 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > The thing is, learning to really truly relax and have it hold up under testing, with variable amounts of pressure, is really and truly extremely hard, and takes a very good teacher and a lot of time. The> way not to learn is to take a beginner, tell him "Relax!", and then hit him to see if he does. If you repeat it enough, he might get one time where he successfully absorbs/deflects the attack. It's a fluke. He hasn't really learned how to do it systematically. > > Teaching relaxation requires (in my experience) a truly co-operative model, where the amount of force starts very small, and is really primarily an agent of feedback to both the teacher and student. Student learns what force feels like in small amounts that can be dealt with at first, and then you start to crank it up, over time. > [It *is* possible to learn just from being hit--but it, as I am told by people far more experienced than myself, takes a lot longer, is not much fun, and is the reason that they are now teaching--to make sure no one else has to learn the way that they did.] > Pippin: I think you answered your own question here. They don't have the time to do the job right. The connection developed much more quickly than Dumbledore imagined. Though it's not, as you say, the method of choice, Harry has shown an ability to master complex spells by the "Throw him in and hope he floats" method -- that's the way he learned to make a corporeal patronus. He was stalled for four weeks using the trust and patience method -- only able to make an indistinct vapor -- until he saw Malfoy's phony dementors at the Quidditch match. And though that was a fluke, he was able to make a corporeal patronus again when the real dementors attacked him. Anyway, Dumbledore could hardly expect Snape and Harry to develop enough trust and patience with each other to use that method in a short time. Pippin who should find the time to study Aikido again. Os! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 24 17:13:04 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:13:04 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > If Dumbledore said to Harry : "Professor Snape WENT to forest to search for you". I would not question it for a minute. > > Just as you see ambiguity in the smashed flask scene, I think that the word INTENDED used here for a reason. > But of course. Just because JKR doesn't want us, the readers, to trust Snape doesn't mean that he's untrustworthy. She obviously didn't want us to trust him at all in PS/SS, and she still wants us to have our doubts about him. But I can't think of any other time when Snape has stalled when he thought Harry was in danger. He may enjoy the sight of Harry confronting a giant snake, and 'lazily' tell Harry not to move, but he does say he'll get get rid of it. When Harry is in real danger, Snape has never hung back. Anyway, it would hardly gratify Snape's sadistic impulses if he thought Harry was suffering somewhere in the forest and he, Snape, wasn't getting to watch. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 17:45:10 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:45:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > But of course. Just because JKR doesn't want us, the readers, to > trust Snape doesn't mean that he's untrustworthy. She obviously > didn't want us to trust him at all in PS/SS, and she still wants us > to have our doubts about him. Alla: Oh, I disagree with that logic, Pippin. It reminds me of "Harry is an unreilable narrator" argument, when it comes to Snape. I think personally that the importance of such argument is GREATLY exaggerated. Sure, Harry is quite an unreliable narrator in PS/SS, because he is eleven and because Snape had been cleverly set up as villain by the author. But with every book Harry's POV is widening and he is noticing more and more things, so after OOP to me Harry is quite reliable. By the same token, I don't think that "just because JKR does not want us to trust Snape , does not mean that he is untrustworthy" is very strong argument anymore. I want something stronger :o) and that brings us to the second part of your post. Pippin: > But I can't think of any other time when Snape has stalled when > he thought Harry was in danger. He may enjoy the sight of Harry > confronting a giant snake, and 'lazily' tell Harry not to move, but > he does say he'll get get rid of it. When Harry is in real danger, > Snape has never hung back. Alla: Hmmm. I can think of quite a few times, when Snape was stalling. (Just to make sure - in this context I understand stalling as not doing something right away, correct?) Even in PS/SS, which is often brought as the most unquestionable incident of Snape saving Harry, he is unable (or does not want to if he is that powerful as often argued)to stop the Quirrel curse right away. Yes, he is supposedly muttering countercurse, while Harry is almost ready to fall from his broom. Fast forward to the Shrieking Shack, shall we? I always maintained that Snape's first reason for coming there was revenge against lupin and Sirius and maybe then Trio's life. But regardless, if he seriously thought that Trio's life was in danger, why exactly was he hiding under the Cloack for THAT long? So, no, I don't think that his behaviour in OOP was unusual in that regard. As to the snake. :) I still think that Snape was the one, who told Draco to conjure the snake, so I doubt he thought Harry was in danger or he purposefully brought that danger on the boy in the first place. Pippin: Anyway, it would hardly gratify > Snape's sadistic impulses if he thought Harry was suffering > somewhere in the forest and he, Snape, wasn't getting to watch. Alla: THAT I can agree with. :) From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 18:18:08 2004 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Professor McGonagall cont. In-Reply-To: <002e01c4b9d3$9bd0b1c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041024181808.38971.qmail@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116352 Kethryn wrote: So I was surfing the 'net this morning, looking for a name for my new kitten (something to do with owls...she looks like one) and I thought AHHA Athena...she has an owl. And then I thought, nah, no one will get it so I looked up Athena's Roman counterpart. Rather to my surprise, her Roman counterpart is (drum roll please) Minerva. So now we have our very own resident Goddess at Hogwarts. I did look through yahooMORT! to see if anyone else had tweaked onto that...the less said about that experience the better. Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. What do you all make of it? Kethryn - talk about programing and homework avoidance here! Griffin782002 Em... Perhaps this is an indication that she is wise. Sorry about the short reply. Griffin782002 who is forced to not participate in the forum these days, because she damaged by accident the internet connection in her room and SHE STILL WAITS FOR SOMEONE TO FIX!!!!!!!!!!!!! --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From yolandacarroll at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 18:36:30 2004 From: yolandacarroll at yahoo.com (yolandacarroll) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:36:30 -0000 Subject: Chat Problems Today - You can get in... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116354 I was able to get in by going through the chat link on the main HPfGU page. However, I and at least one other member can not get in through Yahoo Messenger. We are obviously having some problems today. Also, I had problems earlier through the chat link. I was logged in, but I couldn't chat. The fact that Yahoo Messenger was trying to logon at the same time, might have something to do with that. Yolanda From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 18:48:24 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:48:24 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Hands_up,_who=92s_been_possessed=3F_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Dungrollin: > > The biggest problem with Ginny's (so-called) > > possessions, is that she doesn't remember anything > > about them. Which has led many to > > believe that either the possession was of a > > different nature to those effected by present-day > > Voldy, or that she wasn't truly possessed. > > Geoff: > However, she believes that she was.... > > > "Well, can you remember everything you've been doing?" Ginny > asked. "Are there big blank periods where you don't 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.' > > (OOTP "Christmas on the Closed Ward" pp.441-442 UK edition) > > A bit more ammunition for your case? > > > Dungrollin: > > (The following is highly speculative.) > > Sorry, I was being too concise. Yes, Ginny believes she was > possessed, however, her experience was nothing like Harry's, > in that she remembers nothing about it. (This is irritating. > We have no memories of pain, or of what it felt like in general, > for us to compare with Harry's experience). And the assumption > that she knows what it feels like is thus a red herring, IMO. ******Actually, in CoS, Ginny says this: "...'Harry --oh, Harry-- I tried to tell you at b-breakfast, but I c- *couldn't* say it in front of Percy --it was me, Harry --but I --I s-swear I d-didn't mean to --R-Riddle made me, he t-took me over -- and --how did you kill that --that thing? W-Where's Riddle? The last thing I r-remember is him coming out of the diary --' ..." CoS page 323, h/c SE, the *couldn't* is in italics in original. That gives us an idea that she suspected of Tom and his intentions, she had tried to get rid off the diary before, afterall. I'm not sure why she says that she doesn't remember of Tom's possessions in OoTP... Dungrollin (cont'd): > *How* could Diary!Tom creating a body through stealing Ginny's > soul have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably? > > There would have been the body of a 16-year-old Riddle, with > whatever was in the diary controlling it. How could that have > helped Vapo!Mort? Possessing the new alive Riddle would surely > have resulted in the death of that body too, as it did for > Quirrell and the animals. > > Unless... Well, we don't know *why* possession is lethal. The > conflict of having two different souls in one body, perhaps? > If the new Riddle had a duplicate of LV's soul, then perhaps > Vapo!Mort could have possessed him with no ill-effects. > > Alternatively, if what was in the diary really was just > memories, perhaps the new Riddle would not have had a soul at > all, so Vapo!Mort could have moved in sans probl?me. This makes > more sense to me, I doubt that LV would have duplicated his soul > (if such a thing can be done at all) and put a copy in the > diary; too great a possibility for competition, too high a > chance of it falling into the wrong hands and being used against > him. > > So what was Diary!Tom, and what was Vapo!Mort? How could > Diary!Tom create a body using Ginny's soul? And while we're > at it, where do a wizard's powers reside, anyway? In his mind, > body or soul? > > If Vapo!Mort was LV's soul, then it is the soul that is able to > possess another body, which would imply that the soul is where > the other magical powers reside, too. However, Voldy says in > the graveyard scene that he lost his powers *and* his body ? but > if he were bodiless and thus unable to use a wand, then, in > effect, losing his body did lose him all his other powers too. > Apart from the ability to possess. For which, apparently, you need > only a soul. (Evidently, it doesn't require a wand and an > incantation.) > > Why is LV the only character (AFAWK) who can possess other > beings? Did one of his experiments involve loosening the ties > between body and soul, and is that how he gained the ability to > possess in the first place? > > Am I grabbing at straws? Has someone cleverer than me thought > this through before? > ******Riddle was becoming more and more solid as time went by down at the Chamber, so I believe that Riddle would have gained his teenager's body back, he says so in page 310 of CoS: "...'So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted... I grew stronger and stronger on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I grew powerful, far more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of *my* secrets, to start pouring a little of *my* soul back into *her*...' ..." the (*) mean italics in the original. According to this, diary!Riddle had a soul, which was becoming more powerful because Ginny was losing hers. Now, back to your question of why did Jo say that diary!Riddle would have strenghthened VaporMort. I believe that on one side, you have a fully-bodied-powerful-teenager *with* his soul, and on the other you have a bodyless-weak-souless-entity that only has memories and the power of possession as assets... add both and you get a powerful Voldemort. When VaporMort possesses animals and Quirrel, he is sort of 'fighting' with their souls, when he tried with Harry, he felt very repulsed of Harry's feelings, he had to leave that body... with his 16 year old clone, that fight would not happen, on the contrary, it would be welcomed. Marcela From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 24 18:52:20 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:52:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116356 > Alla: > > Oh, I disagree with that logic, Pippin. It reminds me of "Harry is > an unreilable narrator" argument, when it comes to Snape. > > I think personally that the importance of such argument is GREATLY exaggerated. Sure, Harry is quite an unreliable narrator in PS/SS, because he is eleven and because Snape had been cleverly set up as villain by the author. > > But with every book Harry's POV is widening and he is noticing more and more things, so after OOP to me Harry is quite reliable.< Pippin: ::blinks:: He sure was shocked to find that Kreacher had lied to him. He thought Sirius hated Kreacher, though Dumbledore says not. He had no idea why Dumbledore wept. Cho was an utter bafflement. Voldemort played him like a fish on a line. Research shows that adolescents aren't as good as adults at interpreting and understanding emotions, and Harry displays this quality all through OOP. He notices more, yes, but he's not yet very good at interpreting what he sees. > Pippin: When Harry is in real danger, Snape has never hung back. > > Alla: > > Hmmm. I can think of quite a few times, when Snape was stalling. (Just to make sure - in this context I understand stalling as not doing something right away, correct?) Even in PS/SS, which is often brought as the most unquestionable incident of Snape saving Harry, he is unable (or does not want to if he is that powerful as often argued)to stop the Quirrel curse right away. Yes, he is supposedly muttering countercurse, while Harry is almost ready to fall from his broom.< Pippin: By 'stalling' I mean failing to take appropriate action, which might or might not include "doing something right away." You are assuming that Snape could have done more to counter the curse. If so, that would make him a stronger wizard that Quirrellmort, and I see no justification for that in canon. Alla: >But regardless, if he seriously thought that Trio's life was in danger, why exactly was he hiding under the Cloack for THAT long?< Because he was outnumbered by (as he supposed) Death Eaters, two to one and there were three innocent (and possibly confunded) lives at stake. Voldemort and his servants can make people do things without being able to stop themselves. If the children were forced to attack Snape, he would not be able to fight back without harming them. Indeed, they overcame him handily. Caution was appropriate, wouldn't you agree? . Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:00:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:00:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116357 > > Pippin: > ::blinks:: > He sure was shocked to find that Kreacher had lied to him. He > thought Sirius hated Kreacher, though Dumbledore says not. > He had no idea why Dumbledore wept. Cho was an utter > bafflement. Voldemort played him like a fish on a line. > > Research shows that adolescents aren't as good as adults at > interpreting and understanding emotions, and Harry displays > this quality all through OOP. He notices more, yes, but he's not > yet very good at interpreting what he sees. > Alla: I am not saying that Harry sees everything that he is supposed to see and knows everything he is supposed to know. ;) I am only saying that I don't consider it to be very strong argument in dismissing Harry's negative impressions of Snape as incorrect based on the only fact that he is not always a reliable narrator, because quite often he is, IMO. Anyway, you were not making that argument, so I am sorry for getting carried away. > Pippin: > By 'stalling' I mean failing to take appropriate action, which might > or might not include "doing something right away." Alla: OK, thanks. I think I understood this word more or less correctly. From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:05:39 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:05:39 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Hands_up,_who=92s_been_possessed=3F_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116358 > Dungrollin: > > (The following is highly speculative.) > > Sorry, I was being too concise. Yes, Ginny believes she was > possessed, however, her experience was nothing like Harry's, > in that she remembers nothing about it. (This is irritating. > We have no memories of pain, or of what it felt like in general, > for us to compare with Harry's experience). And the assumption > that she knows what it feels like is thus a red herring, IMO. > > If I'm right about Quirrell only being possessed some of the > time, and clearly remembering what happened, and Harry > remembering everything about his possession in the MoM > ...(actually, the only evidence we have of this is that when DD > mentions it Harry doesn't go `Huh? What? I was > *possessed*?!')... and if Ginny was *really* possessed, then > Diary!Tom must have had some hand in altering her memories. > > Which means that Diary!Tom and Vapo!Mort are very different > creatures. It's really annoying me. > Antosha: A couple of thoughts. I take Ginny at her word--clearly she experienced possession. And yet you are right, her experience does not gybe with Harry's. Perhaps the spell used to possess her was actually a different spell than the one the grown LV uses to try to destroy Harry (very sneaky, that, trying to get DD to kill Harry, thereby ridding LV of his forespoken doom without triggering Lily's protective charms). Perhaps Diary!Tom's form of possession is less sophisticated, and therefore obliterates the target's memory. Possession would seem to be a logical extension of Leglimency, a power that not many wizards are capable of mastering, so we are told. It seems reasonable that it combines the power of a Legilemens with a variation on the Imperio curse. It may not involve the casting wizard actually leaving his/her body. Just a thought. Though LV tries to bait DD into attacking Harry's body with the lure that killing Harry will kill LV's soul, which is assumed to be contained therein... Hmmmm. Given the prominence of possession and life-after-death as themes in OotP, it seems certain that we'll be getting more talk of souls in the last two books. The thing that troubles me here is that JKR would seem to be guilty either of carelessness, or of a literary bate-and-switch, setting it up that what Ginny describes IS possession, when, oops, Harry's experience is different. Hopefully, we will have some elaboration in HBP. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:10:20 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:10:20 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: <20041024150902.34839.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116359 I'm trying to conform Dumbledore's more... questionable... actions in regards to the school and Harry with what we know about occlumency and legilimency, rather than writing it off to his being either evil, random, reactionary or just nuts. I don't think relaxation enters into it. I think that at least three of the four known occlumens having (prosumably) abusive backgrounds suggests that it's a closed- off, defensive frame of mind thing, and going on from there, that they're trying to manipulate Draco (and the rest of the Slytherins) into being trusting of Snape, basically tenderizing him for easier brain-picking. We've got a bunch of cannon behaviors which *must* be constructive somehow to the plot. --Frugalarugala From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:20:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:20:18 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" wrote: > > I'm trying to conform Dumbledore's more... questionable... actions in > regards to the school and Harry with what we know about occlumency > and legilimency, rather than writing it off to his being either evil, > random, reactionary or just nuts. I don't think relaxation enters > into it. I think that at least three of the four known occlumens > having (prosumably) abusive backgrounds suggests that it's a closed- > off, defensive frame of mind thing... Alla: It could be a defensive state of mind (in fact I think it is), but I don't think that it is achievable without relaxation first, because even Snape required from Harry to practice clearing his mind every day. I don't think that dumbledore's actions are evil, reactionary, or nuts... Although stupid may be quite close to what my imagination tells me. :) Seriously though, I think Dumbledore had too much faith in Snape's decency and the ability to put aside his grudges,when he enters Harry's mind and sees what Harry's life was before Hogwarts... You know like in " who could not have sympathy for the boy". Alas. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:25:19 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041024192519.83850.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116361 > Alla: > > Hmmm. I can think of quite a few times, when Snape was stalling. > (Just to make sure - in this context I understand stalling as not > doing something right away, correct?) Correct. > Even in PS/SS, which is often > brought as the most unquestionable incident of Snape saving Harry, > he is unable (or does not want to if he is that powerful as often > argued)to stop the Quirrel curse right away. Yes, he is supposedly > muttering countercurse, while Harry is almost ready to fall from > his broom. Um...yes, that's true but how was Snape stalling? He and Quirrell were basically having a magical tug-of-war and Snape was preventing the broom from completely bucking Harry off. Quirrell was behind Snape; had Snape taken his concentration off the broom for a second to reach around and grab Quirrell, Harry might have totally lost control. So I don't think this is an example of stalling. > Fast forward to the Shrieking Shack, shall we? I always maintained > that Snape's first reason for coming there was revenge against > lupin > and Sirius and maybe then Trio's life. But regardless, if he > seriously thought that Trio's life was in danger, why exactly was > he hiding under the Cloack for THAT long? To find out if Lupin was a confederate of Black's and because he heard his name mentioned. Also to size up the situation before making a move. Stopping to plan doesn't mean he wasn't going to protect the Trio. > As to the snake. :) I still think that Snape was the one, who told > Draco to conjure the snake, so I doubt he thought Harry was in > danger or he purposefully brought that danger on the boy in the > first place. Of course he told Draco how to conjure the snake; was there any doubt about that? And Harry wasn't in danger from the snake at that point; it wasn't until Lockhart butted in and cast an ineffectual spell that the snake got riled up enough to attack someone. (Loved the movie scene of that part: great look of "Oh s**t!" on Rickman/Snape's face when Branagh/Lockhart says "I'll do it!") Magda _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:29:53 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:29:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: <20041024192519.83850.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116362 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > Of course he told Draco how to conjure the snake; was there any doubt > about that? And Harry wasn't in danger from the snake at that point; > it wasn't until Lockhart butted in and cast an ineffectual spell that > the snake got riled up enough to attack someone. (Loved the movie > scene of that part: great look of "Oh s**t!" on Rickman/Snape's face > when Branagh/Lockhart says "I'll do it!") > > Alla: Well, yes. I don't think that Pippin thinks that Snape told Draco to conjure the snake, don't you, Pippin? :) Pippin brought up the incident as an example of Snape helping Harry. :) I was saying that Snape orchestrated it from the neginning. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:45:07 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:45:07 -0000 Subject: Fountain of the Magical Brethen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "john paul velasco" wrote: > > I have a question about the Fountain of the magical brethen in the > MoM. Why are merfolks not included in it? Is being a merfolk a > sickness like being a werewolf? Or are they (merfolks) treated like > magical creatures? Just wondering...thanks! > > "jiggsvelasco" bboyminn: I think it is just a case of the merpeople being force to live very isolated lives because of they live under water, and one would assume can't stay out of it for very long. Also, the are not bi-peds (two legs) or quadra-peds (four legs), so even if they could function above the water, their mobility is very limited. In addition, they do not seem to be magical in the common sense. That is, while they may be magical creatures, they can not perform magic the way a wizard, Elf, or Goblin can. The Centaurs have also not demonstrated much magical ability, but they are higly intelligent and very capable of standing up for their rights, and of interacting with wizards in a productive way. Still, you do have a point, Merpeople are intelligent humanoids, and should probably have been represented. Just some thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:48:21 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:48:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116364 Alla wrote : "Oh, I disagree with that logic, Pippin. It reminds me of "Harry is an unreilable narrator" argument, when it comes to Snape. I think personally that the importance of such argument is GREATLY exaggerated. Sure, Harry is quite an unreliable narrator in PS/SS, because he is eleven and because Snape had been cleverly set up as villain by the author. But with every book Harry's POV is widening and he is noticing more and more things, so after OOP to me Harry is quite reliable." Del replies : Personally, I can't quite get over the fact that Harry let his own jealousy blind him to Cedric's very obvious goodness in GoF. As for OoP, Harry was way too deep in his anger and resentment for me to trust his judgement on anything or anyone. Add to that the fact that Harry has always disliked Snape right from the first day, and I am more than cautious in accepting his interpretation of anything Snape does, even though I do believe that Snape is mean and nasty. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 20:12:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:12:09 -0000 Subject: Harry and Cedric. Was: Re: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116366 > > Del replies : > > Personally, I can't quite get over the fact that Harry let his own > > jealousy blind him to Cedric's very obvious goodness in GoF. > > > > Alla: > > Wow, Del, I know you don't like Harry much and it is your right to > do so, but when exactly Harry was blind to Cedric's goodness in GoF? > Yes, he was a little jealous over Cho. Normal reaction for a teen, > don't you think? > > At the same time I think he overcame it quite succesfully, me > thinks. He warned Cedric about dragons, because it was right. > > "Harry wouldn't have let his worst enemy face those monsters > unprepared - well, perhaps Malfoy or Snape... > "It's just...fair, isn't it?" he said to Cedric "We all know... now > we're on an even footing, aren't we?" - GoF, p.341. > > > He insisted that Cedric took the Cup with him (if he only knew...) > > "Yeah," said Harry. "Yeah... we've helped each other out, haven't > we? We both got here. Let's just take it together." - GoF, p.634. > > > You know, does not look to me at all that Harry was blind to a fact > that Cedric is a good guy. Oh, but I know. It does not count, > because ANYBODY would have done what Harry did, right Del? > > Just like anybody would have brought Cedric's body to Hogwarts, > because Cedric's spirit asked him. > > I am really really not asking you to like Harry. :) But coudl it be > that sometimes Harry does very decent things? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 24 20:14:43 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:14:43 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116367 > Alla: > > Well, yes. I don't think that Pippin thinks that Snape told Draco to conjure the snake, don't you, Pippin? :) > > Pippin brought up the incident as an example of Snape helping > Harry. :) > > I was saying that Snape orchestrated it from the neginning. Of course he did...but I thought you would say that he did it because he wanted Harry to be scared and was indifferent to his safety. Neri's argument, IIRC, was that Snape delayed searching the forest for Harry because he didn't really care what happened to him, and I thought you were supporting it. I think Snape wanted to find out if Harry was a parselmouth and he also wanted to cause Harry some grief over throwing the firework into Goyle's potion and stealing the supplies (which he would have discovered by then.) It occurs to me that if Snape has access to Dumbledore's pensieve, he could easily have found out quite a few things the trio thinks he doesn't know about...like who set him on fire and who raided his supply closet...oh, yes. I like it. ;-) Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 20:20:48 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:20:48 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116368 Pippin: > Of course he did...but I thought you would say that he did it > because he wanted Harry to be scared and was indifferent to his > safety. Neri's argument, IIRC, was that Snape delayed > searching the forest for Harry because he didn't really care what > happened to him, and I thought you were supporting it. Alla: I think we got confused again, Pippin. I do support Neri's argument and I thought that you brought up "snake' as example of Snape helping Harry, even if not right away. I was asking what to help with, if Snape did it from the beginning? I just don't think that it was a good example fo Snape HELPING Harry. Pippin: > I think Snape wanted to find out if Harry was a parselmouth and > he also wanted to cause Harry some grief over throwing the > firework into Goyle's potion and stealing the supplies (which he > would have discovered by then.) Alla: Cause Harry some grief? Absolutely. I don't call Snape sadist for no reason, after all. :) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 20:34:10 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:34:10 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part I: TBAY introduction) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116369 (note: if you hate TBAY just skip to Part II, soon to be posted down-thread) It was a clear afternoon and the autumn sunlight was gently rippling over the deceptively calm water of Theory Bay when the new ship appeared in the horizon and was slowly making its way towards the harbor. It was a small Baltimorean schooner of a strange design, very new but already not very clean (the ship-elf wasn't good at scrubbing). On its bow the name was painted in large letters: "Mind-linked!Snape Mk.1". At the helm, Captain Neri was making his best to look like a seasoned mariner. Then he just gave up, grabbed his omniculars and ran to the rail, gawking like a tourist. It was his first time to see the bay in full TBAY mode, and the sight was indeed amazing: All over the bay there were strange ships bearing unlikely names such as LOLLIPOPS, SILK GOWNS and KITTEN&RAINBOWS. The great BIG BANG destroyer was wandering aimlessly around, apparently captainless. The remains of countless sunk ships littered the bay and the shore, on some of them names could still be discerned: ELVIRA, CUPID'S QUAFFLE and MATCHING ARMCHAIRS. Flying Hedgehogs and FEATHERBOAS filled the air. The hedgehogs were especially numerous. There seemed to be an infestation of them lately. The famous Royal George bar could be seen at the harbor, and there was the Safe House. Neri zoomed his omniculars on it. The MAGIC DISHWASHER in the kitchen looked like it was active again. In fact, even as Neri was watching a big, ugly rat jumped out of it, thoroughly washed and cleansed of all stains. On a remote hill watching the bay was another house that appeared to be a new installation. Zooming his omniculars, Captain Neri could peek inside through the half-drawn curtains and see an incredibly cluttered desk and a closed door with a "do not disturb" sign on it. Neri hastily turned down the volume on the omniculars to silence a particularly annoying radio tune. In the garden of the house was stationed a small can(n)on, aimed at the bay. Every now and then this can(n)on would give a puff of smoke, and a small can(n)on ball would rise up to the blue sky, then ballistically angle down into the bay and, with uncanny precision, sink one of the poor vessels populating it. Faith, slumbered in a beach chair on the ship deck and wearing a life belt over her schoolgirl uniform, gave a scornful sniff at the Captain's excitement. SHE was of course an old and prominent denizens of Theory Bay (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#faith), thought not necessarily one of the most popular. "I heard that!" she said grumpily at these last words. "And could you please explain what am I doing here? These rickety theories always make me seasick. I much prefer hanging with Nora in a solid-ground bar". Captain Neri was tempted to inquire what could someone wearing schoolgirl uniforms get to drink in a bar, but he wisely edited it out. Instead he explained: "This is a new theory I'm working on. It was designed to explained several mysteries, such as what did Voldemort do to become immortal, how did the mind link came to be, how did Harry ended up with Voldemort's powers, what was the gleam in DD's eyes about, why did Snape changed sides and how does he spies on Voldemort". "A Snape theory. I'm on the board of a SNAPE theory," groaned Faith. "And this ridiculous name, `Mind-Linked!Snape Mk.1', it's not even an acronym." "I can't do English acronyms," said Captain Neri defensively. "I hoped another member will think of something." "And what's the story with this `Mk.1' thing?" "Oh, this is because I'm far from being satisfied with this theory, but I thought I'll take it for a test cruise anyway," clarified Captain Neri. "I fully expect to make many future changes in the design". "Great, just great," muttered Faith and gripped her life belt harder. "But you still didn't explain why do you need ME aboard." "Well, isn't it your duty to inspect new vessels in TBay and make sure they are sea worthy?" Asked Neri. "Yeah, this is my job description, but I never actually bother", said Faith. "No need, you see. Those ships that are NOT sea worthy just sink under their own weight, and I've found that this is the most accurate and simple way to ascertain that they aren't sea worthy". "Umm", said Neri uneasily. "This sounds a bit... unethical". "Maybe, but it's much more efficient. Saves weeks of bureaucratic hassle. Besides, the ship designers NEVER admit it's not sea-worthy, not even when they have to waddle in murky water up to their waist just to reach their engine room. And I'm not wasting an afternoon trying to convince anyone." "I see", said Neri and sneaked a quick look down the ship engine room. The ship-elf must have forgotten to wipe its floor after scrubbing it. "Would you mind reversing the procedure for a change and have the inspection before the sinking?" "Well, since I'm already here..." said Faith in a resigned tone. "Make it short and to the point." She settled more comfortably in the beach chair, readjusted her life belt and crossed her legs the other way to better display the five-inch spike heels on her Mary Janes. "Erm... it is rather long", confided Neri. "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it" grumbled Faith. "A wasted afternoon. Well, lets start, then. But you realize you've just lost the three readers that made it this far." "As long as I still have Faith" said Captain Neri with only just a touch of sarcasm in his voice, took out a wand and double-tapped it to deactivate TBAY mode. ************TO BE CONTINUED************** From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 20:58:47 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:58:47 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part II) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116370 (Continued from post 116369. Numbers in square brackets refer to notes and canon points in the end of the post) *************************************** "You are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters" (Snape to Harry) *************************************** Our theory begins when a certain dark wizard decided to become immortal [1]. Not an easy task, that one, but our wizard was quite accomplished. His first shot at the problem was very impressive considering he was only fifteen at the time ? he managed to record his personality and memories in a magic diary. Whoever wrote in the diary and conversed with it for some time would be possessed by this personality, and finally die giving life to it. This was indeed some kind of immortality, since the diary could be kept for a long time (50 years, as it happened) and when the new body grew old he could simply pass the diary to a new victim, and so on. However, it appears that there were certain technical difficulties with the idea, since our young wizard had abandoned this early experiment. Perhaps the problem was that the new body would always remain with the limited knowledge and powers of the original diary, a compromise that our dark wizard certainly would not accept. He was going to live forever AND gain all the powers he could. Besides, when in the diary phase he would be completely vulnerable and depended on the next host or on a middleman, and our wizard wasn't inclined to trust. And so, after the small matter of murdering his father and grandparents (this appears to be a personal business and nothing to do with the noble quest of conquering Death) our wizard went abroad to study the Dark Arts for many years. He became the greatest dark wizard of his time, and took himself the proper title of Lord Voldemort [2]. He especially studied the art of possessing, and learned enough so he could easily take over small animals and perhaps even humans. However, there is a big difference between controlling someone as a proxy while still living in your own body [3] and transferring yourself completely to another body. Only the second implies true immortality - the ability to exchange an old body like a worn shirt for a new and young body. But it also means severing the tie between you and your original body for good, and practically becoming a spirit. In other words, you have to forfeit your Humanity. We don't know when exactly did this take place, probably sometime during these long years of his disappearance, that Voldemort consciously made The Choice and successfully completed the experiment of trading his humanity for immortality. From that moment even an AK could only destroy his body, as it did in Godric's Hollow, but his spirit would just be released and keep on existing without it. *************TBAY mode ON ************* (skip to OFF if you can't stand TBAY) "Now wait just a minute," interrupted Faith. "It is indeed canon that Voldemort conducted an experiment that protected him from being killed by the AK, and it IS canon that he has the ability to possess people, but this business of trading his humanity for immortality, where is your canon for THAT?" "Well," said Neri, "we do have this one." He waved his wand towards the main sail of Mind-Linked!Snape, and words appeared on it: --------------------------------- SS/PS Ch. 4: "Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die" ---------------------------------- "THIS is your canon?" said Faith in disbelief. "Hagrid? How would he know? And even HE is not sure about it". "True," admitted Neri. "But I thought that trading humanity for immortality is a rather powerful metaphor". "So you've built this ship on a metaphor," said Faith and gripped her life belt even harder. Neri raised his eyebrows at her. "I expected YOU to have more respect for metaphors" he commented. "Oh, I see. Now we're getting personal," grumbled Faith under her nose. "Can I continue? Thanks." Captain Neri double-tapped his wand again *************TBAY mode OFF ************* You can imagine Voldemort's frustration when he discovered that, even after taking this crucial step, his objective had eluded him. True, he was now practically immortal, but for some reason he could not keep his powers with him when leaving his body and moving into a new host [4]. Moreover, the hosts did not respond well to being possessed and died after a short time [5]. It turned out that an additional ingredient was necessary for success [6]. We don't know how many additional years passed until Voldemort thought of a way around this new difficulty. It seems that the way was to create a special mind link with the host before the actual takeover. Through this link all Voldemort's powers would be first transferred to the victim. Only after the victim would have these powers as his own, the actual possessing would take place. This implied that the takeover would be a very risky business: If the victim realized in mid-process what was going on, he could use Voldemort's powers against him before being possessed. In order to prevent such an unfortunate result the victim should either consent to the transfer, or be a small baby who would not understand what is done to him and what powers he is given. But this difficulty was the lesser problem. The real problem was that, despite years of efforts and studies, Voldemort could not find out how such a link might be created. *************TBAY mode ON ************* "That last paragraph has no canon to support it," Faith interrupted again. "Not even a metaphor this time." "It follows rather logically from the previous paragraph," said Neri. "And JKR did say that the steps that Voldemort took to guard himself against death would be very difficult to guess [7], which implies that the clues we currently have regarding them are very scarce." "An original excuse for sloppy theorizing," muttered Faith, but didn't argue further. Neri pointedly double-tapped his wand again. *************TBAY mode OFF ************* In the meantime our dark wizard had made much better progress with his other project, which was conquering the Wizarding World and exterminating all m**bloods. He gained a lot of political power and many followers. Most of them were expendable thugs and henchmen, but one of them was a young and talented Dark Arts wiz by the unlikely name of Severus Snape. Voldemort taught Snape Legilimency and Occlumency, meaning to use him as a spy on his hated enemy, the white wizard Albus Many Middle Names Dumbledore. Perhaps in one of these training sessions he explained to young Snape the problem of the mind link, most probably posing it as an interesting puzzle in Dark Arts espionage and hiding from him that this was a crucial key to immortality. To his extreme surprise the young wiz discovered the solution to the problem that had eluded Voldemort for many years. After swallowing a lot of humiliation, Voldemort pretended to praise the little wiz for his beginner's luck and suggested a first experiment: the two of them will create such a special link between their minds and test if it can be used for sneaking under the defenses of an expert Legilimens and Occlumens such as DD. The young, na?ve Severus was of course extremely proud and grateful for the privilege of linking minds with the greatest dark wizard of all times, but Voldemort had a different plan altogether. He was going to make young Snape his long-term host, the first in an endless chain of future hosts that will give him true immortality. A side benefit of this would be getting rid of someone who by now, without realizing it, knew far too much. *************TBAY mode ON************* "I didn't say anything," said Faith. "You were doing it very loudly," said Neri. "I admit I don't have canon for this part. It's an assumption that will help solve several mysteries." "Of course," said Faith. "I've embellished it a bit with some small details that I've just made up, and they aren't actually necessary for the theory," clarified Neri. "We really don't have any way to know how exactly Snape came to be mind-linked with Voldy, but I wanted to show that there is at least one feasible way it COULD have happened." "Sure. Please continue." Said Faith innocently. Neri glared at her, then double-tapped his wand. *************TBAY mode OFF ************ It is not clear how exactly this experiment had faired. The main detail for our theory is that a mind link between the two was indeed formed [8]. It is actually quite possible that the taking over had succeeded, but perhaps Voldemort still wasn't certain enough about the success to make the final move. He wanted to be completely sure, before taking the irreversible step of leaving his old body behind for good, that his new body doesn't expire on him like all the previous ones did. So for a time he had maintained his old body while keeping Snape as an additional or a part-time host, unable to resist him. He had probably amused himself during this time by picking Snape's mind apart and rearranging it in interesting ways [9]. What saved Severus was perhaps the news, brought by some spy from the Hog'd Head, that the great-great-granddaughter of a well-known seer had made a prophecy to DD. It appeared that a child was to be born at the end of July who will have a mysterious power that will enable him to vanquish the Dark Lord. This gave Voldemort a pause. The child himself was a mere annoyance. He could be located and eliminated. But the implication that there is a power in the world that can vanquish the immortal Dark Lord was what really bugged him [10]. Does this mean that he is NOT death-proof after all? He raked his brain and couldn't think what power it might be. Then he had a brilliant idea: Now that he was sure he could create the mind link and transfer himself to any body, why not transferring himself into the very child pointed by the prophecy? Then he would keep all his powers AND gain the mysterious power of the child [11]. So Voldemort returned to his old body and discarded Snape, which he didn't need anymore. He deleted his powers from Snape's mind and erased Snape's memories of this whole incident, and in a second thought sent him to spy on DD according to the original plan, not so much because he cared about what Snape will discover at Hogwarts, but more just to get him out of the way. Even if DD uncover Snape, then this would just occupy him and distract him from Voldemort's real objective. Voldemort now had his immortality project well planned before him, and conquering the world could wait several years. He had all eternity for that, after all. It was easy to narrow his search after the child to only two candidates, then decide which one of them is the more likely. Locating the family proved more difficult, but finally his agent in the Order had managed to get that information also, and everything was now ready for Operation Immortality at Godric's Hollow. But Voldemort had missed (as usual) one critical detail: he had learned from Snape the practicalities of creating the mind link, but he never really bothered to fully understood the theory behind it, and so he failed to realize that the mind link is permanent. He thought that by erasing Snape's memory about the incident he had covered his tracks completely, but in the meantime Snape, now trying to infiltrate into Hogwarts as a teacher, has been receiving impressions, memories and emotions through the link, and he quickly deduced what had happened to him. Having experienced Occlumency and Legilimency with the Dark Lord, he immediately realized that the mind link is bi-directional, so his own thoughts can also wander through the link and reach Voldemort's mind [12]. And he knew that the moment Voldemort will sense Snape's thoughts and realize that the link is still open and his own thoughts are leaking to Snape, then Snape is toast. Voldemort wouldn't even have to send his henchmen. All he had to do is possess Snape one last time through the link and finish him off in two seconds. Nowhere in the world would be far enough to run away and hide from such an attack. And so, Snape's only chance to stay alive was to block the link the best he could, control his thoughts to the outmost, empty his mind of all emotion, put even his dreams at night under the strictest discipline (or perhaps he had to stop sleeping and dreaming altogether) and still continue to live in fear every second of his life that one unguarded thought will slip through the link and reach Voldemort. And controlling his emotions was even harder when pondering how the Dark Lord, which he had admired and loyally served, had deceived him and abused him and discarded him like a used tissue. Snape wanted release from mind control and he wanted revenge, and there was only one person who might be able to help him to achieve these. So one day he went to DD and told him everything. **************TO BE CONTINUED*************** Notes and canon --------------- [1]. GoF, Ch. 33: "You know my goal - to conquer death" [2] The meaning of the name Voldemort ? "flight from death" ? also relates to his goal of achieving immortality. [3] Voldemort probably used Nagini as a proxy when possessing her at the MoM. [4] We can deduce that Voldemort couldn't simply move into another body with all his powers, because as Vapormort he couldn't maintain his powers with him, except for the power to possess others (GoF, Ch. 33: "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others"), and he wasn't able to get his powers back by simply invading into the body of another wizard. It seems that magical powers, like physical powers, are attached to the body rather than to the spirit. [5] When Vapormort possessed small animals they died quickly on him (GoF, Ch. 33: "I sometimes inhabited animals and my possession of them shortened their lives; none of them lasted long"). When he took hold of Quirrell he didn't gain his powers back and could maintain Quirrell alive only by consuming unicorn blood. [6] It is more-or-less canon that Voldemort needed more than one step to achieve immortality. He tells us that "one or more" of his experiments had worked (GoF, Ch. 33). Interestingly, when JKR recently posed the question of how Voldemort survived the AK she exactly repeated the words "one or more" (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80). Also, Voldemort uses "steps" in plural when saying (GoF, Ch. 33): "They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death" [7]JKR said that the steps Voldemort took would be very difficult to guess (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80): "You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die ? I will put it that way. I don't think that it is guessable. It may be ? someone could guess it ? but you should be asking yourself that question." [8] Snape to Harry during Occlumency: "You are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters" (OotP, Ch. 26). Snape saying that Harry is not special and not important seems preposterous, considering that they both know Harry is mind-linked with Voldemort. The only way I can interpret it so it would make sense is as "you are not the only person with a mind link to the Dark Lord". Note also that Snape, just prior to saying this, had immediately recognized the scene of Rockwood kneeling in front of Voldemort in Harry's mind and didn't show the slightest surprise, merely annoyance that his poor student was not able to guard his dreams. [9] OotP, Ch. 24: "Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord!" said Snape savagely. "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked so easily ? weak people, in other words ? they stand no chance against his powers!" Snape being so emotional here suggests that he himself was such a "fool who wears his hearts proudly on his sleeve" and paid the full price for it. [10] In the graveyard scene in GoF (Ch. 33) Voldemort says about his DEs: "perhaps they believed a still greater power could exist, one that could vanquish even Lord Voldemort ". The words "power" and "vanquish" here clearly relate to the first sentence of the prophecy. It was the power pointed by the prophecy that had really bothered Voldemort, not a small baby. [11] Note that Voldemort didn't send a squad of DEs to eliminate baby Harry, but went there in person. Moreover, he didn't even take the DEs squad with him as backup. Why? For some reason it was very important for him to be alone with the child. [12] It is Snape who first explains to Harry that the mind link is bi-directional. (OotP, Ch. 24): "The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings. He has also deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return." From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 21:24:30 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:24:30 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part III) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116371 (Continued from post 116370. Numbers in square brackets refer to notes and canon points in the end of the post) With DD's help, Snape embarked on the extremely delicate and dangerous mission of spying on Voldemort through the mind link [1]. It involved temporarily lowering the mind block he had assembled and peeking into Voldemort's mind while staying extremely silent and controlled. A single thought or emotion could betray him to his immediate end. He probably couldn't learn a lot while taking so many precautions, but every bit could be critical. It is likely that he was the one who got the clue about Voldemort going after the Potters [2]. As we know, however, the Potters were betrayed by their secret keeper, and in October 31, 1981 Voldemort appeared at Godric's Hollow. Getting rid of the parents was predictably easy (perhaps too easy, since he had missed that trick with the Ancient Magic thing). Now he sat to work on the baby in the cradle. First, he created the mind link with the baby the way he learned from Snape and transferred his powers to him. *************TBAY mode ON ************* "Tsk, tsk," said Faith. "I know what your problem is," said Neri quickly. "The echo of the mind-link magic didn't appear in the Priori Incantantem in the graveyard scene in GoF. There are two optional explanations for this: First, the echo might not appear for the same reason the echo of the AK didn't ? because it was never completed successfully and Voldemort never transferred all his powers to Harry, only the Parseltounge and perhaps several others." "Not very elegant," said Faith. "But the whole business of the missing AK echo is pretty problematic anyway, so I might let you get away with this one." "Thank you," said Neri. "Personally, however, I prefer to think that Voldemort did transfer all his powers to Harry, because it would fit with the prophecy words `mark him as his equal' and because it would be BANGier. This is possible if we assume that the mind-link magic isn't done with a wand, so its echo won't show up in the Priori Incantantem. We have canon for several kinds of powerful magic that don't require a wand, including Animagus transformations, dissaparation/apparation and (of course) possession. Or, if it was indeed Snape who discovered the mind link magic, it might be done with a potion." "And JKR wouldn't want to betray too early that another magic had taken place in GH", commented Faith thoughtfully. "Exactly," said Neri. "May I continue?" he double-tapped his wand to deactivate TBAY mode. *************TBAY mode OFF ************* Voldemort transferring his powers to Harry's mind didn't activate the Ancient Magic protection, apparently because it wasn't physical touch and it wasn't an attack [3]. Once Voldemort had finished with the process, however, and tried to possess the baby, he had a very unpleasant surprise. He could not make himself reside in a body so full of something he did not understand. In extreme pain and frustration he went back to his own body. There was nothing to it but exterminating the baby who now had all his powers. In his anger he didn't stop to think. Pointing his wand to the baby's brow he shouted: "Avada Kedavra!" Oops... The incident in GH fulfilled one part of the prophecy ? "and he would mark him as his equal". But DD knew about Voldemort's immortality from Snape, and he couldn't see how Harry will vanquish an immortal being [4]. All he could do was preparing for Voldemort's return the best he could and hope that a solution will somehow present itself. In the meantime DD has arranged for an official pardon and a teacher position for Snape in order to keep an eye on him. We know from Harry's experience that when Voldy was vapor the mind link was much weaker, and active only when Voldy was very near and extremely emotional (as an aside, this theory also explains the minor mystery of how DD knew what had transpired in GH and that Voldemort indeed lost his body and powers: Snape felt Voldemort's presence was weakening on the other side of the link, and maybe he had even received before that some impression of what had happened). Since Snape would find it very difficult to get any information from the link in such a situation, and there was always the off chance that he might let slip a thought and betray his presence to Voldemort, it is probable that he blocked the link completely during these years. However, he probably has never completely recovered from the mind abuse and remained a cold, lonely and slightly sadistic person. He never liked much being a teacher (except when he got the chance to torment the little idiots a bit), but like DD he knew well that Voldemort will be back sooner or later, and then Snape's only hope would be with DD. And he especially hated Harry Potter, not just for being James' son, but mainly because Harry, while winning all the glory, had escaped the terrible fate that Snape had to endure, all thanks to a protection that Harry had done nothing to earn and that Snape himself wasn't lucky to have. In the meantime, Vapormort continued scheming. The debacle with the Philosopher Stone had proved to him again (as if the rebounded AK hadn't made this point obvious enough) that the power that the prophecy foretold was the protection that young Potter got from his mother's Ancient Magic. He also realized that the only way to get his own powers back would be to return to his old body and, for the time being, become mortal again [5]. But he was ready to degrade himself that much only if by doing this he would also gain that power of the Ancient Magic protection in Harry's blood [6]. He would then be mortal, but at least he would be protected from being killed by an AK curse or by physical touch. In the graveyard he indeed achieved this objective, but (as usual) he had overlooked one critical detail: if Harry's blood in his veins has made Harry vulnerable to him (as he indeed proved in the graveyard [7]), then by the same logic it also makes him vulnerable to Harry. They both share the same blood and thus are vulnerable to each other. And so Voldemort again fulfilled the prophecy by his own actions: He is now mortal again, and only Harry can kill him. Realizing this, Dumbledore could not hide the gleam of triumph in his eyes. The situation was indeed dire, but for the first time since that cold and wet night fifteen years ago, Dumbledore could clearly see how the prophecy will come to pass. *************TBAY mode ON ************* "I think I get the basic theme," said Faith. "Voldemort repeatedly tries to thwart the prophecy, and by his actions he actually fulfills it. But if Harry is now vulnerable to Voldemort, how did he stop Voldemort from possessing him at the MoM?" "Because Voldemort is wrong again," said Neri, "and the Ancient Magic protection is NOT the-power-that-the-Dark-Lord-knows-not. Or rather, I suspect that it IS the same power, only not from the same source. The Ancient Magic protection came from Lily's sacrifice, but the power that Harry found in the MoM is something that comes from himself, from his risking his life for Sirius and for his friends, and from his willingness to die if he takes Voldemort with him" "So do you think that the Ancient Magic protection is still active, and Voldemort is now protected against anyone but Harry?" Asked Faith. "I'm not sure if this is indeed so, but I think that DD at least believes it, since he didn't try to kill Voldy in the MoM." "Hmm," said Faith doubtfully. "What? WHAT?" asked Neri. "It all fits." "Well, it does seem to," admitted Faith, "but it also suggests that in the end Harry will have to kill Voldemort with an AK or something, because none other can do it, and since Voldy is now mortal again. The problem is that, being the goody-goody girl that I am, I strongly believe that JKR won't make Harry a killer." "Oh, THAT one," said Neri in a carefully nonchalant tone. "I have a solution for that too". "You DO?" Neri smiled mysteriously and deactivated TBAY mode with a double-tap on his wand. *************TBAY mode OFF ************* My theory does not necessarily predict that Harry will have to off Voldemort with an AK or a sniper rifle. The theory asserts that sharing blood indeed makes Voldemort and Harry vulnerable to each other. But there's another person that Voldemort shares blood with, and therefore is vulnerable to. I strongly suspect that Voldemort was never a fan of muggle theater, or he would be familiar with a certain play named "The Merchant of Venice", and remember that a pound of flesh, such as a severed hand, contains more than several drops of blood. I thus won't be surprised at all if at the Moment Of Truth in Book 7, when Harry's life will be hanged by a thread, Wormtail will step forward, wrap his silver hand around Voldemort's neck, and squeeze. After all, the classic stab-in-the-back IS an occupational hazard of being an evil overlord. *************TBAY mode ON ************* "Not bad at all," said Faith appreciatively. "A bit FEATHERBOA-style there, but it does have a certain simplicity to it. But you don't suggest that Peter is `the one', do you?" "No, but I agree with many members who think he might be `the hand'," said Neri. "He might be the one to deliver the coup de gr?ce, but he certainly doesn't have the power to vanquish the Dark Lord. This will be Harry, and he'll need all the help he can get." Neri double-tapped his wand again... *************TBAY mode OFF ************* According to this theory, when DD said to Snape at the end of GoF "you know what I must ask of you... if you are prepared?" and Snape answered "I am" and swept out of the room, he didn't went to Lucius or Voldemort. He went to his office, locked the door, and for the first time after fourteen years opened his mind to the mind of the Dark Lord. He must have discovered something during the next several weeks, because he had made several reports to the Order by the time Harry arrived to 12GP. And of course, DD choosing Snape, of all people, to teach Harry Occlumency seems much less crazy in this light. Snape had indeed proven his ability to block a mind link to Voldemort. Still, I think that this idea was DD's grave mistake. He should have realized that Harry would never adjust to Snape's style of dealing with the link. Harry needed to learn how to repel Voldemort with his heart, not with his mind. But Harry might get some help from an unexpected direction. What comes next is pure speculation and I don't have any canon to support it, but if there are indeed two people with a mind link to the Dark Lord around, well then, why not THREE? After all, when JKR sprang the unregistered Animagi on us she also did it in quantities. Now lets see: Several months after GH, Bellatrix et al had attacked the Longbottoms. Why? Bella's story that they were trying to locate Voldy has always sounded fishy to me. Why would the Longbottoms know where Voldy is? Could this attack be Voldemort trying a desperate, last minute save? Since he couldn't reach the first child anymore, why not try the second? He could not perform the mind link spell now, since he was vapor, but perhaps he could possess Bella and teach her to do it for him. But again, something must have happened to foil the plan. Perhaps the Aurors have arrived before the actual possessing could take place. So maybe Neville too has a mind link to Voldemort, but as a baby he received a very powerful treatment in order to block it, a treatment that also had messed up his memory. Could this be the secret that his parents are trying to convey to him? As I've wrote, this is pure speculation, but I find the idea of Harry, Snape and Neville having to cooperate in launching a three-prong mind attack on Voldemort in Book 7 quite attractive. **************TO BE CONTINUED*************** Notes and canon --------------- [1] (GoF, Ch. 30): Dumbledore had gotten to his feet. "I have given evidence already on this matter," he 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" [2] PoA CH. 10: Fudge dropped his voice and proceeded in a sort of low rumble. "Not many people are aware that the Potters knew You-Know-Who was after them. Dumbledore, who was of course working tirelessly against You-Know-Who, had a number of useful spies. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once" [3] This must be true in any theory. Voldemort powers did get into Harry's mind despite the protection. It appears the protection is only activated by a direct attack. [4](SS/PS, Ch. 17) "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. I always thought he can't be killed because he's vapor, but after JKR's two quqestions it seems he can't be killed because he's immortal. [5] GoF. Ch. 33: "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I set my sights lower I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." [6] GoF. Ch. 33: "But the blood of a foe Wormtail would have had me use any wizard, would you not, Wormtail? Any wizard who had hated me as so many of them still do. But I knew the one I must use, if I was to rise again, more powerful than I had been when I had fallen. I wanted Harry Potters blood. I wanted the blood of the one who had stripped me of power thirteen years ago for the lingering protection his mother once gave him would then reside in my veins too " [7] GoF. Ch. 33: "His mother left upon him the traces other 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. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 21:40:33 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:40:33 -0000 Subject: Harry and Cedric. Was: Re: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116372 I, Del, wrote : "Personally, I can't quite get over the fact that Harry let his own jealousy blind him to Cedric's very obvious goodness in GoF." Alla replied : "Wow, Del, I know you don't like Harry much and it is your right to do so," Del replies : Uh, I guess my opinion was worded a bit too strongly. I didn't mean that I resent Harry or anything, just that when it comes to Harry misjudging people, Cedric comes to my mind right away because I was very disappointed with the harsh and totally undeserved treatment Harry gave him. Alla wrote : "but when exactly Harry was blind to Cedric's goodness in GoF? Yes, he was a little jealous over Cho. Normal reaction for a teen, don't you think? At the same time I think he overcame it quite succesfully, me thinks. He warned Cedric about dragons, because it was right. "Harry wouldn't have let his worst enemy face those monsters unprepared - well, perhaps Malfoy or Snape... "It's just...fair, isn't it?" he said to Cedric "We all know... now we're on an even footing, aren't we?" - GoF, p.341." Del replies : 1. The dragon episode was *before* the Cho incident. Harry was still quite all right with Cedric at that time. 2. You shot yourself in the foot with that quote. Harry himself says that he wouldn't have left his wort enemy face the dragons unprepared. So that doesn't say anything about the way Harry saw Cedric. Alla wrote : "He insisted that Cedric took the Cup with him (if he only knew...)" Del replies : That was at the end of the year, when he had realised that Cedric was a very decent and good guy through and through. Alla wrote : "You know, does not look to me at all that Harry was blind to a fact that Cedric is a good guy." Del replies : Not through the whole year, sure, but it did last several weeks, right from the moment Harry asked Cho to the Yule Ball and she told him she was going with Cedric, up to the moment he finally decided to take Cedric's advice and take a bath with the Golden Egg. Look at those paragraphs for example. GoF, ch. The unexpected task, p.347, hardback UK edition "Completely forgetting about dinner, he walked slowly back up to Gryffindor Tower, Cho's voice echoing in his ears with every step he took. 'Cedric - Cedric Diggory.' He had been starting to quite like Cedric - prepared to overlook the fact that he had once beaten him at Quidditch, and was handsome, and popular, and nearly everyone's favourite champion. Now he suddenly realised that Cedric was in fact a useless pretty-boy who didn't have enough brains to fill an eggcup." In this paragraph, Harry not only admits that he never quite liked Diggory for *futile* reasons, but he even allows himself to paint a totally inaccurate and negative picture of someone who is a totally decent guy. If he can do that to *Cedric* (the guy who pleaded for a replay when he realised his team had won while the seeker of the opposite team was injured, knowing that a replay would most probably mean a lose for his team), it's quite obvious that he is simply unable to have an objective opinion of Snape. Also, I would gladly dismiss this paragraph as just an immediate reaction to bad news, if Harry hadn't kept his negative image of Cedric for weeks after that, as shown in this next paragraph : GoF, ch. Rita Skeeter's scoop, p. 378 Hardback UK edition "Harry had not forgotten the hint that Cedric had given him, but his less-than-friendly feelings towards Cedric just now meant that he was keen not to accept his help if he could avoid it. In any case, it seemed to him that if Cedric had really wanted to give Harry a hand, he would have been a lot more explicit. He, Harry, had told Cedric exactly what was coming in the first task - and Cedric's idea of a fair exchange had been to tell Harry to take a bath. Well, he didn't need that sort of rubbishy help - not from someone who kept walking down corridors hand in hand with Cho, anyway." This shows that Harry's thinking can be completely warped by his emotions, and *remain* that way. That to me clearly indicates that we simply can't take Harry's interpretation of Snape's actions as the right one. If Harry can deny such an honest gesture of help as Cedric did, he can surely interpret anything Snape does as evil. Alla wrote : "Just like anybody would have brought Cedric's body to Hogwarts, because Cedric's spirit asked him. I am really really not asking you to like Harry. :) But coudl it be that sometimes Harry does very decent things?" Del replies : You are being very unfair. I have several times stated positive things about Harry. If I don't spend my time singing Harry's praise, it's because there are already a lot of people doing it in this group, so I don't feel like my voice is needed. But there are significantly less people pointing out Harry's faults, so I feel my voice is indeed needed in that area. Del From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 21:42:41 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:42:41 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116373 (Continued from post 116371. Numbers in square brackets refer to notes and canon points in the end of the post) The Mind-Linked!Snape Mk.1 was now almost at the harbor. At the helm was Captain Neri, and on the deck nearby Faith was sitting in a beach chair, still wearing the life belt over her schoolgirl uniform. "Set a course to the Royal George, please," she said. "I think I'll need a drink when this inspection is over". "WHEN it's over?" said Neri, raising his brows. "I'm finished. What is your verdict?" "Well," pondered Faith, "it's really A Nice Theory, I Think. However, Each Supposition Is Strained." "OK, OK, never mind that," said Neri in irritation. "It IS sea-worthy, isn't it?" "It has good structural integrity," allowed Faith. "A few can(n)ons, not too many crazy premises, several big mysteries nicely explained, interesting speculations here and there, and," she added, "no new ESEs. I'm inclined to let you pass for this reason alone. However, we now arrive at the last part of the inspection, and that's where most vessels fail." "Oh? What part is that?" Asked Captain Neri a bit nervously. "Watertightness," said Faith. "Watertightness?" Repeated Neri. "You know, checking for leaks, cracks. One hole in your logic can get you deeply in trouble. Not to mention deeply in murky water." "We didn't notice any holes," said Neri and shot another quick look down the engine room. Yes, the ship-elf must have forgotten to wipe its floor after washing it. And he had used far too many buckets, too. "I'm sure there are some small leaks here and there, but nothing that can't be plugged." "Well, lets start with the way Snape spies on Voldemort. You've said he does it through the link, but there are some clues in canon that Snape is in good terms with the Malfoys. Why does he need to be nice to the them at all?" "Oh, that," said Neri. "Yes, actually I've recently theorized about the Malfoy connection myself (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/2772 ), and I'd hate to throw that theory away, but in fact the canon for Snape spying through the Malfoys is pretty thin. There's of course the fact that Snape favors the Slytherins in general and Draco in particular. There's the "Malfoy's lapdog" accusation by Sirius, and there's Umbridge saying to Snape that "Lucius Malfoy always speaks most highly of you". That's about all, I believe. This tells us that Snape is indeed in good terms with Lucius, but it's still difficult to see how he convinced Voldy to take him back. It's hard to believe that even Voldemort is THAT stupid. The mind link assumption solves this nicely, since it enables Snape to spy even without Voldemort taking him back. I have two optional explanations for the Malfoy connection. One is that Snape's relations with the Malfoys really exist, but they serve JKR as a big red herring, intended to make us all think in terms of conventional spying and draw our attention away from the REAL solution. The other explanation is more complex: perhaps Snape indeed does part of his spying in the conventional way, but he uses the mind link to make Voldy believe him. For example, imagine Snape sitting in his locked office, emptying his mind of all emotion, opening the link and waiting very, VERY quietly. Some of Voldy's thoughts might drift by and find their way through the link. Here is one thought: "Snape is the one who had left me forever; he would be killed". Very, VERY quietly, Snape places the tip his wand to his head, withdraws this thought and places it in the Pensieve. Q.E.D." Faith gave a groan and rolled her eyes. "You are certainly creative." She gazed thoughtfully at the now nearer shore. George could be seen setting some tables outside the Royal George. "I'll let you get away with this one too. There is a potentially bigger hole in this vessel." "There is?" Asked Neri and slipped another uncomfortable look down the engine room. The water level in there was definitely higher. In fact Neri thought he could see a small crack in the engine room's floor. The crack was thin and elongated, and had a jagged shape. Actually, it looked a bit like a lightning bolt. "What is it?" "The scar," said Faith. "According to your theory, the scar is only the mark where the AK had rebounded. It is not the mind link. The mind link was created by Voldemort BEFORE the AK." "Oh, I see what your problem is," said Neri, relieved. "This indeed might look, superficially, like a problem with my reasoning. We have many instances in canon of strong emotions and visions passing through the mind link, and we are almost always told that Harry's scar hurts. Here are some exemplary cases from OotP." Neri waved his wand at the main sail, where the word appeared: ---------------------------- OotP, Ch. 22: At once, Harry's scar burned white-hot, as though the old wound had burst open again ? and unbidden, unwanted, but terrifyingly strong, there rose within Harry a hatred so powerful he felt, for that instant, he would like nothing better than to strike ? to bite ? to sink his fangs into the man before him ? OotP, Ch. 24: He opened his eyes and, as he did so, he became aware that the wild laughter was coming out of his own mouth. The moment he realised this, it died away; Harry lay panting on the floor, staring up at the ceiling, the scar on his forehead throbbing horribly. Ron was bending over him, looking very worried. "What happened?" he said. "I... dunno..." Harry gasped, sitting up again. 'He's really happy... really happy..." OotP, Ch. 26: Ron wrenched the hangings apart and Harry stared up at him in the moonlight, flat on his back, his scar searing with pain. Ron looked as though he had just been getting ready for bed; one arm was out of his robes. "Has someone been attacked again?" asked Ron, pulling Harry roughly to his feet. "Is it Dad? Is it that snake?" "No ? everyone's fine ? " gasped Harry, whose forehead felt as though it were on fire. 'Well... Avery isn't... he's in trouble... he gave him the wrong information... Voldemort's really angry..." OotP, Ch. 31: "Undoubtedly I shall in the end," said the cold voice. "But you will fetch it for me first, Black . . . you think you have felt pain thus far? Think again . . . we have hours ahead of us and nobody to hear you scream . . ." But somebody screamed as Voldemort lowered his wand again; somebody yelled and fell sideways off a hot desk on to the cold stone floor; Harry awoke as he hit the ground, still yelling, his scar on fire, as the Great Hall erupted all around him. ---------------------------- "This canon makes it very obvious, or so it seems, that the scar IS the mind link," continued Neri, "and therefore Snape can't be mind linked, because he doesn't have a scar. But think about it for a minute. Baby Harry lies on his back in his cradle when Voldemort is bent over him. Where would Voldemort place the mind link? On the baby's forehead, of course. Then he discovers that he can't use Harry as his host, and he has to get rid of him. So where does he AK him? On the forehead, right over the mind link. So in all these times when Harry thinks he feels his scar hurting, it is actually NOT the scar that hurts, but the mind link right beneath it. How would Harry know the difference?" "Hmm," said Faith. "So you are saying that the scar is..." "Just a scar. Just the mark where the AK had rebounded," Said Neri, and then gave an evil grin. "Or rather, it is much MORE than a scar: it is a misdirection. JKR repeatedly tells us that Harry has a scar on his forehead, and she repeatedly tells us how the scar hurts when Harry is mind linked with Voldy, and Harry is the only one around with a scar on his forehead. So why would we ever suspect that other people might also be mind-linked with the Dark Lord? The scar is JKR's finest peace of misdirection." "What an intriguing idea," said Faith. "Could all the cases of the scar hurting be one big red herring?" "Why not?" Asked Neri. "It would be JKR's style, wouldn't it?" "Yes, it would," said Faith, watching pensively the now very near dock of the Royal George. "It certainly would. However, I believe there is one piece of canon... can I have this wand for a moment, please? Thank you." Faith waved Neri's wand towards the main sail and the words appeared: ------------------------------------------ GoF, Ch. 30: "D'you - d'you know why my scar's hurting me?" Dumbledore looked very intently at Harry for a moment, and then said, "I have a theory, no more than that... It is my belief that your scar hurts both when Lord Voldemort is near you, and when he is feeling a particularly strong surge of hatred." "But... why?" "Because you and he are connected by the curse that failed," said Dumbledore. "That is no ordinary scar." ------------------------------------------- "So it is the CURSE that connects them," Said Faith, returning Neri his wand. "It means that the mind link must be caused by the CURSE. And DD should know if, as you claim, Snape told him everything about the mind link". "Er..." Said Neri, "you have a point there, but..." There was a noise of rushing water from the engine room. The lightning bolt crack was getting longer... and wider... "And this means," added Faith, "that Snape is NOT mind linked, because he doesn't have a scar on his head, as far as we know, and Neville doesn't either." "Well..." Neri tried to think but the noise of water rushing into the engine room became louder, drowning his thoughts. "Oh, excellent, we're there!" said Faith as the ship just made it to the dock with a gentle bump. She rose out of the beach chair and discarded her life belt. "And there's George coming to meet us. Good, I really need a drink. Now, I wonder if Nora's here..." "But... wait just a moment!" Neri jumped down into the engine room and landed splashing in knee-high water. The lightning bolt crack was quite wide now, and the water was rising quickly. There must be a way to plug it! Think-think-think... He felt Mind-Linked!Snape Mk.1 slowly, very slowly sinking under his feet. Outside on the deck he could hear Faith saying: "Hello George, nice to see you. Could you kindly give me a hand and help me ashore? These high heels, you know... Oh, GEORGE, that was really gallant of you, thank you!" "Wait!" called Neri desperately. He was now in murky water up to his waist. "It's just a crack! I can fix that! I'm sure there's an explanation! Someway around it! It's only ONE sentence! You don't discard a beautiful theory because of one sentence! Dumbledore's a darn liar!! Even the MDDT said so!!!" The water was now up to his chest. He climbed to the sloping deck again, dripping water. Faith and George were already on their way to the Royal George. "WAIT!" Faith half-turned back. "Oh, Captain Neri, thank you for that afternoon cruise. It was most... interesting. And about the inspection," she gave a two seconds appraising look to the Mind-Linked!Snape Mk.1, which was now in water up to deck level. "After giving the matter my full consideration I'm sorry to say that your ship is not sea-worthy. But I'll be glad to inspect Mk.2, whenever you are ready. Bye!" Neri From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 21:57:14 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:57:14 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116374 My 2 knuts worth. I think Occlumency is like blocking hypnosis. It is using your mind to blocking someone from being able to hypnotize you. Thought blocking basically. Instead of being able to free associate one has control of ones thoughts and the places in the mind that can be accessible through hypnosis. What DD is able to do is like a form of hypnosis where you just talk to the person like a normal conversation. But it isn't a normal conversation; a skilled practitioner can put the other person into a trance without their knowing it, and do what they have to do with the person's subconscious mind. All the while the person doesn't know it is happening. Occlumency blocks this. Also I think that Occlumency gives a person the ability to block evil thoughts and so called *the devil made me do it* impulses. Tonks_op From martyb1130 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 13:57:10 2004 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:57:10 EDT Subject: Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116375 I've got a bunch of things to ask today. First on the list is the nasty Professor Umbridge. What is her status, what happend after she was taken by the rest of the creatures? Did she die or did she somehow return to the ministry? Following that, if she is gone is Harry now able to play Quidditch again? Now that she is gone he can get his broom and is able to play, correct? The last thing on my mind is the wizarding world and the muggle world. I was reading the OOTP last night and in chapter 29 it stated that 10 prisoners of Azkaban had broken out, and that Fudge had told the muggle minister to be aware. Do the muggles know that there is a wizarding world or not, because back in book two when Snape yelled at Harry and Ron for "risking the exposure of our world", now if they already know about wizards then there is no risk. Hopefully someone can clear this up for me, Brodeur From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 16:28:35 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:28:35 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: <20041024142354.33142.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116376 Magda Grantwich wrote: >if they had killed Peter, Sirius would >never have any proof that he was innocent. One of the things Sirius was convicted of 12 years ago was the murder of Peter, the Ministry would have trouble explaining the existence of the body of Peter Pettigrew that had only been dead for a few hours. But what the idiot Ministry thinks or does not think is not the important point; without Peter's help Voldemort would never have been able to rise again and he would have remained an insubstantial specter, a danger only to rats and snakes in the forests of Albania. This is why stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing Wormtail was the biggest mistake in Harry's entire life. Eggplant From sdlangley at aol.com Sun Oct 24 18:43:42 2004 From: sdlangley at aol.com (sdlangley1) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:43:42 -0000 Subject: Professor McGonagall cont. In-Reply-To: <20041024181808.38971.qmail@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116377 > Kethryn wrote: > I thought AHHA Athena...she has an owl. And then I thought, > nah, no one will get it so I looked up Athena's Roman counterpart. > Rather to my surprise, her Roman counterpart is (drum roll please) > Minerva. So now we have our very own resident Goddess at Hogwarts. > > Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. What do you all make > of it? Griffin782002: > Em... Perhaps this is an indication that she is wise. I just found this reference this past week: Galadriel Waters' Book 1~Chapter 1 Analysis-Rowlinguistics: "For Minerva McGonagall's name, J.K.R. uses alliteration, a technique she obviously liks a lot. Minerva is the Roman name for Athena, the Greek goddess of learing, wisdom, war, and crafts. Athena also just happens to have a famed reputation for morphing herself and others into clever disguises. Her symbols are the owl and the olive tree. We can assume that Minerva McGonagall is intelligent and a formidable opponent, and she is likely to be proud of her clan. (p.11)" Susan From barbfulton at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 19:17:29 2004 From: barbfulton at yahoo.com (Barb Fulton) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:17:29 -0000 Subject: Fountain of the Magical Brethen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116378 john paul velasco wrote: > > I have a question about the Fountain of the magical brethen in > the MoM. Why are merfolks not included in it? Is being a merfolk > a sickness like being a werewolf? Or are they (merfolks) treated > like magical creatures? Just wondering...thanks! Barb now: Don't know why there isn't a merfolk in the fountain. I assume there are so many magical beings, not all of them can be included in a fountain. However, I can give an answer to the next part of your question... According to FBaWtFT, merpeople have declined "being" status in favor of a "beast" classification (page 29). The history of the being and beast status is discussed at length in the introduction of FBAWTFT, where it lists the definition of a being as "any creature that has sufficient intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear part of the responsibility in shaping those laws." Both merpeople and centaurs were then labeled as beings. Centaurs rejected that classification and prefer to remain beasts. A year later, merpeople made the same request. Werewolves keep getting shunted from the Beast and Being divisions, and there is an office for Werewolf Support Services at the Being division, as well as a Werewolf Registry and Werewolf Capture Unit in the Beast division. This might be more information than you wanted. -Barb From kethryn at wulfkub.com Sun Oct 24 22:22:06 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:22:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World References: Message-ID: <007b01c4ba17$e79f2fc0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116379 >>Brodeur asked I've got a bunch of things to ask today. First on the list is the nasty Professor Umbridge. What is her status, what happend after she was taken by the rest of the creatures? Did she die or did she somehow return to >>the ministry? Kethryn now - who cares? Ok, here is a less flip answer (I hate that woman, can you tell?). It is canon that she ran off and no one knew where she went. For all we do know, she found some DEs to hang out with. I do tend to doubt that she went back to Fudge, not after the Ministry has finally admitted that they were being bullheaded, stupid, and wrong. Also, there are going to be a lot of wizarding parents who will have that woman on their sh*t list...Lee Jordan's parents for starters (he had detention with that sadist as well as Harry) so she isn't going to be able to go to most of her former student's parents for help, no matter what former student's parents thought about her new policies at Hogwarts. And she sure as heck will not be setting foot anywhere near 93 Diagon Alley anytime soon, not if she values her skin that is. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if she ran off to join the DEs though, she would definatly fit right in. Following that, if she is gone is Harry now able to play Quidditch again? Now that she is gone he can get his broom and is able to play, correct? Kethryn again - the ban would be lifted once that insane woman left, as would the rest of her insane policies. So I think we will see Harry, Ginny and Ron for sure on the team next year...which could be really interesting for the Shippers out there. The last thing on my mind is the wizarding world and the muggle world. I was reading the OOTP last night and in chapter 29 it stated that 10 prisoners of Azkaban had broken out, and that Fudge had told the muggle minister to be aware. Do the muggles know that there is a wizarding world or not, because back in book two when Snape yelled at Harry and Ron for "risking the exposure of our world", now if they already know about wizards then there is no risk. Hopefully someone can clear this up for me, Brodeur Kethryn one last time - Ever since Fudge notified the PM about Sirius' escape from Azkaban, I have just been under the assumption that the WW keeps the PM informed of what is going on. I assume that they have a working relationship...one head of state of a friendly (or at worst, neutral) coutry to another. The PM probably understands what letting the WW secret out will do to his world and so he keeps his mouth shut about the whole deal. Fudge, otoh, does not have the same concerns and, therefore, the relationship is not reciprical by any means... Hope that makes sense. Kethryn who is starting to wonder (for the gazillioneth time) why she though computer programming was such a good idea for a major! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 24 22:37:22 2004 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (scoutmom21113) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:37:22 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape Part IV: TBAY Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116380 Bookworm strolled down to the dock behind George to greet Faith and Neri. "Wait, Faith. I overheard the last part of your conversation and think I might have a bilge pump that will help Neri clean out his engine room." Neri grabbed George's arm as a wave rocked the dock. "Where is this pump?" "On Snape's arm." Neri's face brightened with hope at Bookworm's reply. "Who's arm?" demanded Faith. "Well, Neri pointed out that when Voldemort leaned over Harry in his crib, that Harry's forehead was the most likely place for him to touch with the curse," Bookworm explained. Faith looked impatient, eyeing the drinks being served to the couple sitting at one of the outside tables. "Yes, but I've already pointed out that Snape doesn't have a scar so what do you mean it's on his...Oh." Bookworm nodded. "Exactly. Snape doesn't have a scar but he does have a Dark Mark. And if Voldemort uses that Mark to call his Death Eaters, maybe he can use it in other ways that JKR hasn't told us about yet." Faith thought for a moment, then pulled George toward the bar. "Alright, hand that pump to Neri and let's see if it helps make that ship seaworthy. Now, George, about that drink..." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 22:53:15 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:53:15 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116381 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: snip. Also I think that Occlumency > gives a person the ability to block evil thoughts and so called *the > devil made me do it* impulses. > Alla: I just had a thought. Since I share the view that Snape is spying in the unconventional way, probably through Malfoy and therefore did not return directly to Voldemort himself, do you think that Snape can block the summoning as Occlumenc. Can Occlumency block the connection through the Dark mark? From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 24 23:01:45 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:01:45 EDT Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116382 Alla writes: > > Seriously though, I think Dumbledore had too much faith in Snape's > decency and the ability to put aside his grudges,when he enters > Harry's mind and sees what Harry's life was before Hogwarts... > > You know like in " who could not have sympathy for the boy". Alas. > I do think Dumbledore had too much faith in Snape's ability to put aside grudges, though I don't agree that Snape was lacking in decency during the Occlumency lessons. I also think Dumbledore had too much faith in Harry being able to put aside Voldemort's influence on his mind and devote himself to the Occlumency lessons *just* on DD's say so (i.e., without being given sufficient information on why the lessons were so critical). As for sympathy, I think Snape showed a glimmer of sympathy for Harry during the lessons, if simply by keeping his comments to a bare minimum. (From Snape, that's sympathy!). Given their past relationship, sympathy and understanding between the two would come in small steps and would take time to grow. Unfortunately, it was Harry who undid any small progress in that area by invading Snape's privacy. I'm not blaming Harry for the failure of the lessons, but he does bear a portion of the blame, along with Snape and Dumbledore. I also remain a little flummoxed that Dumbledore didn't bring that up when he spoke with Harry after the MoM incident, but it may be because Harry was already suffering enough self-recrimination over the death of Sirius. Whatever Snape's failures during the Occlumency lessons, Harry had a few of his own. Deep inside he knows that, but it's easier to blame Snape for it all than to heap any more pain upon himself at the moment. Here's an interesting question to consider: If Harry hadn't delved into Snape's private memories, how would the Occlumency lessons have eventually concluded? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 23:13:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:13:40 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116383 Juli: > I do think Dumbledore had too much faith in Snape's ability to put > aside grudges, though I don't agree that Snape was lacking in > decency during the Occlumency lessons. I also think Dumbledore > had too much faith in Harry being able to put aside Voldemort's > influence on his mind and devote himself to the Occlumency lessons > *just* on DD's say so (i.e., without being given sufficient information > on why the lessons were so critical). Alla: Of course, Dumbledore did put too much faith in everything, BUT forgive me for saying that again, but Harry IS 15 and Snape is his most hated teacher. I submit that it was more realistic to expect Snape to put aside his grudges than to expect Harry to put aside his mistrust of Snape that Snape largely contributed to. And yes, definitely, G-d only knows how many times I wanted to slap Dumbledore during OOP and especially at the end of OOP. Juli: > As for sympathy, I think Snape showed a glimmer of sympathy > for Harry during the lessons, if simply by keeping his comments to > a bare minimum. (From Snape, that's sympathy!). snip. Alla: Maybe you are right. Juli: Whatever Snape's failures during the > Occlumency lessons, Harry had a few of his own. Alla: Yes, he did. I just think that they are uncomparable to Snape and Dumbledore ones. Julie: > Here's an interesting question to consider: If Harry hadn't > delved into Snape's private memories, how would the > Occlumency lessons have eventually concluded? Alla: Good question. Personally I think that Snape would have found one reason or another to stop them. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 23:50:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:50:59 -0000 Subject: Harry and Cedric. Was: Re: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116384 > Del replies : > 2. You shot yourself in the foot with that quote. Harry himself says > that he wouldn't have left his wort enemy face the dragons unprepared. > So that doesn't say anything about the way Harry saw Cedric. Alla: I think it does say that harry did not see Cedric as his enemy > Del replies : > That was at the end of the year, when he had realised that Cedric was > a very decent and good guy through and through. Alla: So he did realised it, right? See, that is what matters for me. Harry overcame his feelings of jealousy, which I did not find THAT horrible in the first place. > Del: > In this paragraph, Harry not only admits that he never quite liked > Diggory for *futile* reasons, but he even allows himself to paint a > totally inaccurate and negative picture of someone who is a totally > decent guy. snip. it's quite obvious that he is simply unable > to have an objective opinion of Snape. Alla: OK, Del. Harry is guilty as charged, I concede. He "allowed himself" to get a negative picture of the boy, who was going out with the girl he liked. I was not saying that Harry has objective opinion of Snape . I was saying that harry is able to SEE many ACTIONS of Snape, which are objective and based on which we as readers are able to form quite objective opinion of Snape ( of course such opinion can change when new answers will be revealed) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 00:05:50 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:05:50 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116385 Oh, Neri. Wonderful job , absolutely wonderful. This is coming from someone who loves to read TBAY and hopes that she understands it, but cannot write it. I think more people will read it, if you completely divide TBAY-mode and non-TBAY mode. I think Bookworm already suggested the solution for the Dark mark to be a possible link. I love that, but I am also fond of your idea that Dumbledore could be lying , or let's put it this way "withholding information", because we are still to catch Dumbledore on direct lying, right? At the same time we KNOW that Dumbledore is not telling the real reason why He did not kill Voldie at MOM. So, yes, I think Dumbledore is not syaing something. I just wanted to add that I still think that Snape is playing with Lucius for some reasons. Maybe he indeed does both - spies on Voldemort through mind link and through Malfoy too. Oh, maybe you are right and "Malfoy lap dog" is a misdirection. I think my post is suspiciously smelling of "Me too", but I cannot help it. I love it and I am looking forward to discuss it further. From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 01:54:43 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:54:43 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part II) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116386 Great post(s) Neri, very enlightening, even if it wasn't in the way you intended it to be interpreteted. I snipped to what was most prominent to me, which is: Neri terribly snipped: [12] It is Snape who first explains to Harry that the mind link is bi-directional. (OotP, Ch. 24): "The important point is that the Dark Lord is now aware that you are gaining access to his thoughts and feelings. He has also deduced that the process is likely to work in reverse; that is to say, he has realised that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return." Snow: Voldemort never was able to realize any of Harry's thoughts or feelings in the same respect that Harry was allotted to view his. I believe it was Dumbledore who pointed out to Harry that Voldemort, realizing that Harry was capable of reading Voldy's emotions, obsessed in thinking of the Ministry in his own mind, which Harry sensed and was directed by. Voldemort never entered Harry's mind with these thoughts but realizing the boy's capabilities purposely caused himself to dwell on what he intended Harry to see, such as Sirius being tortured. Voldemort knew he couldn't access Harry's mind but that Harry could access his. If this were as you propose a mind link then it would surely work both ways, but it doesn't. As I see it this is one of Harry's greatest strengths or abilities that Voldemort does not have and can never succeed at, possessing Harry successfully mind or body. It is a one-sided link. This link has become significantly stronger since Voldy's bodily return as well as Harry's recognition and interpretation of the linkage to Voldemort's feelings except where it had concerned Sirius. Harry's love for Sirius clouded his true interpretive vision. Harry had previously told Ron about each instance, where his scar hurt, where he had seen Voldemort interact with someone in his minds view and the true circumstances surrounding Voldemort's feelings at the time Harry had felt the pain. One of the instances is where Harry had suspected that Umbridge might be a death- eater because she had grabbed him and his scar seared with pain, in retrospect Harry realized what Voldemort was feeling at that very moment and that it was not ultimately the touch of Umbridge that gave Harry that feeling but Voldemort's feeling of happiness. Looking back at each instance when Harry's scar had hurt him he was able to account for the reason Voldemort felt as he did. Then there was the vision of Sirius that was like a dream you awake to that just seemed so real that no one could talk you out of it. The evidence as submitted by Hermione was conclusive that Voldemort was luring Harry but Harry was steadfast in his convictions and proceeded as wholeheartedly as he had done during the second task in the Goblet of Fire. Harry's profound caring for someone, even those he does not personally know; Gabrielle, become intensified in do-or-die situations. Harry's steadfastness can be criticized as stupidity or realized as one of the remaining attributes that were inherited by Lily's sacrifice; unconditional love. There is no right or wrong with unconditional love and sacrifice for it because it is unconditional. Some people condemn this type of sacrificial attribute as stupidity while others admire the selflessness of the act. To become benevolent to the degree of others feelings especially when they are not reciprocated is taking humility to its highest regard. Only through this type of humility will you find everlasting truth. Harry only needs to recognize the strengths that are his endurance. In conclusion I find that Snape's remark to Harry is nothing more than unfounded speculation or misdirection on Snape's behalf as usual, as is the statement that it is up to Snape to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his death-eaters. Not what the Dark Lord is doing but rather what he is saying to his death-eaters which Snape takes pause at before answering smugly; yes, it is. Snape doesn't have a special link to Voldy but he does have a link to one of the persons that does and that person is standing in front of him; it's Harry. So Snape is not lying in this circumstance anymore than Dumbledore does with own evasive answering. Snow From tinainfay at msn.com Mon Oct 25 02:18:10 2004 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:18:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116387 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Alla wrote : > "Oh, I disagree with that logic, Pippin. It reminds me of "Harry is an > unreilable narrator" argument, when it comes to Snape. > > I think personally that the importance of such argument is GREATLY > exaggerated. Sure, Harry is quite an unreliable narrator in PS/SS, > because he is eleven and because Snape had been cleverly set up as > villain by the author. > > But with every book Harry's POV is widening and he is noticing more > and more things, so after OOP to me Harry is quite reliable." > > Del replies : > Personally, I can't quite get over the fact that Harry let his own > jealousy blind him to Cedric's very obvious goodness in GoF. > As for OoP, Harry was way too deep in his anger and resentment for me > to trust his judgement on anything or anyone. > Add to that the fact that Harry has always disliked Snape right from > the first day, and I am more than cautious in accepting his > interpretation of anything Snape does, even though I do believe that > Snape is mean and nasty. > > Del In PS/SS Quirrel responds to Harry's bewilderment that Quirrell is the one trying to steal the stone instead of Snape "yes, he does seem the sort." (or something similar-oh, I guess that was in response to Quirrel's trying to kill Harry on the broom) and in GOF when Barty Crouch Jr, under the influence of veritaserum, comments that Harry thought it was Barty Crouch Sr searching Snape's office because Sr. was after dark wizards. I would say that Harry's POV concerning Snape is very skewed and almost always inaccurate. In every book Harry's gotten it wrong. Ron is also always trying to indict Snape for whatever evil is going on (Ron lacks credibility in my mind) and Hermione is the one who is always reminding them that they have consistently gotten it wrong and that Snape was trying to save them. Let's hope Hermione's POV stays on focus... Of course, now that I've read threads about Hermione's and DD's impure motives I'll question what they have to say more so than in the previous books. ~tina From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 25 02:18:51 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:18:51 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116388 Alla wrote: > > Actually, we don't necessarily differ on this one. You see, I am > HAPPY when Snape does the right thing. I WANT to believe the best of him. The thing is - he dissapoints me oh so often. :o) Potioncat: Keep in mind that when he does the right thing, he makes it look like the wrong thing. Or at least doesn't make it clear what he is doing. For example, being a ref in the Quidditch game. BTW, I think there is still something we haven't been told about that. But I am sure he went into the forest, swearing at the top of his lungs, sending the dark, wee beasties scampering for their lives. >>Alla: > > If Dumbledore said to Harry : "Professor Snape WENT to forest to > search for you". I would not question it for a minute. > > Just as you see ambiguity in the smashed flask scene, I think that > the word INTENDED used here for a reason. Potioncat: I accept your interpretation of INTENDED because I feel that once anyone has produced a different way of reading a section, that the question is valid. After all, we've learned not to trust things. Just like none of us would accept candy from the Weasley twins, we're not too quick to take things at face value. However, here is how I read it. It is a matter of tense. DD is explaining the situation at one particular moment. Snape asked for a group to go look at MoM, he asked for Black to stay at HQ, and he intended to go search the forest. At that moment, that was everyone's plan.(Aurors go to MoM, Black stays put, Snape looks in the forest.) The only reason I could think of for DD to use intended to mean "planned to but didn't" would be to skirt the truth. Not that he's never done that before. As if DD spoke to Snape prior to talking to Harry,"Severus, what did you find in the forest?" "Well, Headmaster, I intended to go, but I had to wash my hair first and by the time I was done I found out that Potter really was at the MoM." >>>Alla: > What Dumbledore's quote are you talking about? I remember this > one "he informed the Order as soon as possible about what you had > just said" - OOP, p.833 > > But yes, I remember seeing "immediately" in the other context, I > just cannot find it right now. > > I guess this refers to still unknown to us the means of > communications between Members of OOP Potioncat: It seems he said that when Harry did not return Snape contacted the Order immediately. Sorry, don't have quote here. I take all this to be JKR speaking through DD to say that Snape acted in an appropriate manner. DD is assuring Harry that Snape is trustworthy and did do his job. From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 25 02:24:15 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:15 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: snip > without Peter's help Voldemort would never > have been able to rise again and he would have remained an > insubstantial specter, a danger only to rats and snakes in the > forests of Albania. This is why stopping Sirius and Lupin from > killing Wormtail was the biggest mistake in Harry's entire life. > > Eggplant imamommy: I respectfully disagree. If Harry had not stopped Sirius and Lupin, not only would they have become killers, but Harry would have Peter's blood on his conscience. We've seen how Harry has reacted to the idea of his killing Voldemort, and if he doesn't deserve it noone does. It's not like Harry says, "Let me call the Knight Bus for you, Wormtail, so you can go find your mate Moldy Voldy." No, the plan to hand him over to the Dementors is the wisest course in Harry's mind. It's not his fault the plan goes so terribly wrong. Never does Harry seem to regret not killing Wormtail. I think it would have left Harry with a guilt that he would not have been able to get over. Harry may make a lot of mistakes, but he can't become what Voldemort is: he can't become a cold-blooded killer. Because then we would just be swapping Harry for Voldemort. Additionally, I do think having set Peter free will be to Harry's benefit in the end, though maybe not in a conventional way. The other point I would like to make is that I think Voldemort would have made it back, eventually, one way or the other. Yes, Wormtail helped him, but he would have managed eventually with or without him. Because even a shred of VM had survived, it was inevitable that the WW would have to deal with him. Let's get it on. imamommy From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 25 02:39:15 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:39:15 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part II) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116390 ?Neri: >[8] Snape to Harry during Occlumency: "You are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters" (OotP, Ch. 26). Snape saying that Harry isnot special and not important seems preposterous, considering that they both know Harry is mind-linked with Voldemort. < Pippin: Of course it's preposterous! This is one of Snape's favorite interrogation techniques. Whenever he comes out with one of these whoppers (GoF reminds us that the spy 'lives in disguise and tells only lies), Harry obligingly thinks of the truth, thus exposing it to Snape's enquiring mind. Snape may know about the Prophecy, but Harry is not supposed to--this is Snape's way of finding out if Harry's question was innocent or whether he knows more about what's in the DoM than he appears to. Pippin who thinks mind-linked Snape is a cool idea, but too Snape-centered to pan out From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Oct 25 03:09:21 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:09:21 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > I do think Dumbledore had too much faith in Snape's ability to put > aside grudges, though I don't agree that Snape was lacking in > decency during the Occlumency lessons. I also think Dumbledore > had too much faith in Harry being able to put aside Voldemort's > influence on his mind and devote himself to the Occlumency lessons > *just* on DD's say so (i.e., without being given sufficient information > on why the lessons were so critical). > Well, I think there is something else going on here. I'm inclined to take Dumbledore at his word about Occlumency and his reasons. He trusts Snape, and we now see that one of his weaknesses is his trust blinds him, at times, to unpleasant realities. He also is desperate to protect Harry, and therefore probably is somewhat in denial as to the possibilities of Harry "opening up" and trusting Snape. However, I also think he saw this as a chance to *finally* get them to see each other at least a little differently. I'm not suggesting he manipulated the situation so that would occur, but given the necessity for Harry to learn Occlumency and his belief that Snape had to be the teacher, he probably thought that the deep visions of each other's minds would lead to a lessening of the tension between them. I think his desire to effect something like this contributed to his unrealistic hopes. Lupinlore From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 03:43:05 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:43:05 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape Part IV: TBAY Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116392 It was already dark on the dock outside the Royal George, and the cheerful voices of the guests inside didn't do much to improve Captain Neri's mood. He was sweating profusely, working a bilge pump trying to float the Mind-Linked!Snape, which was sunk up to its deck near the dock. Ravenclaw Bookworm and Alla went outside to join Neri. "How is it going?" asked Bookworm in sympathy. "Not very well", confided Neri. "I can pump a lot of water with it, but as long as the crack is still down there it doesn't help much." "We thought you might be hungry by now," said Alla and offered a plate. "We brought you some HUMBLE PIE from the bar". "Thanks, the acronym isn't exactly fitting but I can't be choosy right now." Neri accepted the plate, sat on the edge of the deck and started to eat. Bookworm and Alla joined him. "It's the scar, you see", he explained to them between bites. "I was never satisfied with the usual explanation. A rebounded killing curse creates a mind link... it sounds so arbitrary. So I tried to explain the mind link in a different way, but it's not working very well, even if Snape does have a mark. You see, DD says it is the curse that connects Harry and Voldemort. THIS is my problem. So if the curse was used by Voldemort to transfer his powers to Harry, why did it strip Voldemort out of his body when it rebounded? And if it was indeed a killing curse, why did it forge a mind link? In any case, it is not likely to be something that Voldemort did to Snape. And in order for Mind-Linked!Snape to work, Voldemort must not realize that Snape is still linked." "Now, I can easily plug this darn crack and save the whole theory," continued Neri. "All it takes is asserting that DD told Harry (and us) a little white lie. I won't be the first or the second in TBAY to resort to this excuse. And DD certainly has a very good reason to tell Harry this little lie. In order to save Snape's life he must protect the secret of Snape's mind-link from Voldy, and Harry is a potential leak to Voldy. And besides, JKR has to keep the secret from us." Neri took another bite from the HUMBLE PIE. "Faith won't like the explanation of DD lying to us, but as long as the theory is watertight, she can do her "tsk tsk" the whole inspection, but she'll have to approve it. Who cares about what this squeamish, goody-goody girl thinks anyway?!" Bookworm and Alla exchanged looks and didn't say anything. "On the other hand," continued Neri, "it's always more fun building a new theory than defending an old one. I think I can scrap some good parts from the Mk.1 for the new design." He looked around him and noticed the pump again. On its arm was etched a small red skull with a snake coming out of its mouth. "This also looks like a handy piece of equipment. D'you think George will notice if I borrow it?" Neri From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 24 22:38:18 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:38:18 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116393 > Magda Grantwich wrote: > >if they had killed Peter, Sirius would > >never have any proof that he was innocent. Eggplant replied: > without Peter's help Voldemort would never have been able > to rise again and he would have remained an insubstantial specter, > a danger only to rats and snakes in the forests of Albania. This > is why stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing Wormtail was the > biggest mistake in Harry's entire life. Now barmaid: While it is my first inclination to agree that a dead Peter at this point in the story could have *prevented* a Voldy-back-in-a-body from happening -- this really is a flawed way of thinking. All a dead Peter in the Shrieking Shack would do is change something about how Voldy gets a body. Always dangerous to think that if you (or anyone) had just done one thing different the world would be good and safe and happy today. Of course, I still do this kind of thinking myself all the time. But *really*, predicting alternate futures is a very inexact science at best. --barmaid From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 02:05:04 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:05:04 -0000 Subject: Re [HPforGrownups] Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116394 Brodeur martyb1130 at aol.com wrote: >I've got a bunch of things to ask today. First on the list is the >nasty Professor Umbridge. What is her status, what happend after >she was taken by the rest of the creatures? Did she die or did she >somehow return to the ministry? Once Dumbledore got back to Hogwarts he went alone to get her, the trio actually sees her in the infirmary after the battle of MoM. Dumbledore *ordered* Fudge to fire her. When she was leaving in the middle of dinner, Peeves followed and hit her with MM's cane. >Following that, if she is gone is Harry now able to play Quidditch >again? Now that she is gone he can get his broom and is able to play, >correct? YES, Ginny in OoP says something about this, I can't remember the exact words but she said once Umbridge was gone he'll get his old place back. >The last thing on my mind is the wizarding world and the muggle >world. I was reading the OOTP last night and in chapter 29 it stated >that 10 prisoners of Azkaban had broken out, and that Fudge had told >the muggle minister to be aware. Do the muggles know that there is a >wizarding world or not, because back in book two when Snape yelled at >Harry and Ron for "risking the exposure of our world", now if they >already know about wizards then there is no risk. The muggle Prime Minister does know about the witch world, Fudge told him in PoA that Sirius Black had escaped from Azkaban and was extremely dangerous, Harry even heard about it in the muggle news, they did not say however he was a witch, they just said he was armed and dangerous. Death Eaters and Voldemort like killing muggles, it's like a past-time, so of course muggles have to be aware of them.... And no, they have no idea about the witch world, Arthur Weasley even says they couldn't tell magic if it was in front of them. I hope this clear things up for you a bit. Juli From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 08:14:28 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:14:28 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116395 I really like this mind-link theory with Snape. Yes, the Dark Mark could very well serve as the link - (honest, if Voldemort can do this with one person, why would he use ONLY one? Surely having MORE people similarly linked does more good than just one?) And besides, "You of all people should have known...", and the Mark reacts to Voldemort's strenght etc. Such a mindlink is also very effective and secure method of communication. No outsider is to get it! AND it also explains nicely why Harry's scar burned ONLY during the moment Snape's eyes were on his. Possibly Voldy was taking over Snape AGAIN at that time, if only briefly, in order to attempt/do Legilimens on Harry, seeking information for what went wrong that night. (Quirrell can't do legilimens) Of course, as Harry knew nothing of it, no memories came up. Just one thing: I think it's possible that Voldemort *knows* of it, but decieves Snape to think he doesn't - so he can feed false information trough Snape as well! If he did it with Harry, why not Snape as well? Anyway, I think the mind-link is a combination of both transfer-potion (no doubt including blood) and a curse. First, the potion puts the copy of the powers into that another person - (as Polyjuice Potion with appearance). If Voldemort were only to possess, he could do it and keep the powers, only Lily's love & sacrifice prevents it. (He's may have done this with all his DEs, or possibly only Snape.) However, the Potion has a side-effect: combined with a scar-leaving curse, it creates a mind-link connection. To say the curse made the connection, would be a simplification, not a lie. Dumbledore may have thought that Snape could help Harry to block that mind-link, having done something very similar himself. He was wrong. Despite the similarities, Harry's connection IS different because the curse and the scar is different. Snape's mark was made deliberately, with intent and by *mind*, whereas Harry's scar is a result of *emotion*, and certainly not what was intended. Harry&Snape's block-Voldemort-programs are such opposites, due to the different curse, that trying to practice with Snape IS making things worse. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 08:44:16 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:44:16 -0000 Subject: Re [HPforGrownups] Umbridge was:(Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116396 Juli: > Once Dumbledore got back to Hogwarts he went alone to get her, the > trio actually sees her in the infirmary after the battle of MoM. > Dumbledore *ordered* Fudge to fire her. When she was leaving in the > middle of dinner, Peeves followed and hit her with MM's cane. Finwitch: You know, being that Dumbledore saved her life from the Centaurs... she now owes Dumbledore a life-debt. I'm a bit curious as to how that might come into play, or if it will, or if it does, will Harry know about it before the end-of-year - discussion? Finwitch From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 25 09:27:18 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:27:18 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part I: TBAY introduction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116397 On the beach a pile of flotsam, surrounded by Butterbeer empties and the ripe smell of unwashed feet stirred gently. Slowly there emerged a disreputable figure clad in a polyester suit, its lapels liberally bemedalled with the remains of lunches long past. Kneasy (for it is he), squinted in the overly bright sunshine of a new day. "Are they open yet?" he croaked, "I need a transfusion." He lurched to his feet, severely hampered by a mucus- beribboned child clamped firmly to his left leg - Snape!Son. Kneasy slowly scanned the Bay, hoping for diversion and entertainment. Things had been quiet for too long. "Gawd! What's that?" He peered at a new vessel, still covered in workmen and valiantly making for a safe harbour. "What's it's name?" He couldn't quite make it out in the glare of the light on the water. "Hey! It's about your dad!" he looked down at the drooling tot coterminus with his knee-cap. "There's been whispers about something new coming out. Better get down there and see what's going on. Might be some money in it. Could this be Voldy And Snape Share A Link - the VASSAL vessel?" From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 10:18:15 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:18:15 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116398 Eggplant: > One of the things Sirius was convicted of 12 years ago was the > murder of Peter, the Ministry would have trouble explaining the > existence of the body of Peter Pettigrew that had only been dead for > a few hours. But what the idiot Ministry thinks or does not think is > not the important point; without Peter's help Voldemort would never > have been able to rise again and he would have remained an > insubstantial specter, a danger only to rats and snakes in the > forests of Albania. This is why stopping Sirius and Lupin from > killing Wormtail was the biggest mistake in Harry's entire life. Finwitch: We can't know that! It's like that old story -good thing, bad thing, who can say... So... Harry saved the rat's life. He's *very* happy as Sirius, now believing he'll be free, offers Harry a home. The rat escapes. Still, just a bit later, the thought of *going to live with Sirius* gives him just enough time to realise it was *him* saving them from the Dementors, barely saving himself from the KISS. (I doubt Harry could have done that if PP *had* been killed there!) Then the rat helps Voldemort make the potion - which does two things: Gives Voldy a body AND makes him mortal. We have yet to see where this leads. Still, without the hope of getting to live with Sirius(who wouldn't have been thinking himself as a free man with the rat dead) and with the guilt over Pettigrew's death - Harry wouldn't have been able to save himself, Hermione, Ron, Snape and Sirius from Dementors, and at least Harry would have lost his soul, ending up like Crouch Jr. Voldemort could have gained another servant (Crouch Jr for instance), and getting blood from Kissed!Harry would be all TOO easy, I think. Shudder to think that ever happening, but that IS what I see as a result if Harry had permitted Sirius&Lupin to kill the rat... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 10:59:21 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:59:21 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116399 > Del replies : > OK, this I agree with. I also think it would be out of character *for > Harry* to commit suicide. Considering everything we know about him, I > personally think that suicide is not an option Harry would even think > of. He might accept to give up his life, like he did in OoP, but I > don't think he would consider the idea of ending his own life. In my > idea, he would rather leave the country and go far away, where nobody > knows him, but he wouldn't just give up. That's not his type. IMHO, of > course. Finwitch: Still, Harry might, while not suicide, generate some sort of deathwish and go out seeking for Voldemort instead of waiting at 4, Privet Drive. That would be more Harry's style, wouldn't it? Looking for Voldemort. It would be funny if Harry kept calling out for Voldemort by name - and deem him a coward for not answering any time he felt himself getting angry. Not in Harry's character really - but there might be some sort of inventive spell to make him do so! Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 25 11:47:40 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:47:40 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: But what the idiot Ministry thinks or does not think is > not the important point; without Peter's help Voldemort would never have been able to rise again and he would have remained an insubstantial specter, a danger only to rats and snakes in the forests of Albania. This is why stopping Sirius and Lupin from killing Wormtail was the biggest mistake in Harry's entire life.< Pippin: What about the second prophecy? "It will happen tonight [...] the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master." One of the marks of a real prophecy is that you can't prevent it from coming true by killing one of the actors in it -- ask Oedipus. If JKR wants us to believe that the prophecy is real, she is eventually going to have to show us that killing Pettigrew that night would have unchained another of Voldemort's servants and would not have delayed his return one bit. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 25 12:03:29 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:03:29 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part I: TBAY introduction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116401 Kneasy wrote: > > "Hey! It's about your dad!" he looked down at the drooling tot > coterminus with his knee-cap. "There's been whispers about > something new coming out. Better get down there and see > what's going on. Might be some money in it. Could this be > Voldy And Snape Share A Link - the VASSAL vessel?" Potioncat: First a question from a different post on this thread. What is HUMBLE PIE? Can't find it in the data base or missed it in earlier post. I like VASSAL vessel...Danny Kaye (Court Jester) could do something with that...the vessel that's called VASSAL has the brew that is true... I'm not sure about this new theory, but I agree with this, there is a very close similarity between the Dark Mark on Snape's wrist and the scar on Harry's head. We see DD connecting the two in the Pensieve in GoF. And we've seen Snape reacting as if his scar hurt even before we knew he had a scar. Let's see "The scar with the snake has the link you can't break. The scar with the bolt is one with the jolt... Potioncat (speaking of jolts, where my coffee?) From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 12:26:48 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:26:48 -0000 Subject: THEORY: Unifying Occlumency Theory/Ollivander? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116402 Frugakarugala: > > I'm trying to conform Dumbledore's more... questionable... actions in > regards to the school and Harry with what we know about occlumency > and legilimency, rather than writing it off to his being either evil, > random, reactionary or just nuts. I don't think relaxation enters > into it. I think that at least three of the four known occlumens > having (prosumably) abusive backgrounds suggests that it's a closed- > off, defensive frame of mind thing, and going on from there, that > they're trying to manipulate Draco (and the rest of the Slytherins) > into being trusting of Snape, basically tenderizing him for easier > brain-picking. We've got a bunch of cannon behaviors which *must* be > constructive somehow to the plot. Finwitch: In Harry's case, at least, it's *emotions* that help him resist. It's in *anger* that he resists Dursleys, for instance. Even as early as the first book, particularly in the letter scene, but with Aunt Marge it is most clear. And as he's getting angry at Snape during the O-lessons, not only does Harry block Snape, but returns the spell instantly. (Much like with the AK that Halloween night...) The reason why Harry's not willing to jump on the desk is emotionally similar to his over-night-growing hair... Interestingly, Snape keeps telling him to practice *ridding* himself of emotions. That may help Snape do it, but for Harry, it just makes things WORSE. BTW, I find it entirely possible that Mr Ollivander is a Legimens of sorts, and a good one at that. I mean, with the requirement of usual eye-contact. With just about any other character, we're told things about hair, body-build and clothes - eyes are referenced not all that often. With Mr Ollivander, his large, pale and misty *eyes* that Harry finds creepy get *lots* of attention. He also doesn't need introduction. He's the second person to say Harry has his mother's eyes (then he goes on about the wands). Ollivander says nothing about Harry looking like his father like most people... He just KNOWS so much, and not just about wands! Anyway, I also think Ollivander is blind by Muggle standards, but he can sense magic, and detect every detail in a wand. In fact, he recognises people by their wands, I think, and the wand tells him more of a person than what others can detect by looks. If he's not using Legilemency to find out a person's name, that is. He's so subtle with it that the person his searching doesn't even feel he's being X-rayed... Finwitch From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 25 13:07:16 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:07:16 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > What about the second prophecy? "It will happen tonight [...] the > servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master." One of > the marks of a real prophecy is that you can't prevent it from > coming true by killing one of the actors in it -- ask Oedipus. > > If JKR wants us to believe that the prophecy is real, she is > eventually going to have to show us that killing Pettigrew that > night would have unchained another of Voldemort's servants and > would not have delayed his return one bit. > Unless of course, the Prophecy doesn't refer to Peter at all. It's Sirius, off to spend some time in the sun on a beach in Albania - along with his master. Kneasy From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Oct 25 13:16:25 2004 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:16:25 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116404 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" wrote: > > What I wonder is, how long will Lucius put up with this? It's got to occur to him he could do a better job as villain than that slit- eyed nut job whose robe he has to kiss. He was content to bide his time before, being comfortably monied up and all, but now his "leader" has landed him in the can. This isn't what I signed up for, Lucius moans. > > I fear Lucius. He's smarter, colder, and crueler. He's sanely evil, a successful psychopath. He would have offed Harry the minute he got the blood he needed in GoF. He'll know how to hurt Harry, and he will if he can. I'd like him to stay locked up, but he won't. > Well, unlike RW where power is always political (i.e., dependent on acceptance by others), in the Potterverse power is substantive - Voldemort is *more powerful* than Lucius, regardless of political support. Moreover, because he is (semi?) immortal, in the long run he can never be beaten. Which necessarily makes him the victor in any power struggle that might arise between him and somebody else. So, no way is Lucius ever going to set himself against Voldemort. Naama From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Oct 25 13:22:28 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:22:28 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part I: TBAY introduction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116405 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > First a question from a different post on this thread. What is > HUMBLE PIE? Can't find it in the data base or missed it in earlier > post. > Kneasy: How Umbridge Modernises Badness/Light Enquiries, Percy Is Potentially Evil According to Inish Alley. How this fits in with a Snape/Voldy connection is a bit of a puzzler to me. Maybe I'm thick. Potioncat: > I like VASSAL vessel...Danny Kaye (Court Jester) could do something > with that...the vessel that's called VASSAL has the brew that is > true... > Kneasy: You might be a bit premature.... which acronym to adopt is the prerogative of the originator of the theory it refers to. I just made the suggestion as the original post admitted not being too happy at playing around with a language not his own and welcomed ideas. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 25 14:15:25 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:15:25 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116406 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" wrote: > > What I wonder is, how long will Lucius put up with this? It's got to occur to him he could do a better job as villain than that slit-eyed nut job whose robe he has to kiss. He was content to bide his time before, being comfortably monied up and all, but now his "leader" has landed him in the can. This isn't what I signed up for, Lucius moans.< Oh, Lucius doesn't want power. Lucius wants *influence.* He has no interest at all in directing the army of clerks that is the Ministry. What he wants is for them to put L. Malfoy at the head of the line for everything that he requires. If Voldemort is not up to snuff as Dark Lord, perhaps someone else will shortly find the support of Lucius Malfoy an aid to their rise to power. Pippin From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 14:48:29 2004 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:48:29 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116407 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" > wrote: > > > > > What I wonder is, how long will Lucius put up with this? It's got > to occur to him he could do a better job as villain than that > slit-eyed nut job whose robe he has to kiss. He was content to > bide his time before, being comfortably monied up and all, but > now his "leader" has landed him in the can. This isn't what I > signed up for, Lucius moans.< > > Oh, Lucius doesn't want power. Lucius wants *influence.* He > has no interest at all in directing the army of clerks that is the > Ministry. What he wants is for them to put L. Malfoy at the head > of the line for everything that he requires. > > If Voldemort is not up to snuff as Dark Lord, perhaps someone > else will shortly find the support of Lucius Malfoy an aid to their > rise to power. Something like the German industrialists during the Nazi era? Good point. If Lucius doesn't seek to supercede Voldemort, that's the reason. > Pippin From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Mon Oct 25 16:04:23 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:04:23 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116408 There are many minor reasons why the Occlumency lessons failed, Snape's or Harry's attitude, bad teaching methods (Snape), not practicing (Harry). IMO the main reason the lessons failed was that Harry's curiousity was tweaked before the lessons began. Harry had been dreaming about the corridor for months before Arthur's attack indicating the need for lessons. I think they would have failed even if DD was teaching. Harry has an enormous need to delve into the unknown when his curiousity was peaked. Even Voldemort knows this fact about Harry, and initially used his mind-sharing to give Harry a compulsion to get the prophesy from the MOM. Harry did not want to stop the dreams. -kmc From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 25 16:53:35 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:53:35 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Traits Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116409 Not long ago there was or perhaps still is a thread about Slytherin relationships. Could a Slytherin love? Who would/would not make a good mate? Slytherin/Hufflepuff, S/Ravenclaw, etc. It seemed that answers often depended on the poster's personal view of what an individual from a particular House would be like. Ravenclaws were sometimes referred to as Nerds although I don't picture Ravenclaw as a House of Nerds. I realized that we don't all see the Houses in the same way. But then I started thinking, based on the traits we're given by reliable sources in the books, do the House members really fit the description? Not on the level of "Does Peter really belong in Gryffindor?" but more, do the students in general fit the description of their House? I was thinking mainly of the Slytherins, because of the thread that inspired this idea, but it could be any House. So I pulled up the quotes I could recall just about Slytherin House. I ignored the students on the train and Hagrid as sources. And this is what I found for Slytherin traits. (BTW, ambition wasn't one that I came across. Does anyone know where that one is mentioned in canon?) Pretend for a moment that you haven't met any Slytherins or heard the rumors about Dark Wizards and see what you think. ********************************************************************* SS/PS The Sorting Hat: The Sorting Hat is speaking, Or perhaps in Slytherin you'll make your real friends, These cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends." CoS Dobby's Reward: Dumbledore is speaking, "You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltounge ? resourcefulness ? determination ? a certain disregard for rules." He added " OoP, The Sorting Hat's New Song: The Sorting Hat is speaking, "Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest" "For instance, Slytherin took only pure-blood wizards of great cunning, just like him " ********************************************************************* Now, as far as I can tell, resourcefulness, and determination are both good traits for anyone to have. Cunning is a tricky one, it's good if the Hero has a bit of cunning when he needs to foil the bad guys and disregard for the rules can go either way. "Make your real friends" sounds good a nice supportive group of people, those Slytherins. "Use any means to achieve their ends" that's a bit too dangerous for me, but to a point it's not too bad. " just those whose ancestry is purest" On a positive note that sounds a little like the Daughters of the American Revolution. (DAR) or perhaps like those who can trace family back to the Mayflower but it also sounds like some pretty wicked organizations. You could certainly come up with a fairly nice individual who had these traits. Someone who would make a nice spouse/parent/child. Now, do the Slytherins we know really fit this mold? From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 25 16:59:02 2004 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:59:02 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116410 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > There are many minor reasons why the Occlumency lessons failed, > Snape's or Harry's attitude, bad teaching methods (Snape), not > practicing (Harry). > > IMO the main reason the lessons failed was that Harry's curiousity > was tweaked before the lessons began. Harry had been dreaming about > the corridor for months before Arthur's attack indicating the need > for lessons. > > I think they would have failed even if DD was teaching. Harry has an > enormous need to delve into the unknown when his curiousity was > peaked. Even Voldemort knows this fact about Harry, and initially > used his mind-sharing to give Harry a compulsion to get the prophesy > from the MOM. > > Harry did not want to stop the dreams. > > -kmc Linda: I agree that Harry didn't want to stop the dreams, but I disagree that the lessons would not have been successful if DD had taught them. If DD had been up front with Harry to begin with, Harry would have known what was in the department of mysteries and not felt like he had to continue the dreams. And even if DD had not told Harry everything that was in the DOM, he could have satisfied him with a few didbits. Snape was enjoying not telling Harry anything.... he had something to dangle in front of him and berate him about. The other major difference is respect. Harry would have respected DD's wishes if he had been given the courtesy of DD asking and teaching him himself. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 17:13:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:13:26 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116411 > > Linda: > I agree that Harry didn't want to stop the dreams, but I disagree > that the lessons would not have been successful if DD had taught > them. If DD had been up front with Harry to begin with, Harry would > have known what was in the department of mysteries and not felt like > he had to continue the dreams. And even if DD had not told Harry > everything that was in the DOM, he could have satisfied him with a > few didbits. Snape was enjoying not telling Harry anything.... he > had something to dangle in front of him and berate him about. The > other major difference is respect. Harry would have respected DD's > wishes if he had been given the courtesy of DD asking and teaching > him himself. Alla: Exactly, Harry respects Dumbledore, well respected prior to OOP anyway. I see no reason whatsoever why he would not practice to, if Dumbledore, whom he liked and respected would explained to him the backstory. I won't even go into Snape's behaviour again. I think that lessons had a better chance being succesful if Professor Binks was teaching Harry. :o) Anybody, actually. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 17:24:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:24:26 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116412 > Potioncat: > Keep in mind that when he does the right thing, he makes it look > like the wrong thing. Or at least doesn't make it clear what he is > doing. Alla: Very, very true. Potioncat: > But I am sure he went into the forest, swearing at the top of his > lungs, sending the dark, wee beasties scampering for their lives. Alla: Hee! It is a possibility. > Potioncat: snip. > However, here is how I read it. It is a matter of tense. DD is > explaining the situation at one particular moment. Snape asked for a > group to go look at MoM, he asked for Black to stay at HQ, and he > intended to go search the forest. At that moment, that was > everyone's plan.(Aurors go to MoM, Black stays put, Snape looks in > the forest.) Alla: Well, yes that WAS the plan and we all know how at least one third of the plan turned out (Black stays put), why can't that be that another third of the plan (Snape looks in the forest) also went wrong for whatever reason? Potioncat: > The only reason I could think of for DD to use intended to > mean "planned to but didn't" would be to skirt the truth. Not that > he's never done that before. As if DD spoke to Snape prior to > talking to Harry,"Severus, what did you find in the forest?" > "Well, Headmaster, I intended to go, but I had to wash my hair first > and by the time I was done I found out that Potter really was at the > MoM." Alla: What can I say, Potioncat? You sure know one of main rules of succesful negotiation very well- make the other side say "YES" as many times as possible with very unconfrontational questions. :) Then the other side will be most likely to compromise on more important points. Indeed, the only reason for Dumbledore to say that and mean it would be to hide something . As you said it yourself, he did it already several times, why not now? For the record, I think it is more likely that Snape went in the Forest than not, it is just this "intended" still naggs me, From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 25 17:56:32 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:56:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116413 > Alla: > > Well, yes that WAS the plan and we all know how at least one third of > the plan turned out (Black stays put), why can't that be that another > third of the plan (Snape looks in the forest) also went wrong for > whatever reason? Potioncat: I just re-read the section. And it looks as if the "He intended to search the forest" was Snape's justification for Black to stay at HQ. Snape couldn't brief DD, because he would be searching the forest. Or someone else had suggested he search and he asked for Black to brief DD. > Alla: > Indeed, the only reason for Dumbledore to say that and mean it would be to hide something . As you said it yourself, he did it already several times, why not now? Potioncat: Yet, as Harry asks several questions about Snape's behavior, DD explaings them all and says, "I trust Severus Snape." So if there was some reason for Snape's not going into the forest, it was one DD agreed with, but did not want Harry to know. I can't really think of any. But of course, I'm arguing the other side. Potioncat who intended to clean house today, but found herself with far more important HP issues to resolve. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 19:20:01 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:20:01 -0000 Subject: What JKR Finds Important/Harry suicidal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116414 Tonks wrote: > All this talk of suicide. That was just a passing comment, to say > that Harry was coping as best he could and would not turn to > anything like that. I didn't expect everyone to pick that part up > and run with it. The part I was mostly talking about is why Harry > was acting the way he was in OOP. That his behavior was normal given > the experience that he had. Kim again: Sorry to keep on this topic, so don't read on unless curiosity gets the better of you... Anyhow, to answer my own question from previous post, I looked into OotP again and realized it didn't seem so far- fetched for some folks to think Harry might want to do himself in. Specifically, during the MoM battle, when he was possessed by Voldemort and more or less dared DD to kill him (though it was also LV speaking through Harry), that way he'd be free to be with Sirius again (bad poster that I am, I don't have the book with me to actually quote what was said). Of course a death wish is not the same drastic reaction as actually going through with it would be. So definitely, like you say, Harry's behavior is normal under the circumstances. The other thing I recalled from past posts was people thinking Harry might lose all his friends during the final battles with LV/DEs and then not want to go on living without them. But somehow I think that as long as Harry himself makes it through the battles, and that just one of his pals is left alive, Harry'll want to hang in there too. In any case though, I can't even imagine that JKR would kill the entire good side of the WW off and leave Harry alive all by his lonesome. Speaking for myself, I'd stick around if the only other good guy left was Dobby, but that's just me... ;-) Kim From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 25 19:22:35 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:22:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's stalling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116415 > > Alla: > > Indeed, the only reason for Dumbledore to say that and mean it would be to hide something . As you said it yourself, he did it already several times, why not now? > He says 'intended' because he hasn't had a chance to debrief Snape yet. Presumably, Dumbledore comes straight from the Ministry to his office. He must have talked to the survivors of the rescue party, and learned from them what Snape planned to do. But Dumbledore hasn't had a chance to hear from Snape himself, so he doesn't know yet whether Snape searched the forest or something interfered. Pippin From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Oct 25 20:30:41 2004 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:30:41 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116416 > > Linda: > I agree that Harry didn't want to stop the dreams, but I disagree > that the lessons would not have been successful if DD had taught > them. If DD had been up front with Harry to begin with, Harry > would have known what was in the department of mysteries and not > felt like he had to continue the dreams. However, Voldemort could have then known (through Harry!Vision) what was in the prophecy. Even if he didn't, DD would have to assume that anything told Harry was effectively told Voldie - he *tells* Harry in Ch.37 OOP that he could sense Voldie's presence within Harry. Once Voldemort knows what's in the prophecy, he has no reason to retrieve the physical prophecy from the MoM. He can then stay safely in the 'plausible deniability' background - he hasn't risen, it's madness to say he has. The longer he can do that, the more Fudge serves his purposes by destroying any effective opposition. >From the point of view of the Order of the Phoenix, their strategic objective throughout Harry's fifth year must have been (speculation warning) to get Voldy (and/or the DE's) out into the open - a position where it *cannot be denied* that Voldemort has returned. >And even if DD had not > told Harry everything that was in the DOM, he could have satisfied > him with a few didbits. Really? This being the same Harry who was utterly and completely satisfied with the few titbits about the Philosopher's Stone he got in Book 1, and the same Harry who decided to leave guarding it up to the teachers? Hindsight is always 20/20; Non!prophetic Dumbledore made decisions on the information he had. My personal speculation (definitely speculation) is that he assumed Harry would find some way of sneaking into the MoM if he was told there was a prophecy about him - and unlike the Philosopher's Stone, this time he *didn't* want Harry to do that. Once Harry knew what was in the prophecy, Voldemort would know, and the OOP would need to find another 'have Voldemort seen by witnesses who *can't* be called crazy' plan. Linda: > Snape was enjoying not telling Harry anything.... he > had something to dangle in front of him and berate him about. This is probably true - but note how many times Snape does give Harry some rather back handed compliments in the Occlumency lessons. 'For a first attempt, that was not as poor as it might have been'. From Snape to Harry? That's a compliment. (Ch. 24) Linda: > The > other major difference is respect. Harry would have respected DD's > wishes if he had been given the courtesy of DD asking and teaching > him himself. Uh, yes. Harry does not respect Snape. Harry would have respected Dumbledore. Except - since when does a fifteen year old student get to select the school teachers himself? Dumbledore selected Snape as the teacher for reasons that seemed good to him; *Harry* did not respect Dumbledore's decision there. Pip!Squeak From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 21:10:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:10:20 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote: snip. > Really? This being the same Harry who was utterly and completely > satisfied with the few titbits about the Philosopher's Stone he got > in Book 1, and the same Harry who decided to leave guarding it up to > the teachers? Alla: It is also same Harry who had been completely satisfied with VERY uncomplete explanation, which Dumbledore gave him afterwards. It is also the same Harry, who never ever questions what Dumbledore tells him at the end of the books (prior to OOP, of course) Harry really does not ask much from the people he trusts (for plot reasons, of course, but still). Pip!Squeak: > Uh, yes. Harry does not respect Snape. Harry would have respected > Dumbledore. > > Except - since when does a fifteen year old student get to select > the school teachers himself? Dumbledore selected Snape as the > teacher for reasons that seemed good to him; *Harry* did not respect > Dumbledore's decision there. Alla: Was anybody suggesting that Harry woud select teacher himself? No, just that Dumbledore should have done a better job of doing it. I wish Harry would have this choice though. Maybe then things would turn out a lot differently, but again, what if, what if. :) I won't even start about "reasons that seemed good for Dumbledore". It turned out that these reasons were not so good after all, right? From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Mon Oct 25 21:30:11 2004 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:30:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: David and Sirius Message-ID: <20041025213011.28271.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116418 Janet Anderson wrote: I believe the morning star is the planet Venus (and that it's also the evening star). Aura wrote: Dude. That's like... trippy. So will Sirius will be killed yet rise again on the third ... something? 1. In Dogma (a very well-researched movie), Lucifer is referred to as "the morning star." 2. When we were talking about the Potters and Voldemort, that "denies three times" thing kept jumping out at me. So, what's Peter and denying three times got to do with the Potters denying Voldemort three times? Was Voldie just jealous that he wasn't being denied, too? > Doesn't this prove that Harry Potter is not only very similar to > the Alchemical Wedding, but also to the New Testament? No. It doesn't. At all. It proves that Jo MAY have used some so-common-it's-part-of-the-secular-culture religious imagery for a bunch of friends. Or, more likely, that she gave two of her characters very common names and gave a character with an unusual name a very common middle name. And she gave a big shaggy dog the name of the dog star. She isn't Chris Carter or Kevin Smith. She isn't basing her entire series on the Bible. --Lawless wrote: James, John and Peter are also extremely popular names. I certainly wouldn't put it past Rowling to make Biblical references, but somehow I have trouble equating Peter Pettigrew with Simon Peter. After all, Peter never betrayed Jesus, he just "fell out" for a short while, before returning to be what some call the Model Disciple. I can't at all relate Petter Pettigrew to that. Furthermore, your analogy would mean equating Sirius with Jesus, and again, I have trouble seeing that. Sirius is far from perfect, and certainly not benevolent - though he does have good intentions. I also saw James as more of the ringleader than Sirius, or them as equals. I'll agree that Rowling is telling a timeless story, and while she is Christian, I doubt that she is putting Biblical references into her stories. Though, as I said, I wouldn't put it past her - never underestimate Rowling, after all! Charme wrote: While it's interesting to me regarding the name choices, I'm not as convinced they are totally intentional. For example, Sirius (the star) plays quite a part in the culture and religion of ancient Egyptians more fully that what Hans quoted WRT to Christianity and Revelations. From what I've read on Egyptian museum sites about Sirius, I'd submit the "names" are more coincidence than relative to any Biblical references. I also agree with you, Aura - JKR has used imagery from a variety of religious culture - again, there are character and creature names which also hail from Greek mythology and Arthurian legend plus those with saints and Romans. I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg, and there's others I have failed to mention. I think it's too soon to say the septology represents a view or story associated with the Alchemical Wedding or the New Testament. I will say this, though: I don't believe the septology is as spiritual, or Gnostic, as Hans believes. He's free to keep that view :) Antosha wrote: Unfortunately for the very interesting theory here, the bright morning star cited in Revelations would be Lucifer, aka Venus. Sirius is indeed the brightest non-planet in the heavens, but it's not as bright as any of the visible planets, and, like all of the stars in the sky except for Polaris, rises and sets at different times during the night. It's only visible in the morning sky at specific times of year. So I don't think that particular biblical parallel works. Empooress wrote: There is indeed a star called Sirius or the dog star, it is however, invisible to the naked eye. I would think perhaps this has more to do with JKR's choice of that name for that character especially since as an animagus he turns into a dog. Looking for some connection between out of context Bible passages and any of the Harry Potter books just seems to be to be rather a bit far-fetched. Kate wrote: Actually, Sirius is the brightest star in the sky, and I do think that The Dog animagus form-Sirius name play was intentional. Geoff wrote: I have remarked on numerous occasions that JKR, like Tolkien before her, has written a story where although it is not overtly Christian, the creators' personal faith has influenced the world view of their books. However, there are dangers in pushing the parallels too far. As a number of posters have indicated, the morning star isn't Sirius and the other point I question is your comparison of the two Peters. Peter Pettigrew betrayed the Potters. Simon Peter denied that he knew Jesus but the betrayal of Jesus to the authorities was carried out by Judas; these were far different events. Peter's was driven by fear and uncertainty, Judas' by greed. Peter was forgiven by Jesus later and went on to overcome these failings and become a great proclaimer of the Gospel of salvation - having had this granted at an earthly level already. So, in a sense, if JKR were using the story as an analogy of the Bible story, there would have to be two different people to represent Peter and Judas. But, I would agree with to her writers that the story line is not an exact parallel and ought not to be. It is not, as C.S.Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is, a straight allegory of the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus but a separate story but with a grounding in the views of the author. Hans response now: Thank you all those kind people who have written. I often get no reaction at all to my posts so this is great. Thanks to Shaun Hately, also, as well as Antosha, for pointing out that Sirius is in fact the brightest star in the sky. It is not invisible, as Empooress thinks. It is in fact only 8.8 light years away. Thanks to Charme for pointing out: Sirius (the star) plays quite a part in the culture and religion of ancient Egyptians. Exactly! To the Egyptians, Sirius was the basis of their calendar and was the bright morning star for certain times of the year. What times? In July! I quote: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sopdet.htm "Sirius was both the most important star of ancient Egyptian astronomy. The heliacal rising (the first night that Sirius is seen, just before dawn) was noticed every year during July, and the Egyptians used this to mark the start of the New Year." - also: "Sopdet (Sepdet, Sothis) personified the 'dog star' Sirius. This star was the most important of the stars to the ancient Egyptians, and the heliacal rising of this star came at the time of inundation and the start of the Egyptian New Year. As a goddess of the inundation, she was a goddess of fertility." http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sothis.htm: "Sopdet is described as having united with the king/Osiris to give birth to the morning star, Venus, and through her association with that netherworld god, she was naturally identified with Isis." The point I want to make here is that Sirius may not be the Morning Star as we know it today; it was and is definitely the morning star in July in Egypt and in fact is associated with Isis, fertility (the flooding of the Nile) and resurrection (the reappearance each year). Friends, we are not talking about astronomy, were talking about SYMBOLISM. Why do I keep saying July? If we look at Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, what happens in July on Harrys birthday? Harry gets a photo of Ron and Scabbers (and the other Weasleys) taken in EGYPT! But Harrys not the only one seeing that photo, is he? There is a certain prisoner in Azkaban who sees that same photo! At the same time as the star Sirius is looking over the pyramids, Sirius Black is looking at the same pyramid in the photo with Ron and Scabbers in front of it. I know many of you believe that many of the things Ive said in my posts are pure coincidence, such as the predictions I got right for book 5 in April last year (post 55793). I guess there are many of you who believe that its just a coincidence that the photo was taken in Egypt, where Sirius is the morning star in July. But I dont. I believe as strongly as I can believe anything that Harry Potter is a symbolical Path of Liberation and that nothing (OK, except Mark Evans) is coincidence. I believe that our attention was MEANT to be drawn to Egypt to give us a clue to what Sirius symbolises. However I am NOT saying that Harry Potter is based on the Bible or on the Alchemical Wedding. Ive never said that. I have simply said there are many similarities. Thats quite different. Yes I believe the same story is being told, but in my humble opinion the New Testament, the Alchemical Wedding, and Harry Potter are all inspired by the Masters of Compassion (as I call them) to teach people, through the subconscious mind, that there is such a thing as human liberation. Ive dealt with that in my essay, Harry Potter Christian Rosycross in Jeans (see essays in the groups files). My theory is that there is only one story, one true story. Thats the Fall, our present imprisonment, and the long journey back to the Real World. All the three above mentioned books tell this story, or part of it, and so obviously there have to be great similarities. In my opinion Jo actually leaves clues, albeit extremely subtle ones, but nevertheless, clues for those whose hearts are really open to her liberating message, to what Harry Potter is really about. Let me ask show you again: Sirius, a morning star OK there are two celestial objects that have that name, but for the month of July, in Egypt, where Sirius Black sees Scabbers, Sirius is the important Morning Star - has three friends, James, John and Peter. In the Bible theres another Morning Star, namely Christ, who also has three friends, with the same name, and one of them, Peter, does the dirty on him. And both Christ and Sirius die at about the same age in an act of self sacrifice. You, dear intelligent members of HPFGU, call that pure, unadulterated COINCIDENCE? Just leaving aside the details like exactly what Simon Peter did, or the thing about the fallen angel Lucifer, the OUTLINE is there for those who have eyes to see. Jo is giving us a valuable clue about what Harry Potter is all about. I humbly want to inform you that I didnt send you my post David on the spur of the moment. Ive thought about it very deeply and very profoundly. For 15 months in fact. (Im the worlds worst Potterholic.) In fact I can prove it. Have a look at post 68370. This is when I first started thinking about what Sirius symbolises (or personifies). It was sent on July 8, 2003. I said there, >>Ive been wondering for months and months what exactly Sirius symbolises. I cant help being struck by the words, god and father. I just dont know. All I can say is I keep hearing the words in my head: It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (Jn 16:7) Will Sirius send a Counsellor to comfort Harry and teach him concerning sin, righteousness and judgement?<< So its been 15 months of thinking and researching. Of course I know Venus is the morning star. Of course I know Venus was called Lucifer by the Romans. Of course I know the traditional Christian Church teaches that Lucifer, the fallen angel, is called the Morning Star. I know, too, that Sirius is nothing like Jesus as a person. This is a hard point to explain and understand, but Harry Potter isnt a matter of looking at the superficial personalities. Its a matter of looking underneath the surface, ignoring Sirius personality, and looking at what he does *symbolically*. At this stage I cant tell you how I finally worked out exactly what Sirius symbolises, i.e. Christ as the morning Star, because Im about to start a series on each character in my new group, Harry Potter for Seekers. Until Ive described the symbolism of Sirius Black I cant reveal how I came to my present conclusion about him, as some of the members of Seekers are also members of HPFGU. Ill do that afterwards if youre interested. Just for now let me conclude by betting you all. I bet in book 6 or 7 the Counsellor will come, as promised in John 16:7. I dont know whether hell teach the world about sin, righteousness and judgement, but hell come, of that Im sure. He may very well be the leonine chap that Jo told us about on her slip of paper recently. The lion is the symbol of love, so thats very likely. It may be the half-blood prince. I dont know who it will be, but hell come, I bet! To be continued. My heart-felt best wishes to you all! ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 22:49:05 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:49:05 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (answers to several posts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116419 Kneasy wrote: "There's been whispers about something new coming out. Better get down there and see what's going on. Might be some money in it. Could this be Voldy And Snape Share A Link - the VASSAL vessel?" Neri (back from RL): Sounds good. VASSAL it is. Kneasy: How Umbridge Modernises Badness/Light Enquiries, Percy Is Potentially Evil How this fits in with a Snape/Voldy connection is a bit of a puzzler to me. Maybe I'm thick. Neri: There was no connection, like I wrote when mentioning it. It was late at night Pippin wrote: Pippin who thinks mind-linked Snape is a cool idea, but too Snape-centered to pan out Neri: Do you mean I should have centered it on Lupin? But we already have a promise that Snape's secret will be revealed in Book 7. This suggests that he is somehow part of the "Heart of it all". Lupin on the other hand didn't play any central part in canon until now. His greatest contribution to the plot was teaching Harry the Patronus, and DD could have done that instead. Although personally I'm a Lupin fan, I'd be the first to admit that based on what he has done until now, he could have been edited out of the story with very little damage to the plot. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 22:53:52 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:53:52 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116420 Finwitch wrote: I really like this mind-link theory with Snape. Yes, the Dark Mark could very well serve as the link - (honest, if Voldemort can do this with one person, why would he use ONLY one? Surely having MORE people similarly linked does more good than just one?) Neri: While developing Mind-linked!Snape (VASSAL) I considered the dark mark as an alternative linking method. The problem is that we have very little information about it, and from what we have it seems pretty primitive. But I agree that there is probably something more to it. It seems to act as a kind of conditioning device: if a DE thinks disloyal thoughts, or even hears Voldemort's name, he gets burned. Perhaps Snape found a way to hack this system. Perhaps the dark mark can kill a DE who betrays Voldemort. It didn't work during the time Voldemort was vapor, but it is supposed to work now. The fact that Snape stayed alive was proof enough for Voldy that he's not a traitor. Finwitch: Anyway, I think the mind-link is a combination of both transfer-potion (no doubt including blood) and a curse. To say the curse made the connection, would be a simplification, not a lie. Neri: OK, this gives me certain ideas. I might manage to salvage the VASSAL yet. Check this: Voldemort didn't try to possess baby Harry in GH. He tried to suck Harry's powers out of his brain in order to get the power that the prophecy foretold. So he first created the mind link as I suggested. Then he shot an AK in order to kill the baby. Voldy's theory was that when the baby would die, his powers would be detached from his mind and pass through the link to Voldy's mind. But since the AK rebounded on Voldy, what happened was exactly the reverse: Voldy's powers were transferred to Harry. In this case DD's words that they are "connected by the curse that failed" would indeed be more of a simplification than a lie. How does this scan? Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 23:21:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:21:21 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116421 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I'm (obviously) quite far behind here, but I didn't see that anyone > address the two things I'm going to bring up here, at least not in > the thread links at the end of Pippin's post. > > Since presumably a good, strong theory should have not just possible > actions in it but also explained motivations, could you tell me WHY > Lupin would hate Sirius & Peter? I don't see a motive for hatred in > the slightest. Carol responds: I'm not Pippin, of course, and I don't entirely agree with her ideas, but I presented some speculative reasons why Lupin might have become estranged from the other Marauders in Post 116261. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116261 It's by no means a finished argument and some of the steps may be out of order, but I was interrupted while I was composing it and had to send it off only half-edited. I don't see a motive for hatred, exactly, but I can see him feeling excluded when he wasn't invited to Harry's christening. (I imagine he *was* invited to the wedding, but at least nine months and probably something closer to four years elapsed between the first ceremony and the second--plenty of time for new tensions and differences to develop among the foursome.) I'd be interested in seeing what either of you thinks of those ideas, bearing in mind that I didn't have time to tighten the wording or check the argument for inconsistencies. > SSSusan wrote: > I don't understand how we KNOW that Lupin never taught elsewhere? > Isn't this a supposition? I mean, I've seen others postulating that > Lupin might have taught at Durmstrang, for instance. No canon to > *know*, but unless I missed something recently, I don't think there's canon that he did *not* teach elsewhere previously either. > > As to the peeling letters, I also think it's a bit strong to say this means the briefcase "can't" have originally belonged to Remus. > First, if he *did* teach somewhere else, beginning shortly after > leaving Hogwarts, the letters might have begun to peel by now. > Second, even if it that round of teaching wasn't all that long ago, > given the type of quality apparel Lupin tends to wear, perhaps he > could only afford a cheap briefcase, whose lettering doesn't wear as > well as more expensive models. > > If the peeling lettering is the only evidence we have of two > Professor R.J. Lupins, I think it's not all that strong a piece of > evidence. Carol responds: I've always wondered about the peeling letters (and how Lupin earned a living before Hogwarts). The problem for me is that there are no other wizarding schools in Britain, and I can't see a Defense against the Dark Arts teacher at Durmstrang, which teaches the Dark Arts themselves (I also can't see Lupin wanting to teach there). That leaves Beauxbatons (which probably would pay better than Lupin seems to be paid--not Madame Maxime's silk shawls, the students' satin cloaks, the dishes and decorations as Fleur describes them) or one of the smaller, as yet unnamed European schools. (His resume, I would guess, has a lot of gaps in it, or maybe one huge gap between his first teaching post and the one at Hogwarts.) Since JKR has informed us that Lupin's middle name is John, it does at least appear that the battered suitcase is his own, though it could be his father's if they had the same initials (R. J.). Carol, wondering why Lupin doesn't use some sort of spell to repair the peeling initials From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 00:20:34 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:20:34 -0000 Subject: The Rat at GH In-Reply-To: <19b.2ae89643.2ea57c5b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116422 Lynx412 wrote: The house at GH blew up because Peter blew it up after > retrieving LV's wand. Carol responds: This is an interesting idea whether we accept the rest of the theory or not. But if Peter blew up the house, he probably used his own wand to do so. He seems to have used it to blow off his finger and blow up the street, then left the wand behind when he transformed into a rat. If he had used LV's wand to do so, the twelve Muggles and a finger would have shown up in the Priori incantatem sequence. I think he found and hid LV's wand, then used and lost his own in the confrontation with Sirius Black. He would not yet have lost his own wand when the house blew up at Godric's Hollow. > Lynx412 wrote: > Wy do I think he also contacted Lupin? Lupin's 'You heard James?' I suspect that Lupin contacted James to warn him that they were in danger, and believed that James had gone to visit the SK's house. Peter could very well have gone to Lupin with a folded sheet of paper supposedly signed by Sirius, and read it to him, thereby revealing the Potter's location without betraying the fact that he, Peter, was the SK, not Sirius. Carol responds: I think Lupin would have wanted to read the paper himself, not have it read to him by someone who (supposedly) wasn't the SK, and he would have wondered why Sirius had told Peter to inform him rather than doing so himself. But, that aside, the real problem for me is that so many people are reading so much into Lupin's "You heard James?" Lupin was James's good friend (whether the reverse was true or not, I don't know) and I think Harry's mention of James caught Lupin off guard and he forgot that he was trying to hide his own connection to James and Sirius, their ability to transform into animals, his identity as a werewolf, and all the rest. A moment later he comes to his senses and merely reveals that he knew James and thought he knew Sirius, and makes it clear that he doesn't want the conversation to go any further. There's no need, given a perfectly natural reaction to Harry's words on Lupin's part, to assume that it wasn't James's that he heard. JKR is simply giving us our first hint of the existence of MWPP. Harry later hears James's voice during the Priori Incantatem sequence and gives no indication that the voice is different from what he expected. Also Harry's assumption that the woman whose screams he hears when the Dementors are near him is his mother is later borne out; I see no indication that his assumption that the man whose voice he hears urgently telling Lily to take Harry and run is not also valid. I realize that we're dealing here with Harry's POV, which is not always reliable. Many things that he "knows" have turned out to be wrong. However, in most such cases, he has been previously misinformed or even lied to (his parents died in a car accident, Sirius Black betrayed his parents, Crouch!Moody drinks from a hip flask for fear of being poisoned, etc.). Or he's wrong in his assessment of another character (Draco Malfoy is the Heir of Slytherin, Snape is responsible for Black's death, etc.). But a simple matter like hearing his fahter's voice when we know that his father was present at Godric's Hollow (Sirius saw his body) and did indeed try unsuccessfully to hold Voldemort off (as Voldemort himself admits) is, IMO, reading conspiracy into straightforward exposition. Similarly ingenious arguments were posed against Harry's assumption that his father was a Gryffindor ("another Gryffindor Quidditch player had sat under this very tree rumpling his hair"--quoted from memory) only to have JKR reveal that James was indeed a Gryffindor. I think she'll reveal that it was indeed James's voice. But even if she doesn't, common sense suggests that he would have spoken words very like the ones Harry attributes to him and no one else would have done so. Why would Wormtail, accompanying Voldemort, shout any such words? If he shouted anything, it would have to be more like, "Lily, he's killed James but I'll fight him off!" And wouldn't Lily wonder why he was suddenly present and hadn't previously defended James? I think JKR expects us to *know* that the voice was really James's, as any twelve-year-old who's read the books would tell you if you asked her. Carol Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 01:15:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:15:46 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality (plus Predicting the future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116423 Kim wrote: > > I think Carol makes a good point, that since DD won't use an > Unforgiveable curse himself, he'd hardly expect Harry to use one, even to vanquish the Dark Lord. I think JKR definitely has something else up her sleeve as to how LV will meet his end. < > > > Distaiyi responded: > > I think this is an excellent point and I just want to point out that > the countrary has been use as a literary device a number of other > times. > > Now in Hogwarts they teach not to use the unforgiveable (sp?, sorry > tired) curses. But if a child, even a well trained child were to use > one, well eventually they would get over it. Maybe getting Harry to > the point where he can cast AK is exactly what Dumbledore wants? Carol responds: My original point was that the Unforgiveable Curses are evil and that Dumbledore is too noble to use such weapons. To elaborate, they require either hatred or cold indifference to human life, will, or suffering to be cast correctly, which is why Harry failed when he tried to Crucio. When an evil person casts them, he becomes even more evil--irredeemable like Voldemort, Bellatrix, and Barty Jr. Even when a person tries to use them for good, he is caught in his own net. Barty Jr., who authorized the use of the Unforgiveable Curses on the DEs, is Imperio'd and then Ak'd by the son he had tried to control through the Imperius Curse. Barty Sr. shows the futility of using such weapons. Evil can't destroy evil; it only perpetuates the cycle. Dumbledore is too noble, and too wise, to use such weapons, and it would be utter hypocrisy to expcet Harry to use them. Remember what happened to Tom Riddle, who AK'd his own father and grandparents when he was the same age Harry will be when he fights the ultimate battle with Voldemort. Dumbledore can't possibly want that fate for Harry, or any of the young wizards and witches who will be on his side of the war. No matter how well-trained the children are, IMO, nothing can prepare them to use weapons that can only be mastered by someone with the will to do evil. There must be another way, a way to defeat evil through good. It's the difference between *Defence Against* the Dark Arts and the Dark Arts themselves. Carol From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 01:34:20 2004 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:34:20 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Traits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116424 Potioncat wrote: (snip) > So I pulled up the quotes I could recall just about Slytherin > House. I ignored the students on the train and Hagrid as sources. > And this is what I found for Slytherin traits. (BTW, ambition wasn't > one that I came across. Does anyone know where that one is > mentioned in canon?) > Ginger butts in: It's in the GoF sorting song: (US paperback, ch. 12, p. 177) "And powerhungry Slytherin loved those of great ambition." Potioncat quotes: > SS/PS > The Sorting Hat: > The Sorting Hat is speaking, > Or perhaps in Slytherin you'll make your real friends, > These cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends." > > > CoS Dobby's Reward: > Dumbledore is speaking, > "You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his > hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltounge ? > resourcefulness ? determination ? a certain disregard for rules." He > added " > > > OoP, The Sorting Hat's New Song: > The Sorting Hat is speaking, > "Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest" > > "For instance, Slytherin took only pure-blood wizards of great > cunning, just like him " (snip Potioncat's analyses) Ginger's take on things: Ambition, cunning, resourcefulness, determination: It sounds like it will lead to a career in politics. Those seem to be the qualities of leaders, although not necessarily good ones. They definately don't fit Crabbe and Goyle. Perhaps the hat puts in that sort so that the Malfoy types have someone to follow them. A houseful of Dracos would result in a lot of in-fighting. Teamwork is the key, and Slytherins could probably be team players if it meant meeting the set goal. Mostly it sounds like Slytherin wanted the "movers and shakers" of the world. He wanted to educate those who would find themselves in positions of power and influence. Maybe this is why there is still such a high regard for pureblood status among the higher circles despite Dumbledore and others like him. As Potioncat pointed out, any of these traits can be used for good, and even a combination of them could be a strong asset in someone working towards the good of the world. Throw in the "disregard for the rules" and "use any means to achieve their ends" and you have a loose cannon (the 2n kind). Lots of evil has been done by those who think they are above the law, or are a law unto themselves. In summary, I don't think this pegs all Slytherins as bad, but it certainly attracts those who could easily be turned. When I rule the world, I will kill them all. Just so everyone will be safe. Ginger, who really isn't going to rule the world or kill anyone. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 02:12:43 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:12:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116425 khinterberg wrote: >> Sorry for me to beat a dead horse (or cockroaches), but I went back and reread this portion of the book. I was struck by this quote at the very end of the chapter: > > "What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being > shouted at or *having jars thrown at him*--it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers..." (p > 650, OotP US paperback) Alla responded: > > I love that quote. I think it is possible that jar exploded due to wandless magic, but Snape throwing it still seems more likely > Potioncat added: > I really like the wandless, uncontrolled magic idea, but I think > that last quote killed it. Carol notes: Except, of course, for the possibility that Snape throwing the jar is Harry's perception rather than what actually happened. Harry has no experience of anyone other than himself performing accidental magic as the result of inadequately suppressed fury. At any rate, that quote occurs at the end of the chapter, as hindsight, not during the incident itself. I really can't see Snape, no matter how angry he is, deliberately smashing a jar of cockroaches in his own office. After all, he's the one who has to catch them and put them back. I can, however, visualize him being so angry that he *wants* to throw something and the force of his anger exploding some object that he'd really rather had stayed intact. Carol From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 02:13:12 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:13:12 -0000 Subject: The Rat at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I think JKR expects us to *know* that the voice was really James's, > as any twelve-year-old who's read the books would tell you if you > asked her. Just like every twelve-year-old would also tell us that Snape obviously dropped Harry's vial from the desk and then went "Whoops", in OotP? :) (I but kid, of course...) -Nora curses the people who have lost the key to the piano room for a week now From cat_kind at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 14:10:00 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:10:00 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116427 Carol: > Carol, who still can't figure out *what* Lupin was thinking catkind: How about: Lupin in this scene slipped through the lines of print to join Sirius in an entirely different and more primitive genre of fiction. Think LotR. Think Alexandre Dumas. This rat has betrayed our friend, causing his death. He has to die! In either of those settings it would seem perfectly normal. Harry then heroically drags his father's friends back up into Boarding-School-Story land. catkind From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 16:52:11 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re [HPforGrownups] Umbridge was:(Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041025165211.99726.qmail@web90107.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116428 Finwitch wrote: >You know, being that Dumbledore saved her life from >the Centaurs... >she now owes Dumbledore a life-debt. I'm a bit >curious as to how that >might come into play, or if it will, or if it does, >will Harry know >about it before the end-of-year - discussion? Juli: I've never actually thought about it... But the MoM is having some serious problems, probably Umbridge will soon be fired (for sadist detentions, etc.), so what could she possibly do for DD? I don't think DD saved her from the centaurs just to ger a life-debt, he's just a nice guy and would never intentionally kill anyone (thinking about the LV vs DD fight in MoM). Or maybe he thinks she'll play some future roll. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 20:40:27 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:40:27 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116429 imamommy at s... wrote: >Harry may make a lot of mistakes, >but he can't become what Voldemort >is: he can't become a cold-blooded killer. Actually I hope to see something like that in the series, I think it would make things very interesting. At the end of the series I want some people to denounce Harry, I want others to say he did what he had to do, I want moral ambiguity, I want controversy not a paragon of ethics. I was delighted in the last book when Harry used a Unforgivable Curse, not because I thought it was the right thing to do but precisely because I thought it was not. And at the end of the series if you can not find at least one self appointed guardian of the nation's morals who is outraged and says Rowling is corrupting our youth then she is not doing her job. Millions of people who were once cute little kids and were just as nice kind and decent as Harry have killed people in war, often in very horrible ways, sometimes lot and lots of people. I think it would be very powerful to examine that fact in literature. In short at least to a degree, I want to see Harry Potter turn into Dirty Harry. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 21:11:30 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:11:30 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116430 "candlekicks" > Wrote: > If DD had been up front with Harry to begin with, > Harry would have known what was in the department > of mysteries and not felt like he had to continue > the dreams. I agree. Voldemort can almost always tell if somebody is lying to him, only a person skilled in Occlumency could deceive him. Even the most loyal Death Eater would very much want to develop this skill because being able keep things hidden from a boss that powerful and that bad tempered could save your life. I don't think you can learn Occlumency from a book, you need a teacher and Snape is one of the best at it in the world. I think Snape's mission at the end of Goblet Of Fire was to teach Occlumency to as many Death Eaters as he could, it would be useful if there were plots among the Death Eaters Voldemort could not detect and Snape could get valuable intelligence information from flashes of memory from their minds during the lessons. But that touches on another question, why did Snape's Occlumency lessons to Harry seem to cause more harm than good? This is what the book says: "'Snape made it worse, my scar always hurt worse after lessons with him -' Harry remembered Ron's thoughts on the subject and plunged on '-how do you know he wasn't trying to soften me up for Voldemort, make it easier for him to get inside my -' 'I trust Severus Snape,' said Dumbledore simply 'But I forgot another old man's mistake -that some wounds run too deep for the healing. I thought Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father - I was wrong.'" So Dumbledore trusts Snape but he admits he was wrong about the man at least once; and it wouldn't be the first time he placed too much trust in somebody. He must have trusted Quirrell, Lockheart, and the fake Moody too or he wouldn't have hired them. I think Snape couldn't stand handing something as powerful as Occlumency to someone he hated as much as Harry and that he (perhaps unconsciously) sabotaged the lessons to weaken Harry's resistance to Voldemort rather than strengthen them. I can't see why else Snape would always make Harry as angry as possible just before each lesson when having a tranquil mind was vitally important if you had any hope of learning the subject. In the next book I don't see how Harry can live for 2 months with Voldemort attacking his mind, he's going to have to have proper Occlumency lessons while he is still at Privet Drive and lots of them. The only person I can think of to do that would be Dumbledore himself. He will probably ask Mr. Weasley for the best way to be inconspicuous with Muggles and show up on the Dursley's doorstep asking to see Harry wearing cowboy boots blue jeans with chaps, a fringed shirt that would be at home in a old Roy Rogers western and a ten gallon hat. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 21:46:43 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:46:43 -0000 Subject: Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116431 martyb1130 at a... wrote: > Do the muggles know that there is > a wizarding world or not I believe that at the very apex of the muggle world, Queens, Prime Ministers, Presidents, they do indeed know that the Wizarding world exists; but all the other common everyday muggles don't have a clue about magic. Eggplant From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 23:19:22 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:19:22 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116432 Lately I've read a lot of posts about Dumbledore, implying that he's got another agenda other than what's best for the WW. Yes he may not always tell what he's up to, but never so far has he been seriously wrong... I could say that Snape teaching Oclumency was a bad idea, but it was the best he could do, every time Harry was near DD during the OoP he felt LV inside of him, he felt him alive and wanted to kill and hurt DD, what good could come out of Harry *hurting* DD? Sure he probably couldn't be able to do much harm, but think of Harry's ego: I tried to hurt my teacher, the one person that's always been there for me, if after Arthur's attack on Christmas he felt terrible just imagining he was the snake, how would he feel after attacking DD??? A phrase in the LOTR keeps coming to my mind, right near the end Gandalf says "my time is over, for I was the enemy of Sauron", I think that phrase could also be applied to DD, He IS the enemy of LV, LV wants DD out of his way, he's all that's standing on his way. Just as Hagrid said "I wouldn't worry too much as long as we have DD around" (Sorry don't have my copy right here), it would be fatal for the entire WW if DD was to die on book 6, afterwards LV could act freely and take over the entire WW. I think DD *is* Gandalf, they carry the faith of their worlds on their shoulders, they seem to know what's going to happen next and how to change it. I believe DD knows a LOT more than we believe, he seems to know everything that happens in Hogwarts, even before things happen. I read somewhere that it could be because frog-cards, and Bill did say that DD didn't care if they fired him as long as they kept him on the frog-cards. How else could he have known when in PS Harry was spending his evenings at the mirror of Erised, and that Harry would be in that final encounter with LV/Quirell? I have no idea how DD knows the future, but I'm sure he does know what's about to happen. Hoping I made any sense at all... Juli From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 02:56:23 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:56:23 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: snip. > In short at least to a degree, I want to see Harry Potter turn into > Dirty Harry. > Alla: LOL!Not me. I don't want a paragon of virtues!Harry,maybe Harry who HAD to do some things during the war, but still remains Light!Harry. To each their own. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 03:12:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:12:20 -0000 Subject: How can you kill a wizard? (Was: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: <1098152393.1547.52.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116434 I (Carol) wrote: > [snippy snip snip] > > Could a wizard die if an arrow from Hagrid's crossbow struck his heart? > [further snippage] > Christopher Nehren responded: > I don't believe that Hagrid's crossbow is a Muggle crossbow. I'm not > sure what that implies, but I don't believe that he'd use something > "ordinary" if he could employ a wizarding version. The wizarding version would logically be enchanted, and thus able to deal physical damage to a wizard or other magical being. Further, I doubt that a Muggle crossbow would do much good against, say, a Centaur. They've probably long since evolved -- either intrinsically or via magic -- to shrug off the effects of Muggle crossbows. I imagine that many Muggles have tried to hunt /exterminate them with crossbows and other mundane weaponry. It'd be foolish to not develop an easily-maintainable defence against such common implements. > Let's set aside non-human magical life forms and their possible > aggregate byproducts (potions, powders, etc.) for the moment. I posit that wizarding weapons are embued with magic just like the very people who make them. This magic is necessary, IMO, to harm magical beings, as they're resilient to mundane forms of physical harm. These points lead me to believe that there's something "extra" about wizarding weaponry which enables said weaponry to effect damage upon its targets. Carol again: I agree that wizards are "resilient to mundane forms of physical harm," a point that was part of my original post and one of my reasons for asking the question, "How can a wizard be killed other than an AK?" (paraphrased). Hagrid's crossbow, which triggered my question but is not my main concern, is just an example of a weapon that might or might not be capable of killing a wizard. Hagrid is not, AFAWK, a particularly powerful wizard, and what magic he can perform is done with a broken wand hidden inside an umbrella handle. If the crossbow is actually enchanted, I don't believe he did it. And note that Nearly Headless Nick, according to the poem that was edited out of SS/PS, was executed by a (badly wielded) Muggle axe. It could be argued that his wizard neck resisted the axe, but it did ultimately kill him. And the members of the Headless Hunt, all former wizards, were all properly beheaded, quite possibly by Muggle royalty or nobility. That being the case, Macnair's axe could be used to hew wizards' necks as well as those of beasts. (Voldemort promises him more fitting prey or something like that. Yes, he uses a wand in the MoM, but he didn't go there intending to fight a battle, only to help subdue Harry. I (Carol) wrote: > > The reason I'm asking [how it's possible to kill a wizard without an AK] is that maybe Alastor Moody (the auror, not the imposter) killed the few DEs he couldn't subdue using something other than the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra) despite the fact that Barty Sr. had okayed the use of Unforgiveable Curses by the aurors. (Young wizards have been killed during past Triwizard Tournaments. Surely they weren't AK'd by their opponents.) How, then, can witches and wizards be killed other than by an AK? > Christopher responded: > Now, let's return to non-human magical life forms and their byproducts. As Chancie noted in another reply to Carol's post, things like . . . Dementors pose great risk to wizards And there's dragons, unicorns, blast-ended skrewts, etc. Sure, wizards do seem to be protected from the most mundane forms of physical harm -- but there's also a great deal of other things out there in the Wizarding World which are very capable of causing great harm. If there weren't, the Weasleys' clock wouldn't need spots for "Mortal Peril". > Carol again: Yes, as I've noted in several posts, I'm expecting that clock to point to mortal peril (as it must have done for Mr. Weasley in OoP though we didn't see it) in Book 6 or Book 7. And it does seem that magical beasts, notably the snake that bit Mr. Weasley (a Voldemort-possessed Nagini?) are capable of killing wizards, as are dragons (alas for Charlie?), manticores, and others. They can have their souls sucked by Dementors, a fate quite literally worse than death. But I don't think those creatures will play a role in the final battle. I think it will be wizard against wizard, the DEs using the Unforgiveable Curses when they can, though it seems difficult to use them in the heat of battle. What other possibilities might there be? Can a wizard drown? (Harry thinks he can during Task 2 of the TWT.) Evidently wizards can be blasted into pieces (Benjy Fenwick; the supposed death of Peter Pettigrew). I must appear very bloody-minded in this post, but I'm really not. I'm just trying to figure out 1) how JKR can present a battle scene that's more exciting and perilous than the DoM battle (AKs from every side will be boring and monotonous; "stupefy" and similar curses seem like inadequate weapons), and 2) how the good guys can kill the bad guys without resorting to the evil weapons of the enemy (the Dark Arts are not taught at Hogwarts). Christopher's enchanted weapons are one possibility. (I can just see the Hogwarts staff and students putting on the enchanted armor from the Hogwarts corridors to protect themselves.) And Godric Gryffindor's sword, which always struck me as a very Mugglish weapon despite its magical properties, may come in handy as well. Any other ideas? Carol From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 03:14:50 2004 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:14:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] David and Sirius References: <20041025213011.28271.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00f801c4bb09$f4f2f740$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 116435 From: "Hans Andra"> > > Thanks to Charme for pointing out: Sirius (the star) plays quite a part in > the culture and religion of ancient Egyptians. > > Exactly! To the Egyptians, Sirius was the basis of their calendar and was > "the bright morning star" for certain times of the year. What times? In > July! > I quote: . I believe that our attention > was MEANT to be drawn to Egypt to give us a clue to what Sirius symbolises. > Let me ask show you again: > Sirius, a morning star - OK there are two celestial objects that have that > name, but for the month of July, in Egypt, where Sirius Black sees Scabbers, > Sirius is the important Morning Star - has three friends, James, John and > Peter. In the Bible there's another Morning Star, namely Christ, who also > has three friends, with the same name, and one of them, Peter, "does the > dirty on him". And both Christ and Sirius die at about the same age in an > act of self sacrifice. You, dear intelligent members of HPFGU, call that > pure, unadulterated COINCIDENCE? > Charme: You're most welcome, Hans. I love ancient Egyptian history & art and have studied it for quite a while. I might mention that the beginning of the ancient Egyptian calendar year started roughly on, near, or just after June 21st, a fact you'll find on some of the same websites you linked to in your post. You might want to know there is another reference to Egypt in Hermoine's letter to Harry on his birthday in PoA, too. However, 1 correction about "seeing" Sirius: you and Empooress are both right, as Sirius is "invisible" to the naked eye for a period of about 70 days in the year when Sirius "rises" after the sun has already "risen." I *do* believe in symbolism, and I think the Potter series is ripe with it. I might also mention that it's interesting that in Egyptian astronomy and mythology, Osiris' (the lord of the dead) soul is represented by 2 constellations used in ancient Egyptian astronomy: Orion and Phoenix. To the ancients, the star "Draco" did not signify the name translation I commonly hear referenced now (dragon), but is instead representative of a serpent. Eagles, lions, serpents, bees (yes, I typed "bees"), and unicorns are all represented by constellations or stars in this astronomy and mythology. The ancient Egyptian symbol for "plant" is actually the Tree of Life: 3 sacred lotus lilies. The glyph for Orion is always depicted as "The Giant." Sirius is depicted as the "King of Seven Stars" with a pi or tau (a T square) around his neck; the Egyptian Book of the Dead describes tau as meaning "sacred gateway or opening." (Say hello to Sirius' mirrors, perhaps?) Egytian astronomy also reveals that by study of the stars and constellations, the ancients believed that the past and the future are one and the same and can be read in the stars. (Oh, no more time turners, please?!?!?) :) Some of this sounds like the centaurs and their observations of the heavens, doesn't it? The reason this is all important is because of JKR's background as a scholar, specifically those subjects she's well versed in relative to linguistics. Ancient Egyptian words like "mut" (mother) and "baal" (bull) are all derivatives of the words we still know in English today, and many of the myths held by ancient Egyptians have been "passed" to other cultures(Druids, Greeks, etc) as well as religion. It wouldn't be too far fetched to think some of this might have influenced her writing, in some fashion or another. charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 03:24:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:24:08 -0000 Subject: What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: <141.3643cbf3.2ea5cfea@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116436 I (Carol) wrote: > Your answer raises another question for me. Apparently wizards can't > be killed in a car crash or from being splinched, and baby Harry > didn't die when a house fell on him, so they're more resistant than > Muggles to violent death. How, then, can witches and > wizards be killed other than by an AK? > > Anybody have any ideas on this? > Chancie responded: > I don't really think that Hagrid said this meaning that it wasn't possible to be killed in a car crash, but only that he was appaled at the thought that Harry had been lied to about his parents. And by doing so insulting their memory. Carol responds: I don't quite agree. If you look at Neville being dropped several foors and numerous other examples, some of which I cited and some of which Christopher mentioned in his response, it seems clear that it really is harder to kill a Wizard than to kill a Muggle. I really do think that a Wizard would not be killed in a car crash, if only because they'd be driving an enchanted car that can squeeze through traffic or jump ahead of the traffic like the MoM cars in PoA. Chancie wrote: > Also I do believe it is VERY posible for wizards to die in other ways than the AK. One thing that stands out for me is Dementors of course! But I would assume that wizards could be killed by other things as well. Harry would have been dead in CoS if not for Fawks, and Author Weasley in OotP when biten by Nagini if not for St. Mungo's so I would assume animal bites. Also in PS/SS if I remember corectly aren't two of Snapes potions (used to guard the stone) in the logic riddle Hermione solves poison. And I can't recall hearing any > Wizards dieing in car crashes or things like that, but I believe it is possible. Yes, basilisks, Dementors (not death but something worse), and other monsters, but I'm thinking about ways that one wizard can kill another. And, yes, of course, potions are one of those ways, and Snape's classes, especially his lessons on anecdotes, are going to prove important. But, as I indicated in my response to Christopher, I still think we have a very limited list here, and important as potions will probably prove to be, especially if the DEs are again picking off Order members one by one, they won't work very well as a weapon in a pitched battle. Carol, with apologies for not combining this post with the previous one From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 03:51:50 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:51:50 -0000 Subject: David and Sirius In-Reply-To: <20041025213011.28271.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116437 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: (major snip) > Just for now let me conclude by betting you all. I bet in book 6 or 7 the Counsellor will come, as promised in John 16:7. I don't know whether he'll teach the world about sin, righteousness and judgement, but he'll come, of that I'm sure. He may very well be the leonine chap that Jo told us about on her slip of paper recently. The lion is the symbol of love, so that's very likely. It may be the half-blood prince. I don't know who it will be, but he'll come, I bet! > Tonks here: I agree that the counsellor could come before the end of book 7. But it will not be from Sirius. Sirius is the star in July.. the star present at the birth of Harry? I love the scene of Harry being delivered to the Muggle word by a Giant on a flying motorcycle. Beats the hell out of angels and shepards!!! Harry will die and send the counsellor. And it will be Ron who betrays Harry. And just how many members of the D.A. are there? if it turns out to be 12 ??? So lets wait and see who is right. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 04:06:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:06:01 -0000 Subject: What JKR finds important (Was Re: Kids and grownups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116438 lupinlore wrote: > JKR has said time and > again that this is *Harry's* story. In fact, she has gone so far as > to say that Harry appeared, more or less full blown, in her > imagination and she proceeded to wrap the story around him. This > means that any other character, child or adult, is only important in > so far as they touch on Harry. > > I predict (and I admit I'm terrible at predictions) that in the end, > when we have all read book VII and are starting to wonder *Now what > am I going to obsess about?* there are going to be an awful lot of > disappointed people in the world. Because in the end I predict the > story is not going to be about the themes and characters WE find > fascinating, but about Harry, which is the character that JKR finds > fascinating. Carol responds: I don't agree, but that's probably because I have more than one degree in English literature. Most books, and all *good* books, are still subject to interpretation after they've been read and reread. JKR will supply the answers to factual questions, most notably 1)how Harry defeats Voldemort and 2) who will live and who will die. But she will also answer questions about which Harry has expressed interest, and these include what happened to Sirius and why Snape came over to Dumbledore's side. There's no question that JKR is deliberately withholding information on both questions and that they will be answered to *her* satisfaction, leaving us free to speculate if they're not answered to *ours.* But the facts of a story are only one component, the skeleton but not the heart and soul or even the muscle. Regardless of how many times we've read the complete septology, we will still disagree on key points and we will still be able to point out things that other readers have not seen or provide a new way of looking at things, lifting veil after veil from the meaning (to paraphrase Percy Shelley) without ever seeing the full meaning, which JKR herself is also unable to see. A great work of literature always exceeds the author's intentions and the meanings he or she consciously assigned to it. From a thematic perspective or a methodological perspective (e.g., analysis of narrative technique), or an exploration of genre and literary influences, there's always something new to analyze. Most fascinating, for me, at least, is character analysis. Motivation and relationships are always only partly revealed, and a character's thoughts are often concealed, especially when the author uses a narrator who sees, most of the time, through the eyes of a naive and partially informed character like Harry. We think we "know" these characters, but we will still interpret the canonical evidence differently and arrive at different conclusions. Read any three critical analyses of LOTR or "Bleak House" or "Macbeth" or Moby Dick," and you will see three different perspectives all based on canonical evidence. Those who think that "the facts" of the HP series are all that matters, or that Harry's fate is all that matters, will go on to new books, though they'll have a hard time finding another series in progress as addictive as this one. Those who understand that a completed text is still subject to interpretation, and that the author's intention is only one tool that can be used to interpret that text, will not be so easily satisfied. And if it turns out that the supporting characters in HP are nothing more than plot devices or mirrors to reflect Harry, that their interactions and motivations are not worth exploring and have no thematic value, that everything has been said that can be said, then the best place for the entire series will be the dust bin. I, for one, don't think that will be the case. Carol From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 04:29:06 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:29:06 -0000 Subject: LV Inmortality (plus Predicting the future) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116439 > > Distaiyi responded: > > > > > > Now in Hogwarts they teach not to use the unforgiveable (sp?, sorry > > tired) curses. But if a child, even a well trained child were to use > > one, well eventually they would get over it. Maybe getting Harry to > > the point where he can cast AK is exactly what Dumbledore wants? > > > Carol responds: > My original point was that the Unforgiveable Curses are evil and that > Dumbledore is too noble to use such weapons. To elaborate, they > require either hatred or cold indifference to human life, will, or > suffering to be cast correctly, which is why Harry failed when he > tried to Crucio. When an evil person casts them, he becomes even more > evil--irredeemable like Voldemort, Bellatrix, and Barty Jr. Even when > a person tries to use them for good, he is caught in his own net. > Barty Jr., who authorized the use of the Unforgiveable Curses on the > DEs, is Imperio'd and then Ak'd by the son he had tried to control > through the Imperius Curse. > > Barty Sr. shows the futility of using such weapons. Evil can't destroy > evil; it only perpetuates the cycle. Dumbledore is too noble, and too > wise, to use such weapons, and it would be utter hypocrisy to expcet > Harry to use them. Remember what happened to Tom Riddle, who AK'd his > own father and grandparents when he was the same age Harry will be > when he fights the ultimate battle with Voldemort. Dumbledore can't > possibly want that fate for Harry, or any of the young wizards and > witches who will be on his side of the war. No matter how well-trained > the children are, IMO, nothing can prepare them to use weapons that > can only be mastered by someone with the will to do evil. There must > be another way, a way to defeat evil through good. It's the difference > between *Defence Against* the Dark Arts and the Dark Arts themselves. > > Carol Antosha: Distayi, you're describing a book very much like Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. But I, along with Carol, don't think that's where JKR is leading us. I agree that Harry will delve into his dark side some more ("Turn to the Dark Side, young Wizard..."), but she has given us ample clues--the locked door in the DoM, the force that actually drives out LV when he attempts to possess Harry, Lily's Ancient Magic, and many more--that the final act that will defeat LV will be an act of love rather than one of hatred. Whether it is a selfless act of sacrifice, like Lily's, or a more complicated act of sympathy towards LV himself, with whom, as we know Harry shares so many "strange likenesses" (CoS, p. 316 US ed.). Perhaps it will be an act of both sacrifice and compassion--that would seem to please the readers who are looking for a Christian message without stooping to the clunky allegory of the Narnia books (which, btw, I love dearly, clunky allegory notwithstanding). From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 19:45:58 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:45:58 -0000 Subject: What was DU hiding? / Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116440 Meri wrote: > > DU states in OP that her fire is the only fire in Hogwarts > > that isn't being monitored by the MoM. Why is that? As loyal > > to the Ministry as she is, what could she be saying that she > > doesn't want anyone, even the people on her own side, to hear? > > Is she hiding something? Or has the "DU is a DE" > > speculation finally gotten to my head? antosha added: > DU as DE seems like the LEAST interesting choice, it seems to me. > If all the bad guys are simply LV's lapdogs, then life is pretty > simple. But if supposedly good or neutral folks can turn out to be > that horrible--and DU is, it seems to me, the most despicable > villain we've encountered so far; LV seems almost benign in > comparison--then who knows what's going to happen? > > As US Senator Joe McCarthy showed us all, just because you're > paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. now me (barmaid): This may also fit in the recent villain thread -- but I like it here - - so there. First, I completely agree with Antosha that DU is most disturbing and despicable. As others have said in other threads -- LV seems less scary or at least less effectual as a villain than some of the others we see. I think part of this is that we see these other villains close up and in action. We really only have the stories of LV at full power that we hear from others -- and they are afraid of him -- so we sort of have to trust that they would not be so afraid if LV was always as lame a villain as we see now. That said... I think this complex set of villains is brilliant. Fudge, DU, Snape, maybe Malfoy -- and others -- *for me* are a very important critic of the whole idea of villains and of a black and white view of good and evil. LV has become evil personified in the WW. Not unlike Hitler in the RW. This sort of pure simple evil always feels way too easy for me. It lets people off the hook for the little moral choices we all have to make every day. Fudge, Barty Sr. and DU are on the side of "good" but do evil. They in fact call their evil good. Snape, on the other hand, does not hide under the clock of "goodness" -- but does good -- tries to work for the good -- somehow without *being* good. Interesting that you mention Joe McCarthy -- very much a Barty Sr. if you ask me.... --barmaid From feklar at verizon.net Tue Oct 26 06:04:44 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:04:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Occlumency lessons failed? References: Message-ID: <001601c4bb21$b10e0f20$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 116441 > > Eggplant Wrote: > But that touches on another question, why did Snape's Occlumency > lessons to Harry seem to cause more harm than good? This is what the > book says: > > "'Snape made it worse, my scar always hurt worse after lessons with > him -' Harry remembered Ron's thoughts on the subject and plunged > on '-how do you know he wasn't trying to soften me up for Voldemort, > make it easier for him to get inside my -' Feklar-- I just had a thought: what if the scar hurt because the occlumency lessons were working, partially at least, and afterwords Voldemort would have to reestablish his place in Harry's mind. The only time Harry was making a conscious effort to block his mind was when Snape was attacking him. He generally failed to keep out Snape, but maybe his efforts were enough to disrupt the connection with LV because the scar is a more tenuous or less direct connection than an eye-to-eye legilimens spell. Feklar From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 06:25:02 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:25:02 -0000 Subject: Umbridge - Life Debt to Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <20041025165211.99726.qmail@web90107.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > Finwitch wrote: > > >You know, being that Dumbledore saved her life from the Centaurs... > > she now owes Dumbledore a life-debt. I'm a bit curious as to how > > that might come into play, or if it will, or if it does, will Harry > > know about it before the end-of-year - discussion? > Juli: > > I've never actually thought about it... But the MoM is > having some serious problems, probably Umbridge will > soon be fired (for sadist detentions, etc.), so what > could she possibly do for DD? I don't think DD saved > her from the centaurs just to ger a life-debt, he's > just a nice guy and would never intentionally kill > anyone (thinking about the LV vs DD fight in MoM). Or > maybe he thinks she'll play some future roll. bboyminn: The flow of the story has lead us to believe that the Centaur were going to kill Umbridge, and even implies that they are going to kill Harry and Hermione before Grawp showed up. But would they really have done it? That would be a pretty blood-thirsty thing to do, and the wizard world would not likely let it go unchallenged. The Centaurs are supposed to be smart, and as arrogant as they may be, they are not stupid enough to think that killing a Ministry official and two innocent teens would not bring serious reprecussions from the wizard world. Ask yourself why they carried Umbridge off if they intended to kill her? Why didn't they just kill her on the spot and be done with it, and why, if they planned to kill her, was she still alive the next day when Dumbledore went after her? The Centaurs are trying to make it absolutely clear that they do not want wizards in their forest, but they have not declared absolute all-out war against the wizard world. So, what I think we are seeing is an extreme attempt at intimidation. I will not go so far as to say that they were not in danger, or that bodily harm at the hands of the Centaurs could not befall them. But the thought that the Centaurs, who make a point of staying out of other people's business, would commit the cold-blooded murder of defenseless children is a bit of a stretch. Therefore, while Dumbledore did save Umbridge, I don't think he truly saved her life. It was possible under the circumstances that she could have died, but I think, if anything, it would have been her own arrogance and stupidity that killed her. More likely, a week or so later, Umbridge would have come stumbling out of the woods much worse for the wear, but alive. Right after the book came out, we had a long discussion which went on for many days and many posts, about the likelihood that Umbridge was raped by the Centaurs. That may sound pretty extreme for this series of book, but it is none the less a part of the Centaur myth and legend. So, Umbridge owns Dumbledore a debt, but not a 'life debt'. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 06:40:08 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:40:08 -0000 Subject: Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > martyb1130 at a... wrote: > > > Do the muggles know that there is > > a wizarding world or not > Eggplant: > > I believe that at the very apex of the muggle world, Queens, Prime > Ministers, Presidents, they do indeed know that the Wizarding world > exists; but all the other common everyday muggles don't have a clue > about magic. > > Eggplant bboyminn: I think you are right. I've even started laying out a fan fiction in which Harry & Ron meet Harry & William (also Ginny&Hermione meet the royals). Let's remember that in ancient times, especially before the Church came into play, wizards served as advisors to kings and queens, and generally held a positive position in society. I think initially what drove wizard persecution and what eventually drove wizards underground was the Church. Remember that in the beginning, the organized church was far more interest in power, wealth, and influence than in saving any souls. By pushing wizards out and demonizing them, the church was able to solidify it own influence over kings and emperors. The thing I wonder about, is how Slytherin-ish muggles have been restrained from trying to use magical power to solidify their own power and wealth. Perhaps it's just that fact that the wizard world can make any uncooperative muggle forget what he knows that keeps the muggle world safe. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Oct 26 06:49:01 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:49:01 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew (sorry, OT) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: > > > Carol: > > Carol, who still can't figure out *what* Lupin was thinking > > catkind: How about: Lupin in this scene slipped through the lines of > print to join Sirius in an entirely different and more primitive genre > of fiction. > > Think LotR. Think Alexandre Dumas. This rat has betrayed our friend, > causing his death. He has to die! In either of those settings it would > seem perfectly normal. > > Harry then heroically drags his father's friends back up into > Boarding-School-Story land. > Renee: No, don't think LotR, please. Frodo: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature [Gollum], when he had a chance." Gandalf: "Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not a strike without need. (...) Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to him?" It seems to me LotR and Harry Potter very much belong in the same camp. Renee From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 07:40:41 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:40:41 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? Methods... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116445 > Alla: > > It is also same Harry who had been completely satisfied with VERY > uncomplete explanation, which Dumbledore gave him afterwards. It is > also the same Harry, who never ever questions what Dumbledore tells > him at the end of the books (prior to OOP, of course) > > Harry really does not ask much from the people he trusts (for plot > reasons, of course, but still). Finwitch: Not just plot reasons. Harry's just not the sort who goes around asking questions. Only one who does, it seems, is Seamus Finnigan. Hermione goes to the library if she wants to know something. Comes to mind what I've been told about different people having different methods of learning - three-main methods - visual, oral and kinetic. Most people have more than one way, and possibly one stronger than others - occasionally someone even only has one method. (And the one question I have about it is: WHY do we have to wait until highest-level professional school to figure out how it is that we, personally, learn? We ought to be *aware* of this...) Also, teachers tend to use teaching methods that suit their learning methods... and this theory also means that when learning methods and teaching method don't match, there are problems. --- Oral learner needs to HEAR what he wants to learn. (Not my type, but this would probably be the sort to ask questions, read aloud etc.) Visual learner needs to *see* things - reading, Pictures, observing, visioning... Kinetic learner needs to be moving in order to learn. And, any movement will do. Pedalling on an exercise bike, walk around, play with a pen etc. while learning. --- There are differences also on just how detailed instructions people are ready to take etc. Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 26 08:20:38 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:20:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116446 khinterberg wrote: >> Sorry for me to beat a dead horse (or cockroaches), but I went back and reread this portion of the book. I was struck by this quote at the very end of the chapter: > > "What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being > shouted at or *having jars thrown at him*--it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers..." (p > 650, OotP US paperback) Alla responded: > > I love that quote. I think it is possible that jar exploded due to wandless magic, but Snape throwing it still seems more likely > Potioncat added: > I really like the wandless, uncontrolled magic idea, but I think > that last quote killed it. Carol notes: Except, of course, for the possibility that Snape throwing the jar is Harry's perception rather than what actually happened. Harry has no experience of anyone other than himself performing accidental magic as the result of inadequately suppressed fury. At any rate, that quote occurs at the end of the chapter, as hindsight, not during the incident itself. I really can't see Snape, no matter how angry he is, deliberately smashing a jar of cockroaches in his own office. After all, he's the one who has to catch them and put them back. I can, however, visualize him being so angry that he *wants* to throw something and the force of his anger exploding some object that he'd really rather had stayed intact. Carol Now Dungrollin: Funny how we all imagine things differently, isn't it? I never assumed the cockroaches in the exploding jar were alive, along with all the other slimy things in jars in Snape's office. It's actually not very wise to keep live cockroaches in *jars*, anyway; they need a bit more air. - If they're too humid they start to smell a bit (and suffer from entomophagous fungi) ? particularly if you feed them on go-cat and banana. No, I'd always imagined them in alcohol or formaldehyde, or steeped in oil, or vinegar, or something else rather more exotic. Or simply dried au naturel... Dungrollin, - off for a fresh crack at disassembling a Landrover's turbo unit. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 09:11:54 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:11:54 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Traits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116447 > > Ginger's take on things: > Ambition, cunning, resourcefulness, determination: It sounds like it > will lead to a career in politics. > > Those seem to be the qualities of leaders, although not necessarily > good ones. They definately don't fit Crabbe and Goyle. Perhaps the > hat puts in that sort so that the Malfoy types have someone to follow > them. A houseful of Dracos would result in a lot of in-fighting. > Teamwork is the key, and Slytherins could probably be team players if > it meant meeting the set goal. > > Mostly it sounds like Slytherin wanted the "movers and shakers" of > the world. He wanted to educate those who would find themselves in > positions of power and influence. Maybe this is why there is still > such a high regard for pureblood status among the higher circles > despite Dumbledore and others like him. Finwitch: Indeed, they'd go to be *leaders*. What they do once they're there, is another matter. They could also be the sort who *adjust* themselves to the World for power & money. Once they have it, they don't want changes, because they want to KEEP it. (I think Fudge was Slytherin...). Crabbe&Goyle... they don't talk much, they're muscular... anyway, they MAY hold ambitions and be determined/stubborn in trying to get it, cunning enough to use Malfoy's brain if they can't think for themselves... or maybe they're just pretending to be stupid. Determination, resourcefulness, cunning, ambition -- would make a fine Healer... Ambition to find a cure for a lethal disease that is as yet curable, to heal better than anyone... Also, some activists certainly have a disregard for rules and seem to be ready to use any means to achieve their goal- saving the WildLife, Caged minks etc... Many Activists of Politics, indeed... many rebels, too... I'd say that goodness for a Slytherin is highly dependant on what his/her goal is. Ends justify the means is Slytherin motto, I'd think... Finwitch From kgpopp at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 05:13:47 2004 From: kgpopp at yahoo.com (kgpopp) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:13:47 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116448 > Pip!Squeak: > > Harry does not respect Snape. Harry would have respected > > Dumbledore. > > > > Except - since when does a fifteen year old student get to select > > the school teachers himself? Dumbledore selected Snape as the > > teacher for reasons that seemed good to him; *Harry* did not > > respect Dumbledore's decision there. > > > Alla: > Was anybody suggesting that Harry woud select teacher himself? No, > just that Dumbledore should have done a better job of doing it. "kgpopp": Devil's advocate only, 1) Snape told Harry not be so open with his emotions and that for the occlumency to work he had to clear his head. Maybe Snape made Harry mad to test his ability not just to torture him (I'm not say Snape didn't enjoy getting in a few jabs). But if Harry could endure taunts from Snape, wouldn't he be more likely to ignore taunts from Voldemort? Yes Snape is a jerk, but Voldemort killed Harry's parents, and framed Hagrid and tried to kill him. I think Voldemort would be apt to invoke much stronger feelings of hate from Harry. Not saying this was tough love but maybe more the boot camp approach of tough knocks. 2) In terms of Snape's his ability to get over hating James. DD thought they could make it work, but let's put the failure in context. Snape takes the time to hide some personal memories from Harry in the Pensieve. (Not really fair as he can open up Harry memories but again Snape's a Jerk.) Then Harry being ever curious invades his privacy and see James taunting Snape and getting the better of him. I don't think DD expected Snape to have to deal with Harry being on equal footing in terms of knowing the history. The ironic part is that neither DD or Snape seem to realize that Harry is ashamed by his dad's behavior. 3) As DD says at the end he thought it would be dangerous to open Harry's mind to Voldemort in his presence so I'm not sure DD can give the lessons. Not sure who else is a candidate. From apeiron at comcast.net Tue Oct 26 05:48:23 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:48:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041026054823.GA79982@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116449 On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 19:19:22 EDT, Juli scribbled these curious markings (which I've mostly snipped): [snippage] > A phrase in the LOTR keeps coming to my mind, right near the end > Gandalf says "my time is over, for I was the enemy of Sauron", I > think that phrase could also be applied to DD, He IS the enemy of LV, [more snippage] ... except for the teensy weensy, itty-bitty, minuscule fact that Harry (or Neville, depending upon your interpretation) must kill or be killed by him. I would say that Dumbledore is *an* enemy of Voldemort, yes -- but not "the" enemy. > I believe DD knows a LOT more than we believe, he seems to know > everything that happens in Hogwarts, even before things happen. I > read somewhere that it could be because frog-cards, and Bill did say > that DD didn't care if they fired him as long as they kept him on the > frog-cards. How else could he have known when in PS Harry was > spending his evenings at the mirror of Erised, and that Harry would > be in that final encounter with LV/Quirell? I have no idea how DD > knows the future, but I'm sure he does know what's about to happen. Well, there's always everybody's favourite, the Time-Turner! I don't see why everyone dislikes them. Time travel isn't that difficult to understand, especially if you imagine time as a pseudo-spatial two-dimensional graph, and then graph absolute time on one axis and timeline branches on the other ... but I digress. Back to the point: Dumbledore's apparent omniscience. He's already demonstrated a willingness to use time travel both to aide a student in her education (I highly, *highly* doubt that devices like Time Turners are free for professors to hand out even to students like Hermione, at least not without some paperwork) and to save lives. Who's to say that he doesn't use one to monitor his school? And then there's an idea that you came so close to hitting, but you missed. It gave me the idea, though. We've seen in OotP (and probably elsewhere, but since I've finished reading OotP most recently, it's the book freshest in my mind) that photograph inhabitants are free to roam to other photographs -- they're not even restricted to their own. And, since photograph inhabitants are apparently limited in what they *can* do, I don't see it as too much of a stretch that many of them would lend themselves to gossipping. Hence, I see it as entirely possible that one of the myriad and sundry photograph inhabitants would be able to keep Dumbledore -- or anyone else for that matter -- fully apprised of any usual or unusual goings-on. Further, there's also Fawkes. That phoenix really gets around, and fast. I suspect that we haven't seen all that Fawkes can do. And then there's also the possibility that Dumbledore himself has some intrinsic ability of which we're not aware. Perhaps he has some sort of ability to perceive the future? This would possible explain a lot of his actions regarding Trelawney. It would possibly impart to him knowledge of how difficult true prophecy is and thus he would have more respect for the otherwise mostly fraudulent Trelawney. > Hoping I made any sense at all... Well, you did, at least to me. Best regards, Christopher Nehren -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 09:49:34 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:49:34 -0000 Subject: Why Occlumency lessons failed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116450 > "kgpopp": > 1) Snape told Harry not be so open with his emotions and that for the > occlumency to work he had to clear his head. Maybe Snape made Harry > mad to test his ability not just to torture him (I'm not say Snape > didn't enjoy getting in a few jabs). But if Harry could endure > taunts from Snape, wouldn't he be more likely to ignore taunts from > Voldemort? Yes Snape is a jerk, but Voldemort killed Harry's > parents, and framed Hagrid and tried to kill him. I think Voldemort > would be apt to invoke much stronger feelings of hate from Harry. Not > saying this was tough love but maybe more the boot camp approach of > tough knocks. Finwitch: Hmm.. Snape may have told Harry to calm down, but I don't know anyone who can do that on command! Not that Harry knows how to calm himself down anyway - except outside where he can go flying on his Firebolt... and I'm not all that certain that lack of emotion would help Harry, even if it helps Snape to do that. At any rate, Snape was being self-contradictory, telling Harry to calm down AND irritate him at the same time. Sign of a lowsy teacher, that. -snip point 2). kgpopp: > 3) As DD says at the end he thought it would be dangerous to open > Harry's mind to Voldemort in his presence so I'm not sure DD can > give the lessons. Not sure who else is a candidate. Finwitch: And Opening Harry's mind to Voldemort near Snape wasn't? I can think of a few candidates who may know Legilimency/Occlumency. Mr Ollivander. HOW else would he have known who Harry was? And all that talk of his eyes... shining like Moons. Dumbledore's eyes also have certain *gleam* or *twinkle* to them... certain *light* that went off when he had left Harry... (Haven't checked if there's any LIGHT in Snape's eyes, but oh well...) And, quite possibly, Aberforth. (He may have used Legilimency to get trough Hogwarts...) Finwitch From apeiron at comcast.net Tue Oct 26 06:27:39 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:27:39 -0400 Subject: What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: References: <141.3643cbf3.2ea5cfea@aol.com> Message-ID: <20041026062739.GA80223@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116451 On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 23:24:08 EDT, Carol scribbled these curious markings (most of which I've snipped): > another. And, yes, of course, potions are one of those ways, and > Snape's classes, especially his lessons on anecdotes, are going to > prove important. Anecdotes, eh? :) Neglect not, friend, thine Wolfsbane Lest all ye shalt know is paine Although I don't exactly see Snape composing such a thing to remind Lupin of what to do. On a more serious note, I've been thinking about the lethal potions idea. We know that Harry attended Hogwarts in the 1990s. The Muggle world at least had extensible knowledge of how to mix certain substances together to make them go boom. Surely a wizard or witch can do the same for an exploding potion? Add a little magic and you have a wizarding grenade. I'd hate to know what it'd do to your insides if you imbibed it... though I imagine that Hagrid would drink it like normal people do coffee. :) > But, as I indicated in my response to Christopher, I still think we > have a very limited list here, and important as potions will probably > prove to be, especially if the DEs are again picking off Order members > one by one, they won't work very well as a weapon in a pitched battle. Not that it's in a different class than what's already been listed, but you can add the knife with which Peter produced his sacrifice. I'm fairly certain that he would have bled to death -- though that's not quite the point that I wish to make here. If a wizard can mutilate himself so thoroughly with a certain knife, it's logical to assume that the same implement could be used for more ... directly lethal (e.g. through the heart) actions. Christopher Nehren -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 11:11:01 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:11:01 -0000 Subject: Peeling letters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116452 > > Carol, wondering why Lupin doesn't use some sort of spell to repair > the peeling initials Finwitch: Interesting thing is that the golden letters above Ollivander's shop are ALSO peeling! Add to that the fact that Narrow and shabby shop... But the very silence & dust seem to hold some secret magic. (good atmosphere for wand-selling, isn't it?) Hmm -mm - Ollivander doesn't seem interested in fixing the golden letters either. (or he is blind to such mundane things). Who knows- maybe *peeling letters* have a magical security camera inside or something? Or maybe they just LIKE them that way, or it would be too much a bother to do something about it... Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 26 11:41:55 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:41:55 -0000 Subject: Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116453 Eggplant: > > I believe that at the very apex of the muggle world, Queens, Prime > Ministers, Presidents, they do indeed know that the Wizarding world > exists; but all the other common everyday muggles don't have a clue > about magic. Potioncat: Given the large number of students at Hogwarts who have at least one Muggle parent, I would say there are a considerable number of Muggles who know. But for the major part, Magic is unknown. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 26 11:55:25 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:55:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116454 > > >Carol notes: > Except, of course, for the possibility that Snape throwing the jar is Harry's perception rather than what actually happened. Harry has no experience of anyone other than himself performing accidental magic as the result of inadequately suppressed fury. Potioncat: Good point. I wonder if this will come up again. I would also think that accidental magic would be an embarrassing thing for an adult wizard. And if that's the case, Snape is in a fix! >>>Carol: I can, however, visualize him being so angry that he *wants* to throw something and the force of his anger exploding some object that he'd really rather had stayed intact. Potioncat: I love that wording! Could not snip it! Not to beat a dead cockroach, myself...I still see a connection between this exploding jar of cockroaches and Lupin's boggart orb disolving into a cockroach. I just don't know what it is. >>> Now Dungrollin: > No, I'd always imagined them in alcohol or formaldehyde, or > steeped in oil, or vinegar, or something else rather more exotic. > Or simply dried au naturel... Potioncat: Cockroach infused olive oil...you'll find it on the shelf next to the cockroach clusters. And my kids complain about the meals I serve! From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 11:55:43 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:55:43 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116455 > Neri: > > While developing Mind-linked!Snape (VASSAL) I considered the dark mark > as an alternative linking method. The problem is that we have very > little information about it, and from what we have it seems pretty > primitive. But I agree that there is probably something more to it. It > seems to act as a kind of conditioning device: if a DE thinks disloyal > thoughts, or even hears Voldemort's name, he gets burned. Perhaps > Snape found a way to hack this system. Perhaps the dark mark can kill > a DE who betrays Voldemort. It didn't work during the time Voldemort > was vapor, but it is supposed to work now. The fact that Snape stayed > alive was proof enough for Voldy that he's not a traitor. Finwitch: I doubt it can kill automatically. "One who I believe has left me forever. We will kill him, of course." I do think it burns/hurts when ever a DE hears the name Voldemort. An act or words to make the person saying it to share the fear makes it stop, I think. (At least that's what we get of Snape's reactions when Harry says it. I wonder how Dumbledore takes that... considering how he tries to get people speak the name. One reason why Harry is so dear to him...) It might tell Voldemort, though, and then he can use a severing curse, crucio and AK to see to the traitor... > Neri: > > OK, this gives me certain ideas. I might manage to salvage the VASSAL > yet. Check this: Voldemort didn't try to possess baby Harry in GH. He > tried to suck Harry's powers out of his brain in order to get the > power that the prophecy foretold. So he first created the mind link as > I suggested. Then he shot an AK in order to kill the baby. Voldy's > theory was that when the baby would die, his powers would be detached > from his mind and pass through the link to Voldy's mind. But since the > AK rebounded on Voldy, what happened was exactly the reverse: Voldy's > powers were transferred to Harry. In this case DD's words that they > are "connected by the curse that failed" would indeed be more of a > simplification than a lie. How does this scan? Finwitch: Seems water-tight to me. :-) -- So long as Harry call his home the place where his mother's blood dwells he'll be safe there... hmmm -m m. Guess he just needs a home as his mother's blood dwells in his own veins, too! Then again, ancient magic probably don't work that way - or does it allow it? Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 26 12:15:49 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:15:49 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Traits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116456 - > > Ginger's take on things: Mostly it sounds like Slytherin wanted the "movers and shakers" of the world. He wanted to educate those who would find themselves in positions of power and influence. Maybe this is why there is still such a high regard for pureblood status among the higher circles despite Dumbledore and others like him. Potioncat: I agree. I see them as those families in the RW whose kids attend the best school possible (according to skill or finance), who choose activities that will look good on college applications, who play competitive sports, and are never at rest. These kids look good. I don't think we see those Slytherins in the books. Now, perhaps JKR's intent is to show the negitive side of these traits. Or maybe she sees the traits as negative. Or maybe those Slytherins are off our screen because they're too busy being successful to join the IS or bother Harry. And maybe it is the power hungry,ones who do join the IS. >>> Finwitch: Determination, resourcefulness, cunning, ambition -- would make a fine Healer... Ambition to find a cure for a lethal disease that is as yet curable, to heal better than anyone... Also, some activists certainly have a disregard for rules and seem to be ready to use any means to achieve their goal- saving the WildLife, Caged minks etc... Many Activists of Politics, indeed... many rebels, too... I'd say that goodness for a Slytherin is highly dependant on what his/her goal is. Ends justify the means is Slytherin motto, I'd think... Potioncat: I agree fully. These traits are very often present in RW doctors, and in other doers-of-good. And I think you've hit the nail on the head. The ultimate goal would determine the actions. If the goal is to learn as much as possible, you'd have a student who would study hard and write long papers. If the goal was merely to get a good mark, you might get a student who would put his/her effort into cheating. I'm not trying to defend Slytherin as much as I'm looking for the good in it. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 12:40:35 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 05:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Rat at GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041026124035.48368.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116457 --- justcarol67 wrote: > ...I think Harry's mention of James caught Lupin off guard and he > forgot that he was trying to hide his own connection to James and > Sirius, their ability to transform into animals, his identity as a > werewolf, and all the rest. A moment later he comes to his senses > and merely reveals that he knew James and thought he knew Sirius, > and makes it clear that > he doesn't want the conversation to go any further. > Carol Excellent post, Carol. I would also suggest that it's quite possible that this was the first time it had ever occurred to Lupin that Harry had actually heard/seen his parents' death. Like a lot of adults who don't have children themselves, his knowledge of what a baby/toddler is capable of is second-hand at best, and he probably assumed that somehow the entire experience hadn't registered with toddler!Harry. To hear from Harry that he did hear and actually remembered what was said would be a rather shocking experience for Lupin. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Oct 26 12:58:25 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:58:25 -0000 Subject: Peeling letters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: Finwitch; > Who knows- maybe *peeling letters* have a magical security camera > inside or something? Or maybe they just LIKE them that way, or it > would be too much a bother to do something about it... Geoff: They are, of course, designer peeling letters: Advertisement "Give your shop a genuinely authentic air of great age with peeling letters on the fascia board; let your visitors feel that you have been an expert since who-knows-when BC." "Let your well-worn briefcase with its peeling letters exude an air of distinction and learning." Available from Peeling Letters, Diagon Alley. Owl us for quotes. :-) Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Oct 26 12:55:13 2004 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:55:13 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Rat at GH Message-ID: <36.64f1bc9c.2eafa331@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116459 In a message dated 10/26/2004 8:43:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, mgrantwich at yahoo.com writes: > justcarol67 wrote: > > >...I think Harry's mention of James caught Lupin off guard and he > >forgot that he was trying to hide his own connection to James and > >Sirius, their ability to transform into animals, his identity as a > >werewolf, and all the rest. A moment later he comes to his senses > >and merely reveals that he knew James and thought he knew Sirius, > >and makes it clear that > >he doesn't want the conversation to go any further. > >Carol > > > Excellent post, Carol. I would also suggest that it's quite possible > that this was the first time it had ever occurred to Lupin that Harry > had actually heard/seen his parents' death. Like a lot of adults who > don't have children themselves, his knowledge of what a baby/toddler > is capable of is second-hand at best, and he probably assumed that > somehow the entire experience hadn't registered with toddler!Harry. > To hear from Harry that he did hear and actually remembered what was > said would be a rather shocking experience for Lupin. Excellent analysis, Magda & Carol. I like it, and it fits Lupin's character. The Lupin bit isn't really necessary for my theory anyway, and I will accept you annotation. Thanks. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 14:20:14 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:14 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116460 We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught him ? 1. It seems accepted that Snape was already an Occlumens back when he was a DE. But that makes him awfully young ! The only other young person who we know has tried to learn Occlumency is Harry, and he's got a real good reason to do it ! What could possibly have been Snape's reason for learning such an uncommon skill so early ? 2. When exactly did Snape learn the skills ? Was he still at school ? Was it *before* school ? 3. Who taught him ? Could it be DD ? Would DD teach a Dark Arts kid skills as dangerous as Occlumency and Legilimency ? Or was it LV himself maybe ? 4. Did Snape learn Legilimency along with Occlumency ? If not, which one did he learn first ? 5. How did Snape learn Occlumency ? Someone (Finwitch if I'm not mistaken) pointed out that teachers often use their favourite mean of *learning* to teach. It is also common for people to teach something specific in the very same way as they were taught it. So could it be that Snape taught Harry in that weird way (making him more angry at the start of the lesson) because it was the way he learned Occlumency himself ? Anybody have any answers or additional questions ? Del, who thinks of what it would mean if Snape had already been a Legilimens at the time of the Pantsing and/or the Prank... From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 26 14:34:46 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:34:46 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116461 >>>Del wrote: So could it be that Snape taught Harry in that weird way (making him more angry at the start of the lesson) because it was the way he learned Occlumency himself ? Anybody have any answers or additional questions ? Del, who thinks of what it would mean if Snape had already been a Legilimens at the time of the Pantsing and/or the Prank... Potioncat: These are good questions. I wonder if it's something JKR will tell us? If Snape already knew curses that 7th years didn't know when he came to Hogwarts, he may have had time and interest in learning something else obscure. And it could have been his Head of House who taught him. One of his parents could have taught him. Or he may have learned it as an adult from some other mentor....even in the past 14 years at Hogwarts. Or is it possible that having the potential skill for it, he developed it as he matured? What if he accidentally learned to shut off certain thoughts under certain circumstances? (Being bullied by his father?) Sort of the way Harry grew his hair back? I don't think we know he is an Legilimens, although there are hints that he might be. He uses that spell, with a wand while teaching Harry. But LV doesn't need a wand to do it. I think he knows Harry is not telling the truth during the scene with the petrified cat. Although I don't think he could get all the details. Same for the scene in GoF where he makes Harry sit near his desk and threatens him with veritaserum. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 26 14:43:27 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:43:27 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good > Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught him ? > snip> Best bet - DD did when Snape went over to the Order. Otherwise his chances of survival would equate to snowball in Hell odds. Mind you, if he did learn Legilimens at the same time - is this why he's got such a down on Sirius? He read Sirius' mind re: his genuine motives/intentions regarding the Prank (that'd be fun) and maybe a few other things as well. Kneasy From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 26 15:52:53 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:52:53 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116463 > Potioncat: > I don't think we know he is an Legilimens, although there are > hints that he might be. He uses that spell, with a wand while > teaching Harry. But LV doesn't need a wand to do it. > > I think he knows Harry is not telling the truth during the scene > with the petrified cat. Although I don't think he could get all > the details. Same for the scene in GoF where he makes Harry sit > near his desk and threatens him with veritaserum. Dungrollin: I think we have more than hints, don't we? DD says at the end of OotP that he's a sufficiently good legilimens to know when he's being lied to, when he was talking to Kreacher. That implies to me that there are two kinds of legilimency. There's the spell, the incantation ("Legilimens!") for which you need a wand, and which allows you to see the memories of the person you're attacking. But there's also (presumably once you're sufficiently proficient at the spell) the bonus of generally knowing when you're being lied to. There are several mentions of Harry wondering if Snape can read minds, and whenever Snape suspects Harry of lying he's invariably right, Harry *is* lying. That's surely Legilimency of the kind that DD mentions at work. Which makes me wonder about Occlumency. Occlumency seems to have parallels with Legilimency, in that a sufficiently accomplished Occlumens can lie in casual conversation to a Legilimens and get away with it. But you don't protect your self from the spell "Legilimens!" with "Occlumens!". Or maybe you do, and Snape forgot to mention it in the lessons... Which would explain why Harry wasn't getting anywhere. Dungrollin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 26 16:14:56 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:14:56 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Re: Mind-linked!Snape (answers to several posts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116464 Pippin wanders down to the bay after a long absence. She looks much the same as always, her eyes as ever hidden by dark glasses, except that her cape now has a large 'X' prominently embroidered on what appears to be a patch the size of a can(n)on ball. The bay, however, still bears little resemblance to the tranquil lagoon once frequented by merry shippers. In the aftermath of Hurricane Jo, it looks more like an overturned kettle of alphabet soup. And on the horizon, a new cloud is forming, no bigger than a novelist's hand. Pippin sighs. The bay, she thinks, will never be what it was...but wait...what's this? A few intrepid newcomers are trying to restore the place to a bit of its former glory. Down at the docks, Neri and Faith are inspecting VASSAL, while Kneasy, somewhat hampered by the small, ugly child clamped to his leg, looks on with pretended disdain. Pippin looks the VASSAL vessel over, a flicker of interest glinting in her hidden eyes. "Cool idea" says Pippin. "But too Snape-centered" "Do you mean I should have centered it on Lupin?" Neri asks. "Heavens, no!" says Pippin, laughing out loud. "I mean, you should have centered it on Harry." "A useless brat," Kneasy grumbles. "Possibly," says Pippin. "But have you noticed that all our Snape theories have something in common? They all suppose that LV has a relationship with Snape which parallels his relationship with Harry. "Kneasy here, thinks that LV destroyed Snape's family. Neri thinks that Snape has a mind-link with Voldemort similar to Harry's. And I think that just as Voldemort transferred some of his powers to Harry, Snape transferred some of his part-vampire characteristics to LV." "Ah," said Neri. "That explains the 'X' you have embroidered on your cape." "Exactly," says Pippin. "It stands for Ex-vampire!Snape." Faith rolls her eyes. "But," says Pippin turning to her earnestly, "It's the underlying principle that matters, don't you see? We're probably all wrong about the nature of the link--" "Speak for yourself," grumbles Kneasy. "But the important thing, " Pippin went on as if he had not spoken,"is that we all think it exists. People go maundering on about Dumbledore's lack of wisdom in arranging for Snape to be the Occlumency teacher, as if he couldn't tell straight off that it was a bad idea. Well, he knew sending Harry to live with the Dursleys would be a bad idea too, but he did it, because it was part of The Plan (tm). Suppose Harry working with Snape is part of The Plan (tm) too? "I mean, just as Snape didn't have to teach Harry Occlumency, there are other people at Hogwarts who could have taught him potions, Madam Pomfrey, for one. Dumbledore's got a reason for putting Harry through all this. That stagey handshake between Snape and Sirius, the Sorting Hat's new song in OOP... there's got to be more behind that than Magical Brotherhood Week! There has to be something Snape and Harry can do together, and *only* together, to reverse LV' s immortality. " Faith interrupts. "Aren't you forgetting something? Lord Voldemort isn't immortal any more. "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower..." (GoF ch 33) Pippin grins. " That's what *he* thinks!" But Dumbledore studied with Flammel, he's got to know more about what it takes to achieve immortality than Voldie does. Voldemort's immortal *now* -- He just doesn't know it yet. That's why he survived the rebounded AK, that's why Dumbledore doesn't try to kill him...it all fits." "Hmph!" says Faith, who believes in taking unreliable narrators at their word. "In order for them to do this 'something' , whatever it is, Snape and Harry will have to truly trust one another--" Pippin begins. "Ick!" says Kneasy. "Console yourself," says Pippin. "There's nothing in my theory that says they have to like it " Pippin From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 16:17:05 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:17:05 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Traits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116465 > Finwitch: > > Crabbe&Goyle... cunning enough to use Malfoy's brain > if they can't think for themselves... Very well said! People always equate intelligence with cunning, it's not the same. I have a cousin with Down's Syndrome, people who don't know him think I'm awful for saying that he's sneaky and manipulative, but he very much is. He plays his disablity up to get out things and get what he wants from people. My sister and I have code-named him Crabbe-n-Goyle! I can totally see them using Malfoy for his brains! > or maybe they're just pretending to be stupid. Do you reolize they've never had a single line in cannon? Not a word. They have laughed at Malfoy's jokes, so we know they're not actually mute, but Not One Word. Maybe they're thinking Deep Thoughts. Maybe they're playing dumb to get out of Junior Death Eater duty. Maybe they're not playing... --Frug From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 16:41:53 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:41:53 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116466 " We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught him ?" I'll answer to my own post :-) I just discussed the issue with my husband (correction : my wonderfully intelligent and also very humble husband, as he just reminded me ;-) ) and he expressed the possibility that maybe it was LV himself who trained some of his DEs to be Occlumens. There were undoubtedly secret DEs who could play a major role in different places (Hogwarts, the MoM, especially the DoM), but they would always have been at risk of being detected by any Legilimens strolling by (not a high risk, sure, but I do think that the Auror training would have put a special emphasis on Legilimency at the time, wandless or not). So maybe LV trained Snape and some others into the art of Occlumency. I wonder : is Lucius Malfoy an Occlumens too ? Del From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 16:50:27 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:50:27 -0000 Subject: How can you kill a wizard? (Was: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116467 Carol wrote: > And it does seem that magical beasts, notably the snake that bit Mr. Weasley (a Voldemort-possessed Nagini?) are capable of killing wizards, as are dragons (alas for Charlie?), manticores, and others. They can have their souls sucked by Dementors, a fate quite literally worse than death. But I don't think those creatures will play a role in the final battle. I think it will be wizard against wizard, the DEs using the Unforgiveable Curses when they can, though it seems difficult to use them in the heat of battle.< >What other possibilities might there be? Can a wizard drown? (Harry thinks he can during Task 2 of the TWT.) Evidently wizards can be blasted into pieces (Benjy Fenwick; the supposed death of Peter Pettigrew).< >I must appear very bloody-minded in this post, but I'm really not. I'm just trying to figure out 1) how JKR can present a battle scene that's more exciting and perilous than the DoM battle (AKs from every side will be boring and monotonous; "stupefy" and similar curses seem like inadequate weapons), and 2) how the good guys can kill the bad guys without resorting to the evil weapons of the enemy (the Dark Arts are not taught at Hogwarts).< >Christopher's enchanted weapons are one possibility. (I can just see the Hogwarts staff and students putting on the enchanted armor from the Hogwarts corridors to protect themselves.) And Godric Gryffindor's sword, which always struck me as a very Mugglish weapon despite its magical properties, may come in handy as well.< >Any other ideas? < Kim adds: One question (to Carol), is why you think the dementors won't participate in the final battle? I thought they had proven a sort of loyalty to the dark side when the DEs escaped from Azkaban. But I can see your point. I don't think Dementors would add much excitement to the final battles, unless they were part of a whole assortment of evil critters that are lending a hand to LV. The MoM battle in OotP was very exciting IMO and it would be hard for Rowling to outdo that (not that I doubt she will) with more of the same. Of course there's no reason to assume (on my part) that the final battle will even take place in the MoM. Will it be one big battle out on the Scottish moors, or a series of smaller battles between good and bad wizards, the final scene focusing on Harry defeating Voldemort? I had an idea previously (and am sure others have made similar observations) that one way to defeat LV and the DEs would be somehow to lure them into that special room in the Dept. of Mysteries, the room that contains the greatest magic of all (love?), and that their evil would then be "neutralized" in some fashion. It might be more than LV could take and he might just vaporize, but it wouldn't be an actual killing on the part of Harry and company. Of course that room may prove impossible to open, making that a moot point, but I still find the possibility really intriguing. Also there's the question of whether that most powerful magic resides only in that room or someplace else as well. But, you've made a really good point, since it's imperative for the good side to win the final battle, how are they going to do it if they can't/won't kill anyone, even their evil enemies? Then again, are good wizards/witches allowed just to injure their enemies? If they can only immobilize them somehow, not necessarily kill them, maybe it would still be possible to defeat them. In that sense, I mean immobilize them, tie them up, take them away, etc., if possible, not to allow them to recover and get up to keep fighting. But even that seems a bit boring. Another far-fetched possibility is that the DEs will turn on each other and on LV for some reason and will do themselves in in the end. Kim, who sighs when she thinks that in a mere two books all our questions will be answered ... well, sort of, at least ;-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 26 16:57:46 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:57:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat: >Not to beat a dead cockroach, myself...I still see a connection between this exploding jar of cockroaches and Lupin's boggart orb disolving into a cockroach. I just don't know what it is.< It could be, along with the cockroach clusters, a reminder that cockroaches are disgusting rather than funny, and thus a hint that Lupin, like Molly, was having trouble thinking of a way to make his boggart amusing. Pippin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 17:47:10 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:47:10 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116469 > > Neri: > >Perhaps the dark mark can > kill > > a DE who betrays Voldemort. It didn't work during the time Voldemort > > was vapor, but it is supposed to work now. The fact that Snape > stayed > > alive was proof enough for Voldy that he's not a traitor. > > Finwitch: > > I doubt it can kill automatically. "One who I believe has left me > forever. We will kill him, of course." Neri again: Actually the correct words are "One who I believe has left me forever. He will be killed, of course." The passive tense might be important here. It might imply that Snape will be killed by an automatic control device (his dark mark?) rather than by Voldy or a DE squad. Neri From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 17:48:13 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:48:13 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good > Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught > him ? > > ...edited... > > Del, bboyminn: First I think Occlumency and Legilimency are an in-grained talents similar to musical talent. You could teach me to peck out a couple tunes on the piano, but by no means, given my lack of musical talent, would I ever be a piano player. The same with Occlumency, you could teach a person to demonstrate Occlumens ability under ideal conditions, but that falls far short of /being/ an Occlumens. I think Harry because of his previously demonstrated ability to block the Impereus Curse, is logically also talented at Occlumency. And, he demonstrates as much on a couple occassions during the Occlumency lessons with Snape. As far as Snape, given what little we know about his past, it is likely that Snape was a very closed off person to start with. I think this lead to a natural ability to hide his emotions from people, which in turn lead to the natural developement of his in-grained Occlumency talent. Also, Snape's general talents and bank of knowledge seem far above average. It's likely that Snape spend a great deal of his time researching the library, much like Riddle, and as little time as possible interacting with other students. So, to some extent Snape's ability is a blend of self-taught, and enhanced by a circumstance created need. However, recognising this talent, either Voldemort or Dumbledore, or perhaps both might have taught Snape to better use his skill and thereby serve the cause better. Remember Snape is a spy, and whether you believe Voldemort sent him to Dumbledore to act as a double-agent, or whether Dumbledore somehow recruted him, his Occlumency ability would have been a primary asset in his ability to spy. So, I think Snape both comes by his talent naturally, and as a natural process owing to life circumstances developed the skill on his own, but I won't discount the possiblity that someone help him further develop the skill. As far as the skill of Legilimency, I don't think we have enough evidence of that. At best we have a few implications, but to a kid like Harry or any kid for that matter, it frequently seems as if authority figures can read minds. Usually, in those case however, the guilt is either written clearly on our young faces, or the /mind reader/ is just fishing for possibilities. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 17:51:39 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:51:39 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116471 > Neri again: > > Actually the correct words are "One who I believe has left me > forever. He will be killed, of course." The passive tense might be > important here. It might imply that Snape will be killed by an > automatic control device (his dark mark?) rather than by Voldy or a > DE squad. > Alla: I am also wondering about "of course" part. I mean yes, Voldie is a big show - off, but could it be that he is indeed that confident that Dark Mark is guranteed kill - kill situation. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 17:56:26 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:56:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 28, Snape's worst memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116472 >> Potioncat: > >> Not to beat a dead cockroach, myself...I still see a connection >> between this exploding jar of cockroaches and Lupin's boggart >> orb disolving into a cockroach. I just don't know what it is. > Pippin: > It could be, along with the cockroach clusters, a reminder that > cockroaches are disgusting rather than funny, and thus a hint > that Lupin, like Molly, was having trouble thinking of a way to > make his boggart amusing. But 'cockroach cluster' *is* funny, at least to any Monty Python fans who happen to be listening in...okay, funny in a somewhat gross kind of way, but I always laugh when the poor secondary inspector gets violently sick in his hat. There's surely something funny about the moon turning into a cockroach. It's impossible to alter the face of the moon (as much as we, in college, once tried), but one can smush a cockroach under the foot with a very gratifying *crunch*. Lupin's rather dry sense of humor would appreciate that. -Nora's favorite Monty Python sketch is 'The North Minehead By- Election' From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 16:56:13 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:56:13 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116473 Del wrote: > > We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good > Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught him ? > > Anybody have any answers or additional questions ? > Tammy replies: I've always wondered if different witches and wizards could have an intrinsic ability. For example in the case of Snape and occlumency, he would have a natural talent already in him for it, one that required little actual learning for him to master it. We already know of one thing that is definitely a natural talent, metamorphmagus, so how do we know there aren't other smaller things that are natural talents. If you look at muggle paranormal phenomenon with that in mind, those people who can move things with their mind would simply be witches or wizards who have a natural talent for levitation and summoning. It sounds like something JKR would try to do, explain weird muggle happenings with a simple magical answer. -Tammy who's natural ability seems to be demolishing her house. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 18:00:22 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:00:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <20041026054823.GA79982@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116474 Juli wrote: > I believe DD knows a LOT more than we believe, he seems to know everything that happens in Hogwarts, even before things happen. Christopher wrote in response: >Well, there's always everybody's favourite, the Time-Turner! I don't see why everyone dislikes them. Time travel isn't that difficult to understand, especially if you imagine time as a pseudo-spatial two- dimensional graph, and then graph absolute time on one axis and timeline branches on the other ... but I digress. Back to the point: Dumbledore's apparent omniscience. He's already demonstrated a willingness to use time travel both to aide a student in her education (I highly, *highly* doubt that devices like Time Turners are free for professors to hand out even to students like Hermione, at least not without some paperwork) and to save lives. Who's to say that he doesn't use one to monitor his school?< Kim chimes in here: Speaking only for myself, not everyone dislikes time-turners! I think in the hands of one such as Dumbledore, they could be very powerful, useful tools, though way more unpredictable than at first thought. After all, it takes a really bright (and it goes without saying, responsible) wizard or witch to use them properly without risking messing everything up, which shows us the high regard DD and McGonagall have for Hermione. It just stands to reason that DD uses a time turner himself on occasion. Christopher continued: >And then there's an idea that you [Juli] came so close to hitting, but you missed. It gave me the idea, though. We've seen in OotP (and probably elsewhere, but since I've finished reading OotP most recently, it's the book freshest in my mind) that photograph inhabitants are free to roam to other photographs -- they're not even restricted to their own. And, since photograph inhabitants are apparently limited in what they *can* do, I don't see it as too much of a stretch that many of them would lend themselves to gossipping. Hence, I see it as entirely possible that one of the myriad and sundry photograph inhabitants would be able to keep Dumbledore -- or anyone else for that matter -- fully apprised of any usual or unusual goings-on.< Kim again: The only problem I can see with picture-traveling is the limitation that comes from some rooms having pictures and some not. I don't think all the castle walls are covered with pictures and photos. And then there's the problem pictures present with seeing things that go on outside the castle. And with frog-card pictures, which could go outside, what would you do if you were in someone's pocket all the time? But in that case I suppose you could still at least hear what was being said. Christopher continued: >And then there's also the possibility that Dumbledore himself has some intrinsic ability of which we're not aware. Perhaps he has some sort of ability to perceive the future? This would possibly explain a lot of his actions regarding Trelawney. It would possibly impart to him knowledge of how difficult true prophecy is and thus he would have more respect for the otherwise mostly fraudulent Trelawney.< Kim's last remark: I recall others on the list coming up with the idea of Dumbledore possibly having the intrinsic ability to become a bumblebee (i.e. his animagus), especially since that's what "Dumbledore" means. As a bee, he could literally be a "fly on the wall" and see what others are up to without them knowing it. Of course, on closer examination, there are still some problems with that too: Wouldn't people notice the buzzing of a bee? Wouldn't a bee (being a warm- weather creature) freeze if he went outside to keep watch on folks during the winter months? How would a bee keep from getting smashed or eaten by Crookshanks? Or maybe DD isn't a bee, but some other bug (such as Rita "Skeeter" was a beetle, not a mosquito). And how has he kept his animagus ability secret for all these years if he indeed has the ability? Being a bee or other bug may be only one of several omniscient capabilities DD possesses. In any case, IMO Dumbledore has an animagus (just as the current transfig. teacher McGonagall's is a cat), but JKR just hasn't mentioned his animagus yet. I'd love to see more discussion of this. Cheers, Kim From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Oct 26 18:08:01 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:08:01 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How can you kill a wizard? (Was: Hagrid) Message-ID: <1df.2d297ecd.2eafec81@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116475 In a message dated 10/26/2004 10:44:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com writes: >Christopher's enchanted weapons are one possibility. (I can just see the Hogwarts staff and students putting on the enchanted armor from the Hogwarts corridors to protect themselves.) And Godric Gryffindor's sword, which always struck me as a very Mugglish weapon despite its magical properties, may come in handy as well.< ****************************************************************************** ********** Hmm... When I read this, an interesting thought popped into my head. What if what ends the Wizarding War, isn't a spell or anything enchanted at all. Wouldn't it be ironic if since the DE's are so anti-Muggle if it's a Muggle invention that actually kills them? For instance, since they think Muggles are so stupid, and below them (as they do other members of the non wizarding world, ie. house elf's, centaurs, goblin's...well you get the point.) that there is no way that they could make something that could possibly harm them. Like maybe Harry loses his wand, and all he has is some seemingly un-helpful, harmless muggle item. Voldemort then underestimating him gives him the opportunity to defend himself, and surprise, surprise, Harry wins! Maybe I'm way off the mark, but I think it could be possible. What do you guys think?? Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 17:03:46 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:03:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <20041026054823.GA79982@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116476 Christopher Nehren wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 19:19:22 EDT, Juli scribbled these > curious markings (which I've mostly snipped): > [snippage] > > A phrase in the LOTR keeps coming to my mind, right near the end > > Gandalf says "my time is over, for I was the enemy of Sauron", I > > think that phrase could also be applied to DD, He IS the enemy of LV, > [more snippage] Christopher Nehren: > ... except for the teensy weensy, itty-bitty, minuscule fact that Harry > (or Neville, depending upon your interpretation) must kill or be killed > by him. I would say that Dumbledore is *an* enemy of Voldemort, > yes -- but not "the" enemy. Juli replies: I think he is THE enemy, as in the biggest. Why else have we always heard DD is the only one LV has ever feared? If he was just another enemy, like so many he's got, why make such a big deal about him? DD takes the war personally, he even created the *only* group that's always been fighting. You could argue with me saying that Harry/Neville is The enemy, but I don't agree with that. LV feared DD long before any of them were born. Juli (quoted): > > I believe DD knows a LOT more than we believe, he seems to know > > everything that happens in Hogwarts, even before things happen. I > > read somewhere that it could be because frog-cards, and Bill did say > > that DD didn't care if they fired him as long as they kept him on the > > frog-cards. How else could he have known when in PS Harry was > > spending his evenings at the mirror of Erised, and that Harry would > > be in that final encounter with LV/Quirell? I have no idea how DD > > knows the future, but I'm sure he does know what's about to happen. Christopher Nehren: > Well, there's always everybody's favourite, the Time-Turner! I don't > see why everyone dislikes them. Time travel isn't that difficult to > understand, especially if you imagine time as a pseudo-spatial > two-dimensional graph, and then graph absolute time on one axis and > timeline branches on the other ... but I digress. Juli replies: Although time travel isn't *that* complicated, it would bring terrible consequences, why wouldn't DD just go back and fix things? like LV killing Cedric, or Sirius death? I don't believe he can manipulate time, I think he *sees* the future, not in a Trelawney kind of way, but someway. I recall in PoA, he told H&H exactly what to do, and what if (huge IF), he knew right from the start that they would need the time-turner to help Sirius? Juli From hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu Tue Oct 26 18:15:41 2004 From: hubbarrk at rose-hulman.edu (Bex) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:15:41 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116477 Potioncat wrote: > > I don't think we know he (Snape) is a Legilimens, although there > > are hints that he might be. He uses that spell, with a wand > > while teaching Harry. But LV doesn't need a wand to do it. > > > > I think he knows Harry is not telling the truth during the scene > > with the petrified cat. Although I don't think he could get all > > the details. Same for the scene in GoF where he makes Harry sit > > near his desk and threatens him with veritaserum. Dungrollin replied: > I think we have more than hints, don't we? DD says at the end of > OotP that he's a sufficiently good legilimens to know when he's > being lied to, when he was talking to Kreacher. That implies to me > that there are two kinds of legilimency. There's the spell, the > incantation ("Legilimens!") for which you need a wand, and which > allows you to see the memories of the person you're attacking. But > there's also (presumably once you're sufficiently proficient at > the spell) the bonus of generally knowing when you're being lied > to. There are several mentions of Harry wondering if Snape can > read minds, and whenever Snape suspects Harry of lying he's > invariably right, Harry *is* lying. That's surely Legilimency of > the kind that DD mentions at work. Yb's turn (after a long hiatus due to work piling up): This is one of my favorite subjects, and I wish JK would have told us a little more about it. My impression has been that Legilimency involves seeing things in a person's mind that they are thinking about at the time, subconciously or consciously. Lying is the perfect example: when a person is lying, they are often thinking about the truth, and how they are trying to cover it up. Thus any Legilimens with a bit of practice behind him/her could see right through Harry in his state of panic in the examples Potioncat mentioned above. Remus only said Snape was a superb Occlumens; maybe he is a Legilimens-in-training? Per haps these past few years he's been practicing on the side with Harry when the opportunity presents itself. This would explain how the spell was so powerful and effective. Dungrollin again: > Which makes me wonder about Occlumency. Occlumency seems to have > parallels with Legilimency, in that a sufficiently accomplished > Occlumens can lie in casual conversation to a Legilimens and get > away with it. But you don't protect your self from the > spell "Legilimens!" with "Occlumens!". Or maybe you do, and Snape > forgot to mention it in the lessons... Which would explain why > Harry wasn't getting anywhere. Yb once more: Yeah, Snape would be one to *conveniently* forget to mention that. Though it would seem to defeat the purpose of using Occlumency if you told the guy you're trying to fool that you were using it? Certainly LV would know Snape was lying if he used an Occlumens spell around meeting time. That would sort of give it away. And I am sure that, even if there is an 'Occlumens' spell that can be used to counter 'Legilimens,' a powerful wizard/legilimens could break through it. It may be that a powerful enough Legilimens could break thorugh an Occlumens' defenses, if say, the vicitm was in a very unfocused, emotional state. Meaning ol' Snapey had better be careful in the next two books. It seems that Occlumency/Legilimency takes some predisposition. Someone who is very calm under pressure (DD) or has a habit of showing no emotion (Snape or LV) would certainly be more inclined to succeed at O/L than a person who is rather rash and has a hard time thinking through a situation with a clear mind (like Harry). Hermione may be a better candidate for being an Occlumens, bsed on that thought. I still hold that Snape is a superb Occlumens, as quoted by Lupin. I don't think he's a Legilimens, though he may be practicing. I also still hold that Harry has shown signs of perhaps being a Legilimens as well, perhaps another power transferred over in Godric's Hollow. Granted, it will tkae some time to get him to the point of being mentally capable of either Occlumency or Legilimency, but it may be possible. ~Yb, who apologizes for any spelling errors in this post, because she is used to typing on her laptop keybord, which is much more sensitive that the big one that she is using right now because she likes it better. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 18:36:16 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:36:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116478 > Juli replies: > Although time travel isn't *that* complicated, it would bring > terrible consequences, why wouldn't DD just go back and fix things? > like LV killing Cedric, or Sirius death? I don't believe he can > manipulate time, I think he *sees* the future, not in a Trelawney > kind of way, but someway. I recall in PoA, he told H&H exactly what > to do, and what if (huge IF), he knew right from the start that they > would need the time-turner to help Sirius? > Alla: Because DD knows that consequences could be dire. Remember how many times he warned Harry and Hermione not to be seen in PoA. The only reason why he let them do it was because such action already happened on the timeline (like it was discussed many times - Buckbeak did not die the first time around, etc.) If I were to choose from Dumbledore's possible pwoers, I would definitely pick the power of do something with time. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Oct 26 18:43:50 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:43:50 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <1c7.1fe9b8f0.2eaff4e6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116479 In a message dated 10/26/2004 11:04:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com writes: Juli wrote: > I believe DD knows a LOT more than we believe, he seems to know everything that happens in Hogwarts, even before things happen. ****************************************************************************** Christopher wrote in response: >Well, there's always everybody's favourite, the Time-Turner! I don't see why everyone dislikes them ****************************************************************************** Kim again: The only problem I can see with picture-traveling is the limitation that comes from some rooms having pictures and some not. I don't think all the castle walls are covered with pictures and photos. And then there's the problem pictures present with seeing things that go on outside the castle. ****************************************************************************** Chancie: Actually if I remember corectly, Picture people, can travel without being in a picture. Do you remember in PoA, when the Trio are trying to find Divination for the first time? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And he [Sir Cadogan] ran, clanking loudly , into the left side ot the frame and out of sight. They hurried after him along the corridor, following the sound of his armor. Every now and then they spotted him running through a picture ahead Prisoner of Azkaban Chapter 6 Talons and Tea Leaves Page 100 American Hardback ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It seems to me that if Harry, Ron and Hermoine could hear Sir Cadogan through the wall, then I would assume Sir Cadogan could hear the trio as well. So it would seem to reason that Dumbledore could use the portraits as spys to watch out for his student's. I would also assume it would be easier to have them look out when there was a painting on the wall but hearing something would be helpful too. Something else about "how does Dumbledore seem to know what's going on... He's also and Occulmens! Several times he's described as giving Harry a "searching look" for example when Mrs. Noris is petrified in CoS. But I would definatly not put it past Dumbledore to use a Time Turner (I also am not one who hates them, I find it rather fasinating acutally=D ). There's also the Ghosts, I'm sure they would give him info since they were patroling the halls along with the teachers looking for Black in PoA. Then again, Dumbledore could also have another sort of gadit that gives him information. Just a thought! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kethryn at wulfkub.com Tue Oct 26 18:55:41 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:55:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <007001c4bb8d$671308a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116480 Juli replies: Although time travel isn't *that* complicated, it would bring terrible consequences, why wouldn't DD just go back and fix things? like LV killing Cedric, or Sirius death? I don't believe he can manipulate time, I think he *sees* the future, not in a Trelawney kind of way, but someway. I recall in PoA, he told H&H exactly what to do, and what if (huge IF), he knew right from the start that they would need the time-turner to help Sirius? Juli Kethryn now - Depending on the particular view of time turners that you are using, you cannot go back into time and change things. Well, at least, most SciFi novels and movies agree, you can't change the big stuff. According to every SciFi writer that played with the idea that I have read (other than Spider Robinson and Ray Bradbury) it is too hard to actually change anything major. Even Spider Robinson had his time travelers only able to "see" from the future that there was something going down at "x" time but not the details therein. Other writers have sent their characters back into time to have them change something only to discover that the past cannot be changed, only slightly influenced. For example, Diana Galbadon sends Claire back to 1747 Scotland and she tries to get Prince Charles to stay at home and not hold the Second Uprising that almost destroyed Scotland. Other than causing a lack of immediate funds for the Prince, Claire is not able to effect the outcome of that particular disaster...nor is she able to save her family from the war. Harry and Hermione could set Buckbeak free because it was not a major thing. Anything bigger than that and the time continuum would revolt against the user...or so it is theorized. Kethryn who is kind of awed that she managed to work time continuum intelligently into a HP conversation. Talk about mixing SciFi and fantasy. PS. I got an 80 on my calculus II test!!!!!! Sorry, major cause for celebration there... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 26 19:01:58 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:01:58 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116481 Del wrote: > We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good > Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught him ? > > 1. It seems accepted that Snape was already an Occlumens back when he > was a DE. But that makes him awfully young ! The only other young > person who we know has tried to learn Occlumency is Harry, and he's > got a real good reason to do it ! What could possibly have been > Snape's reason for learning such an uncommon skill so early ? > 2. When exactly did Snape learn the skills ? Was he still at school ? > Was it *before* school ? Hannah: I think, like most of the other posters in this thread, that Snape had a natural ability for occlumency, being someone who shut down his emotions a lot. As a possible abused child, and a confirmed bullied child, he would be likely to have learned to suppress his feelings. So he'd unwittingly half taught himself occlumency. I think when he turned spy, DD honed his skills to enable him to carry out his role effectively - since LV is such a good legilimens, it would be impossible to act as a double agent in his camp otherwise. > > 3. Who taught him ? Could it be DD ? Would DD teach a Dark Arts kid > skills as dangerous as Occlumency and Legilimency ? Or was it LV > himself maybe ? > Hannah: I'd never considered this, but surely it can't be? If LV knew Snape was an occlumens, he would know he couldn't trust him. I think Snape had a cover story for DD's having named him as a spy, which he told to LV the night of the third task. LV, who we know is often let down by making oversights due to arrogance, would use his skills as a legilimens, see no lie, and be satisfied. But if LV taught Snape, he'd know that Snape was an occlumens, and an unusually good one. I'd think DD did it. He said himself that he could have taught Harry, so he would have been able to teach Snape as well. > 4. Did Snape learn Legilimency along with Occlumency ? If not, which > one did he learn first ? > Hannah: I don't see him as being a particularly good legilimens, so he probably just picked the basics of it at some point later in his magic career, maybe with the DEs, maybe with the Order, or even at some point during those boring years stuck at Hogwarts teaching dunderheads. > 5. How did Snape learn Occlumency ? Someone (Finwitch if I'm not > mistaken) pointed out that teachers often use their favourite mean of *learning* to teach. It is also common for people to teach something > specific in the very same way as they were taught it. So could it be that Snape taught Harry in that weird way (making him more angry at the start of the lesson) because it was the way he learned Occlumency himself ? Hannah: It would make sense at some point in thorough occlumency training, to make the student emotional, and thus more vulnerable. I imagine the more emotional one is, the harder it is to perform occlumency successfully. As Snape probably had some accidentally self taught occlumency skill to start with, perhaps his teacher (DD?) went straight in with the more advanced techniques of getting the student angry/sad before attacking, or attacking very quickly to catch them off their guard, as Snape did frequently with Harry. Snape, having heard of Harry's skill with Imperious, thought he was more advanced than he was already (and his first attempt was quite good, which reinforced the notion). I think Snape gets far too much bad press for the lack of success in the occlumency lessons. I don't see it as being wholy, or even mostly his fault. He did his best, but IMO he'd been set an impossible task. Hannah From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Oct 26 19:12:25 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:12:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <86.197582b5.2eaffb99@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116482 In a message dated 10/26/2004 11:56:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, kethryn at wulfkub.com writes: Harry and Hermione could set Buckbeak free because it was not a major thing. Anything bigger than that and the time continuum would revolt against the user...or so it is theorized. ****************************************************************************** ** Chancie: *Sigh*, Actually if you follow the cannon, it does state that major events can be changed! (please forgive me for not typing the entire quote I've done it so many times it's gotten quite old for me. But you can find it in PoA chapter 21 Hermione's secret page 399 American Hardback) Hermione says they can't be seen because wizards have killed their past or future selves because the got confused and thought some sort of black magic was going on (it would be impossible to kill your past self if you couldn't change time, because your future self would not exist!!!!!). Hermione is warned to "not change time" she wouldn't be warned of this if it weren't possible!!!!! Also we need to remember this is JO ROWLING's story, no one elses! She takes what she want's of things and turns it in to what she wants them to be! ( Prime example being Lupin is only a Werewolf when the moon light shines on him, not durring the entire full moon period as in other legends.) Chancie~ who hopes she didn't come off as rude( appologies if I did, It wasn't inteneded!!) and feels another TT discussion is going to turn up pretty soon! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Oct 26 19:39:01 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:39:01 +0100 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape TBAY Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116483 Kneasy wandered away from the others. Cap'n Neri was busy patching a few theoretical cracks, nothing fatal as yet. In fact Kneasy wondered why Snape had to have a scar at all; after all, Harry got his repelling Voldy. If Snape had originally *accepted* him, why would he have a scar? In which case... He turned back. "Look mate," he said to Cap'n Neri, "ask yourself some questions. Ask the right ones and the answers are dead easy." Kneasy shifted slightly, taking the weight off his left leg as another half-pint of drool from the bottomless manufactuary known as Snape!Son insinuated itself into his shoe. "Ole Snapey was teachin' Harry what?" "Occlumancy, of course." replied the Cap'n. "Occlumancy against who?" persisted Kneasy. "Voldy. Everybody knows that," came the answer. Kneasy cackled. "Right me old son! So maybe the old duffer picked Snapey to do the teachin' for a very good reason - Snapey's been blockin' Voldy for years already!" He brooded for a few moments. Thinking's hard work when you're as dry as Floo powder. "Why would Snapey learn Occlumancy? To stop folks gettin' into his head. Like who? Who're the Legilimancy experts? Only know of two - Bumblebore an' Voldy. An' no way would Viledy allow any o' his muckers to close 'im out - not when they was supposed to jump to do his slightest bidding. So he learned after 'e left Voldy - an' there's only one could teach 'im so far as I can see." He sighed, and then scratched vigorously. "Could well have been a link; might even still exist, sort of, if Snape allows it. But he's pulled the shutters down. Voldy can't get through. Don't count the Dark Mark thing, that's different. But it might get interestin' if old DD wanted to trick Voldy. Tell Snape an' then ask 'im to roll the shutter up a bit." He grinned. "Yeah, that could be fun." He started shuffling away. "The George's open. Time for me breakfast, or lunch or somethin'. Now where's me bottle-opener..." From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 26 19:45:07 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:45:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <20041026054823.GA79982@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116484 > > I believe DD knows a LOT more than we believe, he seems to know > > everything that happens in Hogwarts, even before things happen. I read somewhere that it could be because frog-cards, and Bill did say that DD didn't care if they fired him as long as they kept him on the frog-cards. How else could he have known when in PS Harry was spending his evenings at the mirror of Erised, and that Harry would be in that final encounter with LV/Quirell? I have no idea how DD knows the future, but I'm sure he does know what's about to happen. > Christopher wrote: > Well, there's always everybody's favourite, the Time-Turner! Who's to say that he doesn't use one to monitor his school? > Hence, I see it as entirely possible that > one of the myriad and sundry photograph inhabitants would be able to keep Dumbledore -- or anyone else for that matter -- fully apprised of any usual or unusual goings-on. > > Further, there's also Fawkes. That phoenix really gets around, and > fast. I suspect that we haven't seen all that Fawkes can do. > > And then there's also the possibility that Dumbledore himself has some intrinsic ability of which we're not aware. Perhaps he has some sort of ability to perceive the future? Hannah: The problem with Dumbledore and what he knows is that there is so much contradiction. Plenty of comments make him sound practically omniscient. But there are LOTS of things that happen that he doesn't appear to know about - the Marauders as animagi, Black's whereabouts and the truth about him and Peter, Ginny as the 'heir' and the nature of the basilisk, Quirrel with LV under his turban, Moody being Crouch in disguise... etc. This brings us to one of two conclusions, depending on our personal feelings about DD. Either he genuinely *didn't* know these things, which really calls into question his 'omniscience,' and his capability in general. Or he *did* know at least some of these things, which begs the uncomfortable question of why he didn't act on the knowledge. Time travel enables us to explain Dumbledore's apparent omniscience in some matters - when he becomes aware of an issue, he goes back in time to salvage what he can. A favourite example would be GH - if he travelled back in order to get Hagrid to take Harry, it's a less disturbing thought than the alternative (he knew what was going to happen beforehand, and didn't try to stop it). But when you take into account what Dumbledore does and doesn't know, however he's getting his information, it all points to him hiding things and the whole 'puppetmaster' theory. There are just too many discrepancies between his deep insight in some matters, and his utter ignorance in others. Hannah From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 26 19:47:29 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:47:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116485 Kim > I recall others on the list coming up with the idea of Dumbledore > possibly having the intrinsic ability to become a bumblebee (i.e. > his animagus), especially since that's what "Dumbledore" means. Or maybe DD isn't a > bee, but some other bug (such as Rita "Skeeter" was a beetle, not > a mosquito). I've been wondering when I'd get a chance to slip in this snippet of information... Dumbledore isn't only a dialect word for bumblebee. It's also an old name for cockchafer or May bug, (goodness only knows what that would be in US English - try entering 'Melolontha' into google images), moderately-sized brownish beetles. More amusingly, it's also an old name for dor beetles, which are big shiny black dung beetles (try 'Geotrupes' in google images). I got *terribly* excited when I first read PS, thinking 'Hooray! The Headmaster's a dung beetle!' But then JKR said in an interview that he was named that because it's a word for bumble bee, and I felt like a punctured lilo... Oh well. Dungrollin From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 19:48:50 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:48:50 -0000 Subject: How can you kill a wizard? (Was: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: <1df.2d297ecd.2eafec81@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116486 Hi! Kim (ginnysthe1) here: Just to clarify, I know I didn't write the portion of the other post you included starting "Christopher's enchanted weapons..." I think that was Carol (Justcarol?) Now to what Chancie wrote: >When I read this, an interesting thought popped into my head. What if what ends the Wizarding War, isn't a spell or anything enchanted at all. Wouldn't it be ironic if since the DE's are so anti-Muggle if it's a Muggle invention that actually kills them? For instance, since they think Muggles are so stupid, and below them (as they do other members of the non wizarding world, ie. house elf's, centaurs, goblin's...well you get the point.) that there is no way that they could make something that could possibly harm them. Like maybe Harry loses his wand, and all he has is some seemingly un-helpful, harmless muggle item. Voldemort then underestimating him gives him the opportunity to defend himself, and surprise, surprise, Harry wins! Maybe I'm way off the mark, but I think it could be possible. What do you guys think??<< Kim again: Actually I think the house elves, goblins, et al. are part of the WW, just "lower on the scale," so to speak, from wizards. I think you have a valid idea, though, that Harry could resort to something Muggle to defeat the "anti-Muggle" dark lord. It makes you wonder, too, since Harry and lots of others are part Muggle, if there isn't more than a little resentment in the back of their minds of the way Muggles are viewed in the WW. Barring the Dursleys and their ilk, there must be loads of intelligent, open-minded Muggles, Hermione's parents being one example, who are kind of lumped in with all Muggles and given an undeserved bad rap. And clearly Muggles may have something to offer, even if the WW wouldn't really need most of it, or else Mr. Weasley wouldn't be so amazed at the ingenuity of Muggle gadgets. After all it was a Muggle car, albeit enchanted, that came to the rescue on more than one occasion. It offered the speed, comfort, and protection that a broom probably wouldn't have. So thanks for that food for thought! Kim, who is, dare I say, one of those intelligent, open-minded Muggles herself... ;-) From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 20:07:05 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:07:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116487 Dungrollin wrote: >I've been wondering when I'd get a chance to slip in this snippet of information... Dumbledore isn't only a dialect word for bumblebee. It's also an old name for cockchafer or May bug, (goodness only knows what that would be in US English - try entering 'Melolontha' into google images), moderately-sized brownish beetles.< Kim here: I know where I come from in the US, we have little shiny brownish black beetles called "June bugs." Not sure if they are related in any way to your May bugs. I'm going to look it up though, as you suggested. (Off topic slightly, I've grown to love lots of different "bugs" lately, especially dragonflies and the 17 year cicadas of recent US infamy -- will have to invest in a real insect guide one of these days!) Dungrollin continued: >More amusingly, it's also an old name for dor beetles, which are big shiny black dung beetles (try 'Geotrupes' in google images). I got *terribly* excited when I first read PS, thinking 'Hooray! The Headmaster's a dung beetle!' But then JKR said in an interview that he was named that because it's a word for bumble bee, and I felt like a punctured lilo... Oh well. [signed] Dungrollin<< Kim again: Very interesting. Now that would be one way to keep people away from him and thus from discovering who he really is, not to mention possibly keeping Crookshanks from eating him -- Dumbledore's a dung beetle! Also, I guess that's the key to your HP4GU nome de plume?? What an interesting crowd on this list -- entomologists and everything! Kim From dk59us at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 20:29:21 2004 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:29:21 -0000 Subject: What can kill a wizard?(was Re: Hagrid) In-Reply-To: <1098204637.1801522166.7036.sendItem@bloglines.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116488 Leon wrote: >There certainly are other things that can kill wizards (or else why >would St. Mungo's be so busy or have so many floors.) > >...anyone under duress (car crash, house collapsing, being chased by >bullies, etc)is probably going to protect themselves whether they know >the correct spell or not. > >But once the magic is countered, circumvented or overwhelmed, I think >wizards are as kill-able as the rest of us. Now Eustace_Scrubb: I agree. I think it is far less likely for magic folk to be killed accidentally than for muggles, but I don't think we've seen anything that rules it out. When Hagrid says that a car crash couldn't have killed the Potters, I think he means that a) they wouldn't have been driving a car in the first place, and b) they were particularly powerful magic folk and probably had especially strong defenses against such accidents. I don't think it means that no wizard could ever be killed in a car crash...quite likely Bertha Jorkins could have been. And if wizards _can't_ be killed in falls,then why does Dumbledore bother to cushion Harry's fall from the broomstick in POA? Neville's bouncing notwithstanding, I think that the wrong fall from the wrong height when one isn't expecting it could kill a wizard. Madame Pomfrey can regrow bones, but we've got no evidence she can reverse severe head trauma from falling 50-100 feet from a broom. I also think that wizards and witches would probably be vulnerable in major muggle-created catastrophes, for example, a nuclear explosion in their vicinity. Cheers (if somewhat morbid cheers), Eustace_Scrubb From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 20:41:16 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:41:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116489 > Dungrollin wrote: > > >More amusingly, it's also an old name for dor beetles, which are big > shiny black dung beetles (try 'Geotrupes' in google images). I got > *terribly* excited when I first read PS, thinking 'Hooray! The > Headmaster's a dung beetle!' But then JKR said in an interview that > he was named that because it's a word for bumble bee, and I felt like > a punctured lilo... Oh well. [signed] Dungrollin<< > > Kim again: Very interesting. Now that would be one way to keep > people away from him and thus from discovering who he really is, not > to mention possibly keeping Crookshanks from eating him -- > Dumbledore's a dung beetle! Also, I guess that's the key to your > HP4GU nome de plume?? What an interesting crowd on this list -- > entomologists and everything! > > Kim cunning spirit now: Ah, but remember that there are TWO Dumbledores in the HP universe: Albus and Aberforth. Maybe noble Albus is the bumblebee animagus while Aberforth is the dung beetle. One gets the impression that the two brothers have split the moral/amoral spectrum between them (note: amoral does NOT equal evil -- Aberforth appears to be a bloke more in the mold of Mundungus Fletcher, than outright evil like Lucius Malfoy). Anyway, since I believe that JKR once said in an interview with regards to the beastly manifestations of animagi, that the beast form was a reflection of the mage's inner nature, I'd have a hard time going along with the idea that JKR's "epitome of goodness" was a dung beetle animagus. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 26 21:13:08 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:13:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116490 Dungrollin wrote: > More amusingly, it's also an old name for dor beetles, which are > big shiny black dung beetles (try 'Geotrupes' in google images). I > got *terribly* excited when I first read PS, thinking 'Hooray! The > Headmaster's a dung beetle!' But then JKR said in an interview that > he was named that because it's a word for bumble bee, and I felt > like a punctured lilo... Oh well. [signed] Dungrollin<< > > Kim again: Very interesting. Now that would be one way to keep > people away from him and thus from discovering who he really is, > not to mention possibly keeping Crookshanks from eating him -- > Dumbledore's a dung beetle! Also, I guess that's the key to your > HP4GU nome de plume?? What an interesting crowd on this list -- > entomologists and everything! Cunning Spirit: Anyway, since I believe that JKR once said in an interview with regards to the beastly manifestations of animagi, that the beast form was a reflection of the mage's inner nature, I'd have a hard time going along with the idea that JKR's "epitome of goodness" was a dung beetle animagus. Dungrollin again: Maligned!!! Dung beetles (or at least, the sacred scarab) were to the Ancient Egyptians what phoenixes are to the WW. To the Egyptians they symbolised resurrection, as they'd disappear into the soil with a ball of dung, die, and then brand new ones would emerge the year after like magic (the Egyptians couldn't see the eggs inside the dung balls). There are all sorts of ecological reasons why dung beetles are indispensable, tireless workers, but I won't go into those. But really, if sorting out the problems caused by Voldy and co. isn't akin to shovelling ****, I don't know what is... Whereas, male bees are lazy good-for-nothings, they do no work, get fed and watered by their sisters, then leave the nest, find a girl, have some fun, and die soon after. I know which I think is more apt for an 'epitome of goodness'... (But I'll freely admit to being horribly biased.) Dungrollin Wishing she could change the title of her thesis to `Entomological Symbolism in Harry Potter'... From kethryn at wulfkub.com Tue Oct 26 21:19:16 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore References: <86.197582b5.2eaffb99@aol.com> Message-ID: <008801c4bba1$77f39f40$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116491 Chancie: *Sigh*, Actually if you follow the cannon, it does state that major events can be changed! Hermione says they can't be seen because wizards have killed their past or future selves because the got confused and thought some sort of black magic was going on (it would be impossible to kill your past self if you couldn't change time, because your future self would not exist!!!!!). Hermione is warned to "not change time" she wouldn't be warned of this if it weren't possible!!!!! Also we need to remember this is JO ROWLING's story, no one elses! She takes what she want's of things and turns it in to what she wants them to be! ( Prime example being Lupin is only a Werewolf when the moon light shines on him, not durring the entire full moon period as in other legends.) Chancie~ who hopes she didn't come off as rude( appologies if I did, It wasn't inteneded!!) and feels another TT discussion is going to turn up pretty soon! Kethryn - Well, I would say that going back into time and killing yourself is pretty drastic but actually that is fairly minor stuff. The fate of one person and all. And, as far as I understand it, you could actually go back and kill yourself because you are outside of that particular time continuum (think of it like parallel universes...it gets a lot easier to deal with that way). Anyway, the point is, it sucks for you but it's not exactly world altering stuff. Say, for example, that you went back in time to kill yourself because you invented this horrible thing that caused millions of deaths. So now you are dead but back in your own time and the thing that you killed yourself over gets invented anyway; it was too big for you to stop it. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that, while it is canon that you can change minor events, it is not canon (not as I read it) that you can change the events that have the weight of history behind them. If the time turner did allow for major events to be changed, why didn't Harry wrest the time turner from Hermione's neck and go rescue his parents? Hell, for that matter, why hasn't Dumbledore? If they tried, I would be willing to bet money that they would rescue them only to have Lily and James die from a car wreck, or something along those lines, that self same day (or close to it). Kethryn who never thought for a second that Chancie was being rude and just thinks that we have different takes on the same reading! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 22:08:37 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:08:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Juli replies: > > Although time travel isn't *that* complicated, it would bring > > terrible consequences, why wouldn't DD just go back and fix > > things? ... I don't believe he can manipulate time, I think he > > *sees* the future, not in a Trelawney > > kind of way, ... > > > Alla: > > Because DD knows that consequences could be dire. ...edited... > > If I were to choose from Dumbledore's possible powers, I would > definitely pick the power of do something with time. > > Alla bboyminn: First point, nothing says Dumbledore can't go back and /view/ time (that is, the past) while not altering or interferring with it. He can use his knowledge of the very near past, to make immediate decisions. That said, the excess use of the Time Turner becomes an easy out. It allows a lazy author an easy solution to any problem that might occur. Plus, mucking about with time, changing the past, can have extremely complicated consequences. Look at the 'Back to the Future' series of movies. Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) spawn disasterious timelines, and kept going back in time messing around until he fimally created a timeline he liked, but that final timeline was completely different than the way things would likely have occurred if left alone. So, the /time/ that was or would have been, is now lost forever. Now compound that with 20 or 30 Marty McFly's (or Albus Dumbledore's or Harry Potter's) going back and mucking about, that spell disaster in any language. Back to Dumbledore, let me remind everyone that he is over 150 years old. In his time, he has seen the folly of man again and again. He has seen mischievious students, power hungry politicians and businessmen, war, misplace priorities, etc... etc... again and again in his life. I think that's way he's so calm all the time; he has a 'been there seen that' attitude. This also gives the world around him a degree of predictability. He knows curious student will be curious, he knows weak politician are ruthless in their effort to hold on to their power, he know that bad guys will be bad in predictable ways (he's read the Evil Overlord's Handbook), etc.... That may appear to give him a degree of 'all knowingness', but mostly it's just the wisdom of time and experience. I also think all that time and experience, especially when applied to an already extremely intelligent and talented man, makes him very perceptive. He sees things that other people miss because they are familiar to him; he has seen them many many times before. In this vein, while some will speculate that it was some special magical ability that allowed Dumbledore to know that Harry was under the invisibility cloak in Hagrids hut, it may have simply been a hyper-awareness of his surrounding. He may have notice a sagging or movement in the floor boards, heat radiating from the bodies, sound made by Harry that were passed off as background noise by other. It's also possible that the invisibility cloak is not perfect. There may be ever so slight visual aberrations that are missed by the inexperienced eye, that were noticable to Dumbledore. As has already been discussed, Dumbledore has hundreds if not thousands of spys in the castle. Every hallway, every corridor is lined with spys in the form of magical portraits. Imagine trying to get away with anything with that many eyes watching you and ears listening to you. In addition, is suspect that many of the rooms have portraits as well. Then top that all off with a couple dozen ghosts who certainly have an enhanced ability for stealth, and I don't think we need to give Dumbledore a god-like omniscience over the past. present, or the future. One last note on portraits vs pictures (photographs). I once compared photographs to TV commerials, they create shallow but easily recognisable caricatures. Portraits on the other hand are more like movies in that they capture the subject's personality with greater depth and in more detail, but ultimately they fall short of the real person; they are deeper, but still limited in the depth they can portray (as confirmed by JKR). That's one reason why I don't give much weight to the idea of chocolate frog cards acting as spys. I simply don't think that photos have sufficient depth to be anything but a cartoon/caricature verion of the real person. Also, while it has been somewhat implied, we really have never heard a photo communicate in any way. There have been implied minor vocalization, but no photo has ever talked. You can believe what you will, but until it's proven otherwise, I have to take photos as extremely limited devices, and Dumbledore as just an extremely wise, talented, and experienced man. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 22:22:46 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:22:46 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > Hannah: I think, like most of the other posters in this thread, > that Snape had a natural ability for occlumency, being someone who > shut down his emotions a lot. As a possible abused child, and a > confirmed bullied child, he would be likely to have learned to > suppress his feelings. So he'd unwittingly half taught himself > occlumency. I think this may well be true, but it's always...bugged me a little, about Snape and Occlumency. Per what I posted a little while ago, about relaxation and all that--there's a real difference between shutting down your emotions as in hiding them from the outside world, and as in really and truly calming yourself and relaxing deeply. The first person has suppressed their feelings from public view, but to stretch the analogy, it's like someone who is standing there in an apparent pose of relaxation, but I can still push over, because they aren't actually fully relaxed, they just look like they are. [In other words, there's a big difference between a Snape who has managed to hide his seething resentment towards James Potter, and a Snape who has managed to deal with it so that he's actually not even really feeling it.] Perhaps the fact that Snape *is* a good Occlumens is a clue that he's more of number two in fact...which sits uneasily with a whole lot of more obvious readings of the text, which *may* be a sign that we're going to get some canonical subversion of the more overt reading, but there's so much work to *do* to accomplish that... I remain, as always, cheerfully agnostic. :) -Nora promises to write in TBAY style some day, when the creative inspiration gets back on track From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Tue Oct 26 22:47:43 2004 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:47:43 -0500 Subject: With enemies like these..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116494 Kneasy wrote: > There's been a recent thread on the shocking state of villainy in the WW. There've been complaints about this before (my own 109355 among them).> >They really are a cack-handed bunch of incompetents. Haven't they studied the training modulle? Or read the textbooks?> boyd: Oh, come on, Voldie and the DEs (would be a great name for a rock band) are busy people; you have to cut them some slack. I mean, imagine the rigors of their schedules: 7am - Wake up to breakfast in bed served by your incompetent house-elf (the little twit burned the toast again!) Then shower and start the long task of getting dressed. (Let's see, now, which leather vest goes best with my grey robe? And should I wear my ever-so-evil boots or the pink Prada pumps?) 8am - Off to work! 9am - After much trial and error (never a portkey when you need one!), finally apparate to the secret lair of the Death Eaters: the back room of Benny's Malt Shop in a suburb of Laramie, Wisconsin. After a few greetings (howdy, Crabs, how's it hangin' Wormbreath? wow, love the sash, Lucius, is that Hermes?) settle down to the main order of business: how to take over the WW. DE#1: "Order, order. Any new ideas on how to take over the WW?" DE#2: "I say we force them all to wear off-the-rack fashions from last year. That'll show 'em!" DE#1: "Oooh, and we could curse them to wear horizontal stripes. They'll be so embarrassed that they wouldn't dare set foot outside to try to stop us!" Snape, in disguise: "[growls angrily] Or we could try to kill the boy!" DE#1: "You suggest that lame idea every time, and look where it got us last time. Plus, our Dark Lord wants to kill him himself. By the way, you can take off the wig and girdle, now, Severus, we know it's you." 10:30am - Break for Vanilla Cokes and petit-fours. 11am - Resume discussion. Peter: "I can't take this blather anymore! When are we going to start killing the #&$% mudbloods?!?" DE#1: "[in a baby voice] I think our little Wormikins has forgotten to take his Happy Potion again...." DE#2: "Worm-brain, you dolt, if we start leaving bloody messes all over Britain, we'll force the MoM to finally admit we exist, and then they'll send aurors our way who'll shoot to kill. And while you may not have found a rat girlfriend yet, I, for one, have a family to worry about." DE#1: "And until I see our Dark Lord flex some serious muscle, I'm not ready for that kind of commitment. Now, why on earth did you think that those plaid pants would go with your polka-dotted blouse?" Noon - Lunch. Mostly cigarettes and coffee, because "these hoods are just *not* slimming" 2pm - Siesta! 4pm - Leave for home. (ta-ta, Luscious! love the heels!) 5pm - Finally find home. Complain the night away before kissing children goodnight and locking them in their cell. 9pm - Go to bed. (must get my beauty sleep!) OK, to get this back on topic, as my little skit reminds us, Voldemort's unexpected defeat at GH left them leaderless and in dangerous straits. Those who survived had either never been identified or claimed to be under Imperio. Having narrowly escaped Azkaban, they turned more to their families (most appear to have had children about Harry's age...hmmmm) and other diversions. Further, they have yet to see any successful demonstration of power from LV. Even the GoF scene showed his weakness vs. Harry. Perhaps he convinced them that success at the MoM in OoP would ensure victory, but even that is a bit of a surprise. These are, after all, no longer young, ambitious men and women full of zealous righteousness. They're middle-aged wizards with families and comfortable lives. And now here comes that guy who had them all worked up years ago, but he's a mere shadow of his former self. How excited would you be to follow him now? Moreover, and I'm certain that a conspiracy theorist as accomplished as yourself has already thought of this, maybe the current LV isn't even the *real* LV, but is instead the projected id of one Albus Dumbledore, who is also the grandnephew of Salazar Slytherin and the Queen of England. Imagine the possibilities! --boyd gotta stop those midday drinking binges From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Tue Oct 26 23:18:16 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:18:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <12e.4f656f68.2eb03538@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116495 In a message dated 10/26/2004 2:23:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, kethryn at wulfkub.com writes: So, I guess what I am trying to say is that, while it is canon that you can change minor events, it is not canon (not as I read it) that you can change the events that have the weight of history behind them. If the time turner did allow for major events to be changed, why didn't Harry wrest the time turner from Hermione's neck and go rescue his parents? Hell, for that matter, why hasn't Dumbledore? If they tried, I would be willing to bet money that they would rescue them only to have Lily and James die from a car wreck, or something along those lines, that self same day (or close to it). ****************************************************************************** ** Chancie: Ok. Just a few questions then. Where in cannon does it state major events in history are un-changeable? I agree, as to why hasn't Harry or Dumbledore gone back in time to change the past and save Lily and James? But just because that hasn't happend (IMHO) doesn't translate into "CAN'T"! I have speculated before that it's possible that perhaps that will happen in the end. Harry could go back in time and defeat Voldemort before he starts ruining everything. Like maybe when Tom Riddle is still in school, and fight him before he can open the chamber of secrets, and frame Hagrid for it. If ANYONE has any rock hard cannon PROOF that events in the WW can't be changed, PLEASE send it my way. Still in my way of thinking, if you can kill yourself, to change time line events, what exactly would stop you from killing others (ie. VOLDEMORT) thus changing events. Example, if Harry went back in time, and killed himself as an infant (before Voldemort found the Potters) then he never would have been "the boy who lived"! Hows that for a major timeline event change???? Chancie~who's very glad Kethryn didn't think she was being rude, and loves a good debate! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 26 23:38:46 2004 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:38:46 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy" wrote: > > > Del wrote: > > > > We know that Snape is a superb Occlumens now and apparently a good > > Legilimens as well. But when did he learn that ? And who taught him ? > > > > > > Anybody have any answers or additional questions ? > > > Tammy replies: > > I've always wondered if different witches and wizards could have an > intrinsic ability. For example in the case of Snape and occlumency, he > would have a natural talent already in him for it, one that required > little actual learning for him to master it. We already know of one > thing that is definitely a natural talent, metamorphmagus, so how do > we know there aren't other smaller things that are natural talents. > > If you look at muggle paranormal phenomenon with that in mind, those > people who can move things with their mind would simply be witches or > wizards who have a natural talent for levitation and summoning. It > sounds like something JKR would try to do, explain weird muggle > happenings with a simple magical answer. > > -Tammy who's natural ability seems to be demolishing her house. Linda: I don't have my books with me but.... if I remember correctly, beubg a Parselmouth is also an inate ability, not a learned one. Can anyone help me out with that one? I seem to remember a conversation in CoS that speaks of it as a rare ability.... ? -Linda, who's natural ability is not her memory :) From cat_kind at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 10:30:30 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:30:30 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew (sorry, OT) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116497 catkind: How about: Lupin in this scene slipped through the lines > of > > print to join Sirius in an entirely different and more primitive > genre > > of fiction. > > > > Think LotR. Think Alexandre Dumas. This rat has betrayed our > friend, > > causing his death. He has to die! In either of those settings it > would > > seem perfectly normal. Renee: > No, don't think LotR, please. > > Frodo: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature > [Gollum], when he had a chance." > Gandalf: "Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: > not a strike without need. (...) Many that live deserve death. And > some that die deserve life. Can you give it to him?" > > It seems to me LotR and Harry Potter very much belong in the same > camp. catkind: What an apt quote! But none of us are agonising about how Frodo could be so evil as to suggest stabbing the critter, and I never noticed anyone in LotR capture enemies for fair trial at a later date. I admit I was thinking of the more warlike characters - Sirius, for one, is no hobbit. catkind, who is no LotR fan and should maybe have chosen a different example From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Oct 26 18:16:43 2004 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:16:43 -0400 Subject: Re [HPforGrownups] Umbridge was:(Umbridge,Quidditch, and the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <20041025165211.99726.qmail@web90107.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200410261417953.SM01260@DEVBOX> No: HPFGUIDX 116498 > Juli: > > I've never actually thought about it... But the MoM is > having some serious problems, probably Umbridge will > soon be fired (for sadist detentions, etc.), so what > could she possibly do for DD? I don't think DD saved > her from the centaurs just to ger a life-debt, he's > just a nice guy and would never intentionally kill > anyone (thinking about the LV vs DD fight in MoM). Or > maybe he thinks she'll play some future roll. Fired? I thought she would be more likely sent to Azkaban. Hmm, thinking it through, you may be right. Umbridge committed several crimes, and talked openly about defying the Minister of Magic. She did not quite execute the Cruciatus Curse on a student, but was clearly intending to do so, and made the comment that what Fudge doesn't know won't hurt him (I know, she didn't actually do it, but in terms of embarrassing a politician, it doesn't matter.) She DID admit in front of a number of witnesses that she ordered Dementors to attack (and, I assume, deliver the Kiss to) Harry over the previous summer. That isn't just an abuse of power, it is a significant crime. While bureaucrats and politicians may find justifications for all sorts of abuses of power, I suspect they only support each other in the same when the abuses do not hurt themselves. Umbridge's actions were at best a serious embarrassment to Fudge, and he seems the consummate politician, does he not? The disaster that resulted from her leadership at Hogwarts cannot be rectified by the "success" of her DADA class. Fudge has created a PR disaster for himself in his trying to frame DD, and I would be astonished if he does not immediately cut his losses by dumping all association with Umbridge as quickly as possible. Let's see, what would provide the least damage for Fudge? Not sending her to Azkaban, that would result in too much attention. She *could* be sent to Azkaban for sure, but that also might make things worse for Fudge's position in the polls, rather than better. He certainly won't leave her in power. The most common way today to deal with embarrassments like her is to force them to retire immediately. They still keep their pension, which keeps them from making further trouble, and they are no longer a problem. If Fudge weren't in hot water himself, I'd say that is what he would do -- but it doesn't help him. I suspect she is going to be sacked, publicly humiliated, and lose her pension. That way, she becomes the scapegoat for Fudge's idiocy as well as her own. Fudge shows mercy by NOT sending her to Azkaban, but shows fortitude by otherwise being as nasty as possible. The real question for me, though, is "what will she do then?" Personally, I think she will be recruited by V. She will have nothing to lose, and as former second in command of the MOM, she will know *all* the ins and outs of the MOM, so she will be an invaluable asset to V. She certainly has the right mind-set to become a DE. Vivamus From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Oct 26 18:17:03 2004 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:17:03 -0400 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200410261417624.SM01260@DEVBOX> No: HPFGUIDX 116499 I apologize if this is an already visited topic, but I cannot find reference to it anywhere. JKR has already said that none of the three (Harry, Ron, Hermione) will become animagi -- but could Harry be a metamorphmagus? He did, after all, make his hair grow back, which one could argue is changing his shape. Tonks also told him that being a metamorphmagus was not only hard, it was based on an inborn ability -- as with parseltongue. Make sense? Vivamus From Snarryfan at aol.com Tue Oct 26 19:06:30 2004 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:06:30 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116500 I think Snape learn Occlumency when he was young, with the other "curses he knew better than the 7th years". Voldemort would never let his DE learn how lie to him (well, I wouldn't), no need to give more powers to his minions. And if Dumbledore taught it to Snape, I think Voldie would remark the changes in Snape's mind. If his father was abusive, little Snape could search a way to defend himself and the night, he search in his father's bookcase something which could help him. And between the famous Dark curses, he found a page with a little explanation about a thing called Occlumency. He saw it could help him to hide his feelings to his father, his fear or his anger, maybe kept his calm and not anger his father more. When did he learn to use it ? When his father attacks him, shout to him. How did he progress? In using it again and again, only in the attacks. He never see another need or maybe never learn about the Legimency until Dumbledore told him. Maybe it's why he need to shout the spell to use Legimency and not for the Occlumency. He didn't learn the both in the same time. And if he used the method which worked on him, he'll never think to use something less ...snapish :D ! Christelle. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 23:23:43 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:23:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > That may appear to give him a degree of 'all knowingness', but mostly > it's just the wisdom of time and experience. I don't think anyone's ever questioned DD's intelligence and experience. He's been around for over a century, sure he's seen almost everything, but we are talking about the *worse* wizard of all times, how could he ever know from experience what's about to happen? I see DD as an outside observer (of course an inside player too) who sees it all as a time line. I recently logged on HP Lexicom and checked out their timelines, what if DD sees the world like this? He almost always seems to know what to do next. I don't think he goes back on time to change things, that could lead to terrible consequences and I'm sure he knows better. On the other hand he may not know more than other teacher about what's going on in the casttle... Juli From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 23:52:09 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:52:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116502 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Dungrollin wrote: > > More amusingly, it's also an old name for dor beetles, which are > > big shiny black dung beetles (try 'Geotrupes' in google images). I > > got *terribly* excited when I first read PS, thinking 'Hooray! The > > Headmaster's a dung beetle!' But then JKR said in an interview that > > he was named that because it's a word for bumble bee, and I felt > > like a punctured lilo... Oh well. [signed] Dungrollin<< > > > > Kim again: Very interesting. Now that would be one way to keep > > people away from him and thus from discovering who he really is, > > not to mention possibly keeping Crookshanks from eating him -- > > Dumbledore's a dung beetle! Also, I guess that's the key to your > > HP4GU nome de plume?? What an interesting crowd on this list -- > > entomologists and everything! > > Cunning Spirit: > Anyway, since I believe that JKR once said in an interview with > regards to the beastly manifestations of animagi, that the beast > form was a reflection of the mage's inner nature, I'd have a hard > time going along with the idea that JKR's "epitome of goodness" > was a dung beetle animagus. > > > Dungrollin again: > > Maligned!!! > > Dung beetles (or at least, the sacred scarab) were to the Ancient > Egyptians what phoenixes are to the WW. To the Egyptians they > symbolised resurrection, as they'd disappear into the soil with a > ball of dung, die, and then brand new ones would emerge the year > after like magic (the Egyptians couldn't see the eggs inside the > dung balls). > > There are all sorts of ecological reasons why dung beetles are > indispensable, tireless workers, but I won't go into those. But > really, if sorting out the problems caused by Voldy and co. isn't > akin to shovelling ****, I don't know what is... > > Whereas, male bees are lazy good-for-nothings, they do no work, get > fed and watered by their sisters, then leave the nest, find a girl, > have some fun, and die soon after. > > I know which I think is more apt for an 'epitome of goodness'... > (But I'll freely admit to being horribly biased.) > > Dungrollin > Wishing she could change the title of her thesis to > `Entomological Symbolism in Harry Potter'... cunning spirit again: Y'know, as soon as I posted my last comment, I just KNEW somebody was going to whip out the "but dungbeetles are Egyptian deities" argument. Sigh. I should have realised I was setting myself up for defeat. I live in a house where our biology geek teen-aged son keeps a stack of eight large "critter carriers" to house his colonies of Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches. He then sells these large, ugly, NOISY creatures to local pet shops for his walking around money. Anyway, as far as he is concerned, the ickier, the better (or at least, the more lucrative). He returned from school just as I was penning my earlier thoughts on moral associations with bumblebees and dung beetles and earned myself a five minute lecture on the "noble dung beetle" and all the good things they do for the ecology. So I guess you and my son are on the same wavelength, Dungrollin. You win. Cunning spirit -- who really doesn't feel ill toward the hissing roaches except when their noise makes it difficult to hold a civil conversation. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Wed Oct 27 00:18:37 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:18:37 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <200410261417624.SM01260@DEVBOX> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116503 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > > I apologize if this is an already visited topic, but I cannot find reference > to it anywhere. > > JKR has already said that none of the three (Harry, Ron, Hermione) will > become animagi -- but could Harry be a metamorphmagus? He did, after all, > make his hair grow back, which one could argue is changing his shape. Tonks > also told him that being a metamorphmagus was not only hard, it was based on > an inborn ability -- as with parseltongue. > > Make sense? > > Vivamus Pat here: Yes, I've wondered the whole thing. It seems to be just the reason for including Tonks's unusual abilities, doesn't it--as well as the references to his hair growing back overnight. It also fits right in with Harry wanting to be an auror. Tonks as we have seen, has this special useful talent, but in other areas she definitely isn't perfect. Perhaps if Harry is a metamorphmagus, it won't matter so much if he isn't perfect in some other area--such as potions. Now wouldn't that just peeve Snape to no end? Pat From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 00:27:09 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:27:09 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape TBAY (clarification) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116504 Faith was sitting at George's and working on a nice steak when Neri burst in, banging the door. "YOU," he said accusingly. "It's all YOUR fault!" "Me?" spattered Faith in surprise. "What?" "You misled everybody!" Said Neri. "Now they all think that you disqualified the Mind-Linked!Snape, I mean, the VASSAL, because Snape doesn't have a scar." "What?" Said Faith and dabbed steak particles from her sleeve with a napkin. "I said no such thing! I disqualified Mind-Linked!Snape, I mean, the VASSAL, because of Dumbledore's words." "Yes, yes, but after that," said Neri. "You added that stupid sentence about Snape not having a scar, and now everybody thinks this was the reason!" "Oh, so it's MY fault?" muttered Faith. "I see. Always blame it on the personification!" "Don't deny. I have it in writing," said Neri. "Right in the end of post 116373". "Ok, ok, so what do you want from me now?" Mumbled Faith. "I want a public clarification," demanded Neri. "In front of everybody." He motioned towards all the customers of the Royal George, sitting at their tables and watching this scene with open mouths. "And especially in front of Kneasy." He jerked his thumb towards Kneasy, who was sitting at the bar as far as possible from Faith. "Ok, ok," said Faith in resigned tone. She got up to her feet and cleared her throat, then addressed the room: "The only hole I managed to find in the Mind-Linked Snape, now known as the VASSAL (Voldy and Snape Share A Link), is that it does not fit with Dumbledore's words." Neri raised his brows emphatically at her, and after a second or two she continued obediently: "The VASSAL assumes that at Godric's Hollow, Voldy first used one spell to create a mind-link with Harry, then used it to transfer his powers to the baby. Then he tried to possess Harry, but failed, and only then he tried to kill Harry with the AK. But Dumbledore said to Harry that "you are both connected by the curse that failed". This creates a problem with VASSAL because it implies that it is the failed AK that created the link, and not a special mind-linking spell." "And if I assume that DD was lying, or just covering a bit by saying that?" Asked Neri rhetorically. "Then I'll have to allow that the VASSAL is watertight and sea worthy," admitted Faith. "Not that I'd ever believe personally that DD lies to us" she added mutinously. "I don't either, but that's not the issue we're discussing," said Neri. "IF one allows that DD might lie to Harry and us, then VASSAL is perfectly consistent, and has no holes in it." "True," admitted Faith. "Now explain to everybody the misunderstanding about Snape not having a scar," demanded Neri. "Well, I just meant to say that if you don't accept VASSAL and go with DD's words that it was the AK curse that created the mind link, then Snape can't be mind-linked because nobody shot an AK at him and he doesn't have a scar." "Right, " said Neri. "And why was that an irrelevant thing to say?" "Because," mumbled Faith, "if it is the AK curse that creates the mind link, then the whole scenario is completely different from VASSAL, and many things other than Snape's (nonexistent) scar wouldn't fit anyway." "But if VASSAL IS true, then Snape not having a scar fits perfectly with everything," Said Neri. "True," admitted Faith. "Thank you" said Neri. "I hope this clarifies it once and for all." "So how is plugging the hole going?" Inquired Faith sweetly. "I'm working on it," said Neri in irritated tone and skulked out. Neri From kethryn at wulfkub.com Wed Oct 27 01:10:41 2004 From: kethryn at wulfkub.com (Kethryn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:10:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore References: <12e.4f656f68.2eb03538@aol.com> Message-ID: <00d101c4bbc1$c96777a0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116505 Chancie: Ok. Just a few questions then. Where in cannon does it state major events in history are un-changeable? I agree, as to why hasn't Harry or Dumbledore gone back in time to change the past and save Lily and James? But just because that hasn't happend (IMHO) doesn't translate into "CAN'T"! I have speculated before that it's possible that perhaps that will happen in the end. Harry could go back in time and defeat Voldemort before he starts ruining everything. Like maybe when Tom Riddle is still in school, and fight him before he can open the chamber of secrets, and frame Hagrid for it. If ANYONE has any rock hard cannon PROOF that events in the WW can't be changed, PLEASE send it my way. Still in my way of thinking, if you can kill yourself, to change time line events, what exactly would stop you from killing others (ie. VOLDEMORT) thus changing events. Example, if Harry went back in time, and killed himself as an infant (before Voldemort found the Potters) then he never would have been "the boy who lived"! Hows that for a major timeline event change???? Chancie~who's very glad Kethryn didn't think she was being rude, and loves a good debate! Kethryn now - ARGH!!! I did it AGAIN! Sorry, I did the anti-religious argument...we haven't seen it done, therefore it must not exist. *Smacks self in head.* You are right, of course, no where actually in the canon (unless you take the character's lack of action in this particular instance as canon) does it say that (major) history cannot be changed. But neither does it say that(major) history can be changed. In the absence of a positive, the answer must be negative...when the answer could bloody well be "french fries" (neither positive nor negative). *bangs head on the desk* So, my rock hard proof is neither a rock nor all that hard...it just seems to me that if you have the power to stop Voldemort from rising to power and all it takes is a little trip down memory lane, then shouldn't you hop to? Of course, it would dramatically end the series and be a cop out, IMHO. Kethryn who loves a good debate as well and is sorry that her agnosticism infected her post. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 01:15:23 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:15:23 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116506 Vivamus wrote: >I apologize if this is an already visited topic, but I cannot find reference to it anywhere. JKR has already said that none of the three (Harry, Ron, Hermione) will become animagi -- but could Harry be a metamorphmagus? He did, after all, make his hair grow back, which one could argue is changing his shape. Tonks also told him that being a metamorphmagus was not only hard, it was based on an inborn ability -- as with parseltongue. Make sense?< Pat replied: >Yes, I've wondered the whole thing. It seems to be just the reason for including Tonks's unusual abilities, doesn't it--as well as the references to his hair growing back overnight. It also fits right in with Harry wanting to be an auror. Tonks as we have seen, has this special useful talent, but in other areas she definitely isn't perfect. Perhaps if Harry is a metamorphmagus, it won't matter so much if he isn't perfect in some other area--such as potions. Now wouldn't that just peeve Snape to no end?<< Kim here, with questions and comments: First, Vivamus, where did you find out that JKR said that the 3 kids wouldn't become animagi? I believe it -- just wondered where you heard or read it. Second, in the case of Harry's parseltongue ability, it wasn't inborn, so maybe some abilities can be transferred from wizard to wizard. Unless it was only a fluke because of the backfired spell that Voldemort cast at Harry, so maybe ability-transfer isn't likely to happen any other way than by accident. Anyway then it would make sense that Harry had some other innate ability besides being really good at flying a broom. So I too agree that Harry could be a metamorphmagus since he's done it before, but just didn't know that's what he was doing at the time. Although, wonder why he hasn't demonstrated the ability lately (or has he?) What other way could he show metamorphmagus ability than growing his hair or changing hair color (like Tonks)? Lots of possibilities there, I'd guess. I think transfiguration-like abilities (i.e. animagi, metamorphmagi, Polyjuice Potion) are some of the most interesting aspects of JKR's books. Hope we'll get to see more of these "deceptions" in the last two books. Cheers, Kim (chuckling at the image of an even-more-peeved-at-Harry- than-usual Snape) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 01:16:22 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:16:22 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <12e.4f656f68.2eb03538@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116507 > Chancie: > Ok. Just a few questions then. Where in cannon does it state major events in > history are un-changeable? I agree, as to why hasn't Harry or Dumbledore > gone back in time to change the past and save Lily and James? But just because > that hasn't happend (IMHO) doesn't translate into "CAN'T"! I have speculated > before that it's possible that perhaps that will happen in the end. Harry > could go back in time and defeat Voldemort before he starts ruining everything. > Like maybe when Tom Riddle is still in school, and fight him before he can open > the chamber of secrets, and frame Hagrid for it. If ANYONE has any rock hard > cannon PROOF that events in the WW can't be changed, PLEASE send it my way. > Still in my way of thinking, if you can kill yourself, to change time line > events, what exactly would stop you from killing others (ie. VOLDEMORT) thus > changing events. Example, if Harry went back in time, and killed himself as an > infant (before Voldemort found the Potters) then he never would have been "the > boy who lived"! Hows that for a major timeline event change???? > Alla: Hi, Chancie. Here is my take on the situation. I also don't think that there is any proof that major events in canon are not changeable, BUT as I said in the previous post, I think that the only events,which Dumbledore will ALLOW to change, are the ones, where supposed change already happened on the timeline. Don't ask me how Dumbledore knows about it. I don't have an answer, I suspect that somehow he can move backwards and ofrward on the timeline.l Has he already been in the future and came back ? I don't know. Again, Buckbeack did not die the FIRST time, that is why Harry and Hermione were able to save him. I suspect that something already happened in the past differently than we readers think it happened due to the time travel. Don't ask me about time paradox, I think more sophisticated time-travel theorists would be able to explain that. I used to dislike another introduction of the time -travel as possible solution to one of the mysteries, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it could be done elegantly. After all, I LOVED the PoA ending. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Oct 27 01:32:55 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:32:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116508 In a message dated 10/26/2004 4:44:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, Vivamus at TaprootTech.com writes: JKR has already said that none of the three (Harry, Ron, Hermione) will become animagi -- but could Harry be a metamorphmagus? He did, after all, make his hair grow back, which one could argue is changing his shape ************************************************************************* Chancie: I do recall someone bringing something up about Harry bing a metamorphmagus. Although wouldn't he have discovered being able to change something else about his apperance? Like his scar for instance? He's constantly thinking about the fact that everytime he meets someone new that their eyes instantly travel to his forehead. If you could point me to the post that states JKR says one of the trio will become an animagus, I would greatly appreciate it! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Oct 27 01:50:43 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:50:43 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <1e9.2d15190c.2eb058f3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116509 In a message dated 10/26/2004 6:17:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, kethryn at wulfkub.com writes: So, my rock hard proof is neither a rock nor all that hard...it just seems to me that if you have the power to stop Voldemort from rising to power and all it takes is a little trip down memory lane, then shouldn't you hop to? Of course, it would dramatically end the series and be a cop out, IMHO. **************************************************************************** Chancie: Also, we don't know if maybe someone had attempted to change the past only to discover that the future of that instance was far worse than letting Voldemort live and have Lily and James die along with all the other innocent bystanders...And too, as you said it would be an extreme cop out to have the answer to have been that easy, and made our obsessiveness over the Harry Potter saga look extremely foolish and waste of time! Chancie~who hope's Kethryn didn't give herself a concussion! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 01:52:09 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:52:09 -0000 Subject: How and when did Snape learn Occlumency ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116510 Nora: > Perhaps the fact that Snape *is* a good Occlumens is a clue that he's > more of number two in fact...which sits uneasily with a whole lot of > more obvious readings of the text, which *may* be a sign that we're > going to get some canonical subversion of the more overt reading, but > there's so much work to *do* to accomplish that... > > I remain, as always, cheerfully agnostic. :) > Alla: Not just good Occlumenc, a "superb" Occlumenc, he is :) Hmmm, Nora, Occlumenc must be good with his emotions, too true. But here we go again back to whether Snape wins an Oscar or he does not. To me Shrieking Shack and end of Occlumency look indeed as genuine rage,as I said many times. Since I don't question the fact of Snape being a superb occlumence, I must somehow put the two together and I don't know how. Help me, would you? Could it be that good Occlumenc does not require full relaxaion indeed? From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Oct 27 02:07:04 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:07:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <141.3732f02e.2eb05cc8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116511 In a message dated 10/26/2004 6:19:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Alla wrote: Again, Buckbeack did not die the FIRST time, that is why Harry and Hermione were able to save him. I suspect that something already happened in the past differently than we readers think it happened due to the time travel. Don't ask me about time paradox, I think more sophisticated time-travel theorists would be able to explain that. I used to dislike another introduction of the time -travel as possible solution to one of the mysteries, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it could be done elegantly. After all, I LOVED the PoA ending. ****************************************************************************** ** Chancie: I know Buckbeak didn't die because Harry and Hermione saved him, but they were not forced to replay the same scenario out when they used the time-turner Also something else just popped in my head! JKR named it a *TIME-TURNER*, (as in over turning the events of the past/future whatever the case may be) not a time-seer (as in only having the ability to see the past/future events) I also think something about time has already been changed! For example Harry, and infant of only just over one year of age, surviving the collapse of an entire house. I think that maybe Dumbledore (since he had heard the prophesy from Trelawney knowing that only Harry could defeat Voldemort) went back in time and saved Harry somehow from the house squishing (sorry only word I could think of =} ) him therefore keeping him alive to defeat He-who-must-not-be-named later in life! I loved the PoA ending as well! I think that could be the main reason it's my favorite book! I am very wishy-washy on weather I think it would be a good ending for the books though. I do however have a sneaking feeling that it will turn up again before the end. Just as the Polly Juice potion did!!! Chancie~Who wonders how many times the TT has been discussed and how many more times it will be before JKR decides to write a book about it for charity so we can figure out how it's going to be used in later books!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 02:14:53 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:14:53 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116512 > > Pippin asked: > > > > > > Does Peter have the brains or the power to have been > > > Voldemort's spy for a whole year? > > > > Carol responds: > > What he did in the duel with Sirius apparently took brains, > didn't it? Blowing off his finger, turning into a rat, and making > himself look like a murder victim, whether or not he actually blew > up the street and killed the Muggles, which I think he did? (He > probably made sure that Sirius had his wand out, though, so it > looked like he did it.) > [But as for spying, all he had to do is report what happened in the Order meetings and reveal names of Order members so the DEs could kill them off one or two at a time. It *must* have been the spy's information that was used to locate the people who were murdered (Marlene Mackinnon, Benjy Fenwick, the Prewitts, etc.), and I see nothing in canon to indicate that Peter could not have given that information directly to LV and quietly returned to his supposed friends.] > > But as for spying, all he had to do is report what happened in > the Order meetings and reveal names of Order members so the > DEs could kill them off one or two at a time. > > >No lying or cleverness involved; just silence and a pretense > of horror with each new victim. < > > Pippin: > Maybe I'm confused...what do you see as the difference between > 'lying and cleverness' and 'pretense'? Carol responds: Part of the problem is that you snipped my post so the train of thought is obscured (I put the snipped part back in), but I can see that my argument wasn't quite clear. I do actually think that Peter is more clever than many of us give him credit for, but my point was that he doesn't *have* to be clever to be a spy. As for the difference between "lying or cleverness" and "silence and a pretence of horror," I'm saying that no clever, complicated lies were required. If he was the spy (and I think he was), he only had to keep his mouth shut (common sense for a spy, in any case) and pretend through facial expressions and shocked platitudes (Oh, my God! How awful!") to be horrified by the killings of victims whose name he himself had given to Voldemort. Whatever you call it, Peter > had to keep it up for a whole year, during part of which Albus > Dumbledore, who usually knows when people are lying to him, > was actively hunting among those close to the Potters for the > spy. We know Peter was close to them, since he sat between > them in the picture. Surely DD would detect that Peter's > expressions of horror were feigned? Carol again: I don't think Dumbledore uses Legilimency except in one-on-one conversations where he's looking someone directly in the eye. If he suspected Sirius, he wouldn't be paying much attention to Peter, anyway. And if Peter told no complicated lies--in fact, spent most of his time listening for things he could report to Voldemort--there would be no way to catch him in a lie, Legilimency or no. Pippin wrote: > If, OTOH, Peter was cool and clever enough to fool DD, why fall > apart in the Shack? And if that was OscarWinner!Peter, then why > would he think shifty eyes and nervous panting would add to his > portrayal of someone who thought the accusations against him > were ludicrous? Carol responds: First, I've already explained how I think he fooled DD--his usual tactic of remaining inconspicuous. The acting involved was minimal. I *don't* think he was acting in the Shrieking Shack, unless you call blatant, self-protective lies acting. He *was* panicking, and his life *was* in danger. He behaved as any self-serving traitor would, not only lying but begging for mercy. There was no need for any such tactics before he was suspected. > Carol: > >This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK > an innocent boy without a second thought.< > > Pippin: > I don't object to Faith-based theories on principle, but they, too, > should simplify rather than complicate the canon. Peter killed > Cedric? You'll have to explain to me how it was simple for Peter > to put aside the bundle in his arms and get his wand out before > Cedric could stop him. > Carol responds: Now I'm confused. I've never mentioned faith or faith-based theories. Are you implying a religious basis for a simple statement? Or do you mean that Peter killing Cedric is an assumption? To me, the assumption is that someone else was there. We only know of three people, if LV counts as a person, being present in that graveyard when Cedric was killed: Harry, who didn't kill Cedric; Voldemort, who couldn't have done it; and Wormtail, who was ordered to do it and did. Unless we bring in a complicated conspiracy theory for which I see no canon evidence. I do think JKR is a bit vague in her details here since the characters do seem to have their hands full, and admittedly there's an awkward moment where Wormtail would need to shift the bundle to his left hand and point the wand (presumably already in his hand) with his right. But note that the same thing happens with Harry later. He has his wand in one hand, is holding onto Cedric with the other, yet somehow grabs the portkey to take them both home. Please don't think I'm rude, but if anyone needs to do some explaining, it's JKR. > Cedric had his wand out already. He'd just seen Harry collapse > at his side. We are reminded in OOP that Cedric was a > world-class champion adult wizard who knew quite as much > about duelling as Harry, so this is not one of those minor > inconsistencies that JKR lets by. This is something we are to > take note of, a clue slipped into an innocent chapter. Somehow > Cedric let Wormtail get the drop on him without so much as an > "Expelliarmus". Wormtail, who was always hopeless at duelling. > Something's not right. Carol responds: Cedric is an innocent boy who doesn't know where he is and doesn't know he's in danger, except for a vague uneasy feeling he presumably shares with Harry. Wormtail is not duelling with him; he's simply obeying an order to "Kill the spare," a cruel, cold action that speaks volumes for Wormtail's capacity for evil but requires no skill in duelling that I can see. (In any case, MCGonagall may be wrong in her impression of Peter, who may well have exaggerated his own ineptitude at duelling--or have been "hopeless" in comparison with James, as no doubt most students were.) I agree that the situation is confusing and that we have an inconsistent picture of Peter, but I don't see a need for an invisible fourth person (not counting Cedric) to be present. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 02:23:08 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:23:08 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116513 Carol: > > >This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK an innocent boy without a second thought.< > > > > Pippin: > > I don't object to Faith-based theories on principle, but they, too, should simplify rather than complicate the canon. Nora: > It may come off as screwy to us, but I don't think it's meant to be > deeply screwy by JKR, as she has no qualms about answering that > question straight out, at the World Book Day chat: > Of course, if you want to argue for multiple Wormtails, go right > ahead... :) But it's far simpler (and Faith-based) to assume one > Wormtail, the one we know of, and he kills Cedric, end stop. > > -Nora notes that Faith sure is becoming popular again these days Carol asks: If it hasn't already been answered, how are you two using "faith" here? You can offlist me if it's some sort of in-joke. I certainly didn't intend to state a faith-based theory by any definition. It was intended as a simple statement of fact. Thanks. C. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 02:27:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:27:57 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116514 > Carol asks: > If it hasn't already been answered, how are you two using "faith" > here? You can offlist me if it's some sort of in-joke. I certainly > didn't intend to state a faith-based theory by any definition. It was > intended as a simple statement of fact. Alla: Carol, I think I can help you with that :) Faith is personification of authoritarial intent on TBAY. Of course Nora and others can explain it in more detail. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 02:44:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:44:24 -0000 Subject: OOP - Creating distance from Harry - was "What JKR Finds Important" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116515 Legobaty wrote: > >big snip> > One last point - if Harry is the one who dies at the end of book Seven, who's to say we need to distance ourselves from him? We may find out with him what the "next great adventure" is over the other side... Carol responds: Just one small quibble. I don't think that "Harry is the one who dies" is a possible ending. He could die *along with* Voldemort, but Voldemort is almost certainly going to die no matter what. The saga can't end any other way. There can be no after-the-war epilogue unless Voldemort dies. And besides, we Muggles know that there was no WW takeover of the world in 1997, when the final battle will take place. >From Harry's perspective, that's the future. From ours, it's the past. Voldemort has already been destroyed--although, for him, being no longer fully human, maybe there will be no "next great adventure," only eternal emptiness and nothingness like that faced by those whose souls have been sucked by Dementors. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 03:24:39 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:24:39 -0000 Subject: Whoops! Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116516 Potioncat wrote: > > It just seems that JKR had a reason for us to not know what > > happened. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan replied: > Right. The reason is that we're seeing this from Harry's POV as > usual. HARRY isn't supposed to know for certain that Snape broke it--that way he can't accuse him or report him! That Snape's a smart > guy! IMO, he saw what Hermione was doing, saw that Harry's back was > turned, made a quick decision to "repay" Potter for the Pensieve > incident. Perfect! Potter will "know" from the look on his face and the "Whoops" but he won't be able to DO anything about it because he didn't see it directly. We're supposed to feel it the way Harry felt it--frustration and all, I think. > > Carol: Or Harry was too hasty in putting the vial on the desk and it slipped to the floor as he turned away. We know that Draco was amused. We can be pretty sure that snape took genuine pleasure in assigning him a zero (whether it counted in his final grade for the course or not). But there's no evidence that Snape actually broke the vial, and surely Hermione would have informed Harry about it after class had he really done so. Instead, she apologizes and he's angry with *her*. Carol, who has often placed a glass on the counter edge and turned around just in time to see it shatter From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 03:58:21 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:58:21 -0000 Subject: who is the hero? was DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116517 Kneasy wrote: > > Without the adults it'd be as mindless as a Disney (spit) 'young > adult' film, pandering to the limitless egos of idiotic adolescents > who somehow always know more than any grown-up, resulting in a > resolution that is facile, moronic and has all the credibility of a > nine-bob note. > > > > Adults dismiss such stuff as the rubbish it is. > > Now if JKR goes along that route I shall be severely pissed - so > also, I'd venture to say, would many on the site; this is after all, > a site for grown-ups, not one for retarded teenagers with delusions > of social adequacy and a yearning for the stereotypical resolutions > reflecting the non-existent standards inherent in many a television- > induced intellect narcosis, often called popular programming. > > > > Expectations are high and I'm confident that she won't crash and > burn at the final bend. It's much too intricate, detailed and > ambivalent for that sort of let-down to be likely. > > Potioncat replied: > But, face it, the series is about Harry Potter It isn't "Severus > Snape and the Unfortunate Events at Hogwarts." It isn't "Albus > Dumbledore: Puppetmaster of the Wizarding World." It's "Harry > Potter and the..." Harry gets to be the Hero. He may not like it, > but he does. > > Where was Snape when the trio braved the enchantments and went after > the stone? Where was McGonagall when Harry went into the Chamber? > Was anyone in the graveyard with Harry? Snape's burst of glory, > rescuing the trio in the Shrieking Shack, earns him a headache and a > grand embarrassment. > > Nope. It won't be the grownups that save the day...but I'm sure JKR > can pull it off and we won't be disappointed. Carol responds: While JKR is primarily interested in Harry, many of her readers, especially adult readers are not. no one is disputing that Harry will save the day. That's a given. No one is arguing that Snape or McGonagall is the main character, only that it is possible and profitable to analyze them in relation to plot or theme or motivation or even, possibly symbolism because they add depth to what, as Kneasy says, would otherwise be adolescent fantasy. Granted, the books are mostly about Harry, and are presented mostly from his POV (which tends to complicate matters), but they are not *all* about Harry--unless we in this group are deluded in finding significance in conflicts that occurred before Harry was born, or in attempting to define evil as it exists in the WW (e.g., Dark Magic and the Unforgiveable Curses), or in exploring the nature of Lily's self-sacrifice, to name only a few examples. I believe, though this is just my opinion, that her adult characters are greater literary creations than her juvenile characters, realistic as her depiction of adolescence may be in some respects. At any rate, if you're older than JKR, as I am, you naturally find the adult characters more interesting than the children, however realistically depicted. As I said in another post, great literature, or even good literature, remains open to interpretation (and I'm talking about finished works, not WIP here) even after multiple readings. If we limit ourselves to discussion of Harry, as if he is all that matters, we miss key elements of the world JKR has created and its inhabitants. IMO, it is absolutely necessary to examine other characters to recognize those elements. And there are elements of setting, too--the nature of wand magic, for example, or her use of mythological or invented creatures--that enable us to better understand the books without necessarily helping us to understand Harry. There is more to a book than its protagonist and his conflicts and more to most of the characters than their role as plot devices or their relationship to Harry. Whether JKR knows it or not and intended it or not, these books are bigger than she is, and I confidently predict that the characters she has created will outlive her. Sybill Trelawney, erm, Carol, stunned to find herself in total agreement with Kneasy on this one From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 04:10:19 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:10:19 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116518 Alla snipped: I suspect that something already happened in the past differently than we readers think it happened due to the time travel. Don't ask me about time paradox, I think more sophisticated time-travel theorists would be able to explain that. Snow: I am very far from a know-it-all when it comes to time-travel but I really think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about the time paradox issue. If a time paradox already existed previously at this point in time that Dumbledore already was aware of, wouldn't it be feasible to continue to alter the same time-line? Without Harry and Hermione's interference with time, Harry and Sirius would be dead along side Buckbeak. Harry would not have been there to save his previous self, which, as far as I can see, was already predetermined by a paradox that already existed. This is why I seem to be stuck on the mode of time travel as the ultimate conclusion. For some reason this brings to mind the movie It's a Wonderful Life where the angel tells George, when he is looking as his younger brother's grave, you see George you weren't born so you weren't there to save your brother. It is like working backwards. First Harry saved himself then he saw him saving himself. You had to have been there previously to see yourself saving yourself. This could be a story in reverse, ending with and that's how I got the scar. It's one of those make-your-head-hurt-bad scenarios but really good if she pulls it off. The duel story log, or duel timeline, has already been represented by the similarities of the younger children to their older counterparts. Neville is to Pettigrew as Hermione is to McGonnagall or Ron is to Dumbledore as Voldemort is to Grindlewald. Dumbledore is the key player because he is involved in both time- lines. To fix one time-line he must assure the success of its counterpart. This would surely make Dumbledore appear to be omniscient. The don't let yourself be seen is not an issue because Dumbledore would know that he is Ron and therefore would not attack Ron and Ron does not know his older counterpart (Dumbledore) so he would not be likely to attack either. For those of you who really do not like time travel I have to ask you what book you liked the best most everyone has put POA at the top of the list. Although you may not like time travel you have to admit that time travel did not hinder the storyline and may have enhanced it given the genius of the writer. Just something to think about...or drive you crazy Snow From snow15145 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 04:14:28 2004 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:14:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116519 Steve/bboyminn: That's one reason why I don't give much weight to the idea of chocolate frog cards acting as spys. I simply don't think that photos have sufficient depth to be anything but a cartoon/caricature verion of the real person. Also, while it has been somewhat implied, we really have never heard a photo communicate in any way. There have been implied minor vocalization, but no photo has ever talked. Snow: This is an area that has been most puzzling especially since JKR's statement, from the Edinburgh Book Festival, that the portraits more or less repeat catch phrases. I have found several instances were the portrait has presented itself with present day concerns that they communicate about. For instance, there is Phineas who, upon hearing of his great grandson's apparent death appears distraught and proceeds to his Grimmald portrait for verification. (OOP The Lost Prophecy "Am I to understand," [ ] "that my great-great-grandson-the last of the Blacks-is dead?" [ ] "I don't believe it,") Again with Phineas, who makes an astute observation when Dumbledore escapes apprehension, declares to Fudge, that if nothing else Dumbledore has style. (OOP The Centaur and the Sneak "You know Minister, I disagree with Dumbledore on many counts but you cannot deny he's got style ") These examples are of present day emotion to a present day situation with a present day applicable emotional response. If a portrait only continues to repeat catch phrases that he had heard or had said in the past how could he possibly react to present circumstances with an emotional verbal response? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 04:19:30 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:19:30 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116520 Pippin wrote: > We saw in OOP what > Dumbledore was like as master of the Order--aloof, remote, > wary of revealing himself to anyone, like Lupin, who seems to > have legilimency talents. And we never see that Lupin has an > emotional closeness to Dumbledore the way that Harry or > Hagrid or even Snape has. Carol responds: While I absolutely agree that Lupin hid a great deal more than Sirius's abilities as an animagus in OoP, and I also agree that something must have happened to create an estrangement of sorts between him and the other Marauders after they left Hogwarts (note his absence from the christening, which I discussed at too much length in another post), I'm not convinced that we have enough evidence to convict Lupin of the crimes that canon currently assigns to Pettigrew. And if we call this canon evidence "Faith," and consider it a slippery foundation for interpreting the story, surely arguments that ignore such ambiguous canon as we have are even more prone to topple when Books 6 and 7 come out. But I didn't mean to get into an anti-conspiracy theory discussion again. I'm only wondering what evidence you have that Lupin has talent as a Legilimens. If you mean that Harry at some point thinks he can read minds (a thought he has also had about Snape, who is an Occlumens but not necessarily a Legilimens), I don't think that's sufficient to conclude that he "seems to have legilimency talents." AFAWK, the only Legilimenses (I don't know the plural) are Dumbledore and Voldemort. DD must also be an Occlumens since he can place his own thoughts in a Pensieve, as Snape also does, and I believe that he taught this skill to Snape as protection against Voldemort. But I don't see how Lupin, who urged Harry to take Snape's Occlumency lessons seriously, fits into this picture. If he were a Legilimens, shouldn't he have worked in tanedm with Snape to teach Harry Occlumency rather than having Snape use a Legilimency spell for Harry to fight against? Carol, whose drunken neighbor has passed from singing light opera to "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" and hopes her inability to concentrate will be forgiven From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 05:00:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:00:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116521 Pip!Squeak wrote: > Just as in Book One, we see that a spell to > change Scabbers appearance *doesn't work*, and are told that First > Years can't bring rats. There's something odd about Scabbers. We're > given the clues from the start. Carol responds: One small quibble. We're never told that first-years can't bring rats (only brooms are expressly forbidden, and McGonagall gets around that one). They're just not on the list of pets that first-years are likely to bring. If someone had tried to bring a dog, the Head of House might have pulled out the list and pointed to their absence from the list, or their unsuitability as pets, but nothing is said about the seemingly innocuous Scabbers. (McGonagall may not even realize that Ron's rat is the same as Percy's. She could have thought one was a descendant of the other. More likely she never gave it a thought.) Lee Jordan is allowed to have a tarantula, certainly not on the list of approved pets, and the Weasleys, being too poor to provide owls or cats for all their children, are allowed a rat. I don't dispute your point that there's something odd about Scabbers from the beginning. I just don't think Ron's (and the rule-loving Percy's) having him as a pet is a violation of the rules--though it may bend them a little. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 05:12:25 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:12:25 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116522 I wrote : > > Please check to see if anyone else has responded yet before > > answering. I don't want to start an avalanche of posts with > > merely factual information. > Saraqael responded: > When I replied to your last post, the other answer had not yet been > posted. I assume that my response was delayed since it was my first > post to this list. > > Carol responds: I'm sorry, Saraquel. I wasn't reprimanding you. I just didn't want twelve posters all telling me the same thing or *I'd* get a reprimand from the list Elves. As it is, I didn't get a single response. All I wanted was to know if anyone has listed all the birthdays from JKR's site. Guess I'll have to ask over at OT Chatter. Again, my sincere apologies for sounding as if I was criticizing you. It wasn't my intention. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 05:18:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:18:50 -0000 Subject: Just where *IS* Sirius' motorbike then? In-Reply-To: <001601c4b68d$34789c20$0dc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116523 Carol said: > "If I understand you correctly, "I'd best get this bike away" is the > later reading (2000) and "I'll be takin' Sirius his bike back" is the original reading (1997), retained in the American edition. " > > DuffyPoo responded: > Correct. I have a box set of the first three hardback books purchased the Christmas after GoF was published (2000). The PS/SS hardback says published in 2000 as well but I believe it is just a reprint of the original published in 1997. CoS and PoA say published in 1999. My box set of the first 4 paperbacks, all say published in 2000 and that's where *all* my edition changes for those four books are found. > Carol said: > "But the date, not the writing style, is what's important here: Yours is a later printing and seems to indicate an attempt by JKR to > eliminate the discrepancy between Hagrid's two versions of the story, i.e., she's trying to make the British edition of PS agree with PoA. Unfortunately, she seems to have left in the line, "young Sirius Black lent it me," which makes the change to "I'd best get this bike away" rather pointless--a nice Hagridian line referencing a character we'll meet later is changed to a feeble and forgettable one without removing the idea the the motorbike was merely lent. Or did she also change the "lent it me" line in your edition, DuffyPoo?" > > DuffyPoo wrote: > > Paperback (new 2000 edition) says "Borrowed it, Professor Dumbledore, sir," said the giant, cimbing carefully off the otorbike as he spoke. "Young Sirius Black lent it me." - word for word what is in the Hardback edition. Carol again: Aargh. Thanks. Then what we have is a pointless revision of perfectly good dialogue, and we still have a discrepancy between the "borrowed" and "lent" of SS/PS and the "gave" of PoA. Why would she do that? Conspiracy theories, anyone? ;-) Carol P.S. What were the other changes, Duffypoo? Do they make sense from a plot perspective? C. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 05:39:06 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:39:06 -0000 Subject: Who was in the house? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116524 Dungrollin wrote: > > > There can be a painting/mirror/something else witness too, of > course, but the voice has to belong to someone who was there. > > I (Carol) responded: > > And who but James would say those words? We know that James put up a brave fight and was killed by LV. > > I'm not ruling out a portrait or other nonhuman witness (I lean > > toward Snape's Dark Mark as a clue, myself), but I agree that the > voice was human and it seems likely that it really was James's. (As I said in another post, it couldn't have been Lupin's. He was the suspected spy. The question, for me, is why Sirius didn't go to him instead of running after Peter. But that would have ruined the > story.)> > > > Carol > > kmc adds: > In POA, Sirius tells the group in the shack that he saw their > bodies. I don't have my books so I can't reference the chapter. > James and Lily were killed at Gordic Hollow. > Carol responds: I think you misunderstand me. I know that Sirius saw James's and Lily's bodies and that they died at Godric's Hollow. I'm arguing that it was James's voice that Harry heard in the Expecto Patronum lesson, not Lupin's or Peter's. My parenthetical question may have confused you because of the pronoun "he," which refers to Lupin, not James. IOW, I was asking why Sirius didn't go to Lupin for help, now that he knew Lupin was not the Secret Keeper, instead of rashly running after Peter without consulting anybody. But Sirius was just being himself, I guess, acting without thinking. He *should* have gone to Lupin, but doing so would have ruined the story. Carol, with apologies for the unclear pronoun reference From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 06:50:10 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:50:10 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116525 > > Kim here, with questions and comments: > > First, Vivamus, where did you find out that JKR said that the 3 kids > wouldn't become animagi? I believe it -- just wondered where you > heard or read it. Finwitch: I don't recall exactly *where*, but it was in an interview - she said that "Harry won't become an animagus like his father". While that could mean that Harry won't become an animagus at all, it could also mean that 1)Harry will become a *registered* animagus and/or taught how to do it by McGonagall. - unlike his father, that. 2) Harry's animagus form is NOT a stag. again, not like his father. Still, now that we have this Metamorphmagi to explain that over-night-groving hair, it is more likely he won't be animagus. Besides, it was rather curious that as much as McGonagall complained about those celebrating wizards not wearing Muggle-clothes and OWLs, *She* in her cat form drew more of the attention of Vernon Dursley by acting oddly for a cat. (reading a map/sign) Kim: > Second, in the case of Harry's parseltongue ability, it wasn't > inborn, so maybe some abilities can be transferred from wizard to > wizard. Unless it was only a fluke because of the backfired spell > that Voldemort cast at Harry, so maybe ability-transfer isn't likely > to happen any other way than by accident. Anyway then it would make > sense that Harry had some other innate ability besides being really > good at flying a broom. > > So I too agree that Harry could be a metamorphmagus since he's done > it before, but just didn't know that's what he was doing at the > time. Although, wonder why he hasn't demonstrated the ability lately > (or has he?) What other way could he show metamorphmagus ability > than growing his hair or changing hair color (like Tonks)? Lots of > possibilities there, I'd guess. > > I think transfiguration-like abilities (i.e. animagi, metamorphmagi, > Polyjuice Potion) are some of the most interesting aspects of JKR's > books. Hope we'll get to see more of these "deceptions" in the last > two books. Finwitch: Hmm-mm... Howabout this: his glasses had been broken several times due to Dudley having punched his nose, covered in Sellotape. Harry's nose, however, does NOT have any sign of having been broken or hit. Also: how did he turn his teacher's wig blue? What area of magic does that belong, or was it Harry at all(I sure can imagine Dudley to put dye into it and blame Harry)? He made the sweater shrink. How did he 'jump' onto the school roof? Harry's description sounds more like flying than apparition...? (With Dudley's clothes that would fit two Harrys, I think it likely he DID manage to fly... maybe he made his bones bird-like?) He DID open that padlock regularly (I think he used magic, even if Harry just thinks the lock was loose. Harry's also VERY fast, broomstick or no. Uhh.. what if Harry's a natural Phoenix-animagus, and has been since birth? That way he sure wouldn't *become* animagus, because he's always *been* one, he just didn't know it... Or maybe he'll be Poly-animagus, and can turn into any animal he likes.. Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 06:58:49 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:58:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn: > > That's one reason why I don't give much weight to the idea of > chocolate frog cards acting as spys. I simply don't think that photos > have sufficient depth to be anything but a cartoon/caricature verion > of the real person. Also, while it has been somewhat implied, we > really have never heard a photo communicate in any way. There have > been implied minor vocalization, but no photo has ever talked. > > Snow: > This is an area that has been most puzzling especially since JKR's > statement, from the Edinburgh Book Festival, that the portraits more > or less repeat catch phrases. I have found several instances were the > portrait has presented itself with present day concerns that they > communicate about. For instance, there is Phineas who, upon hearing > of his great grandson's apparent death appears distraught and > proceeds to his Grimmald portrait for verification. (OOP The Lost > Prophecy "Am I to understand," [ ] "that my great-great-grandson- the > last of the Blacks-is dead?" [ ] "I don't believe it,") Again with > Phineas, who makes an astute observation when Dumbledore escapes > apprehension, declares to Fudge, that if nothing else Dumbledore has > style. (OOP The Centaur and the Sneak "You know Minister, I disagree > with Dumbledore on many counts but you cannot deny he's got style ") > These examples are of present day emotion to a present day situation > with a present day applicable emotional response. If a portrait only > continues to repeat catch phrases that he had heard or had said in > the past how could he possibly react to present circumstances with an > emotional verbal response? Geoff: The following is a reply which I wrote in message 95065. It was part of a thread "Empty portrait" which started at message 95040 if you want to follow it through....... Quote begins: "Potioncat: > So far when we've seen these animated portraits, they seem very live, > and personable. But they are not the original person. They are some > sort of spell, copy, imitation. So I think if Harry comes across a > portrait of Sirius, it will be an empty experience for him. If it > does give him some comfort, like watching an old video of a loved > one, it still won't be Sirius. Geoff: I don't think that's strictly true. In OOTP, we have seen various of the portrait folk - Phineas Nigellus and Dilys Derwent for example - who have been sent by Dumbledore to find out information and deliver messages at points where they have another portrait of themselves. I think that this has been discussed in a thread some time ago but there is a suggestion that the portrait is sentient and has the memories of its sitter up to the point in time where the painting was executed. So, a portrait could engage in conversation with a person perfectly coherently, assuming that the discussion did not go beyond the then knowledge of the sitter, which is a little more than watching an old video of a friend or relative. However, if there was a portrait of Sirius, it would have to date from before the Azkaban days and therefore, from Harry's point of view, would not be helpful. If you want to discuss your teen angst and your hearer hasn't got beyond you being in nappies, you've got the wrong counsellor!" End of quote. But, added to that as has been suggested, these portraits could then pick up on events which are current and in which they, as the "portrait-entity", could be involved as far as their previous experience alllows. Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 07:06:36 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:06:36 -0000 Subject: Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116527 Sigune wrote: > > What keeps puzzling me - but I have little knowledge of the workings of law and court - is that Snape is 'cleared'. The word suggest to me that he is proved not guilty, whereas he clearly has been a Death Eater. Does anybody know what kind of status spies have, that is, are they 'cleared' of crimes committed because they made 'good' use of their experiences in the end? Even so, I think a verdict of 'not guilty' is a bit rich, but maybe that's just me. > > > Carol responded: > I think it means that charges were dismissed before the case went to > trial. Sort of a plea bargaining, protected witness arrangement. > (Someone please correct me if I'm interpreting it incorrectly.) > > Certainly, the recent reference to Snape by some poster (I forget who)as an "ex-con" is incorrect. He was never convicted and evidently > never even charged. That would explain, in part, why his name did not appear in the papers like those of Malfoy, Macnair, Nott, et al., who *were* tried and found not guilty by reason of Imperius. > > Carol Carol again, replying to her own post: I noticed in passing that *Harry* is "cleared of all charges" in OoP. (sorry I don't have the page reference but it might have been in the career counseling chapter). Something similar must have happened with Snape--only my sense of the matter is that fewer people were present. It seems to have been very hush-hush. It's not that either Harry or snape was found not guilty. It's that the charges were dropped--for very different reasons. Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 07:08:52 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:08:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies - Portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116528 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn: > > That's one reason why I don't give much weight to the idea of > chocolate frog cards acting as spys. I simply don't think that > photos have sufficient depth to be anything but a cartoon/caricature > verion of the real person. ... > Snow: > This is an area that has been most puzzling especially since JKR's > statement, ..., that the portraits ... repeat catch phrases. I have > found several instances were the portrait has presented itself with > present day concerns that they communicate about. For instance, > there is Phineas who, upon hearing of his great grandson's apparent > death appears distraught ...edited... These examples are of present > day emotion to a present day situation with a present day > applicable emotional response. If a portrait only continues to > repeat catch phrases that he had heard or had said in the past how > could he possibly react to present circumstances with an emotional > verbal response? bboyminn: First, I think too many people take JKR's comments as the absolute, all-inclusive, full and complete, definitive statement on a given subject; not so. JKR is merely a commenting on an /aspect/ of a subject. We manage to extend conversation on specific topics here for days, imagine if JKR were here and we could pick her brain about every minute aspect of a given subject. That certainly couldn't be concluded in one quick comment. Think of my illustration of the difference between the depth of a photo and the depth of a portrait. I compared a magical photo character to a character in a TV commercial; a caricature, almost a cartoon, of a person, but while they lack depth, they are easily recognisable; the harried husband, the stressed housewife, the cool teen, the nerd, etc.... In a matter of a couple of seconds we identify the character, but at the same time, that character has no range or depth to their personality. I think the same principle applies to magical photos; easily identifiable characters completely lacking in depth. A portrait on the other hand is like an actor playing role in a movie. They are able to bring great depth and emotion, and represent the original real-life character's personality, traits, and speech patterns very accurately. That illustrates a magical living portrait. It has /apparent/ depth of emotion, character, and personality. JKR said in an interview which I did personally read, but have been unable to track down again, that living magical portraits are created by adding a piece of living tissue from the subject of the portrait to the portrait itself. So, the magical portrait does contain some /essense/ of the subject. That /essense/ is like a detailed biography that the portrait actor can draw on, but even the best biography is still only a small faction of the actual person. JKR is making the point that no matter how well the portrait actor portrays the subject, he is indeed not the subject, and any attempt to explore that portrait image to the depth of the original living person will ultimately fail. The portrait /actors/ do live in realtime, they are able to hold reasonable conversations and dialogs, they are able to react to realtime events in ways that minic the original subject, but just as there is a limit to the depth to which a movie actor can portray a character, there is a limit to which a magical living portrait can portray it's subject. This whole subject came up in relation to people wondering if Sirius could reappear as a portrait, and thereby continue to be a part of Harry's life. JKR is making the point that while the portrait might act and respond /like/ Sirius, it would never have the depth, insight, or ability to counsel or comfort Harry in a way that would be satisfying. When the situation required true depth and insight, not just /apparent/ depth and insight, the portrait would fall short and leave Harry very unsatisfied and frustrated. Of course, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 07:12:20 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:12:20 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116529 > > Snow: --- > Dumbledore is the key player because he is involved in both time- > lines. To fix one time-line he must assure the success of its > counterpart. This would surely make Dumbledore appear to be > omniscient. The don't let yourself be seen is not an issue because > Dumbledore would know that he is Ron and therefore would not attack > Ron and Ron does not know his older counterpart (Dumbledore) so he > would not be likely to attack either. Finwitch: What's wrong with this Dumbledore's Ron -business, is the existence of his *brother*, namely Aberforth. Weasley twins as Dumbledore-brothers, now that would work a bit better. Or maybe Bill&Charlie even more so. But I just don't buy it. Just because his hair used to be *auburn*? Bother that, if Dumbledore's metamorphmagus, hair-colour says NOTHING. Being able to become invisible could be the ultimate version of methamorphmagi - making yourself grow Demiguise-hair, perhaps?... And besides, Dumbledore's seeming omniscience (which was already proven to be WRONG assumption, he HAS made errors, namely the one about the car-business!) is well explained by experience, Legilimency, portraits, Chocolate-frog cards, his ability to become invisible... and I wouldn't be surprised if even Walls have ears at Hogwarts. (Honest, if walls can pretend to be doors, why not?). Finwitch From apeiron at comcast.net Wed Oct 27 00:24:28 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:24:28 -0400 Subject: The nature of portraits & pictures (was Re: Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <1c7.1fe9b8f0.2eaff4e6@aol.com> References: <1c7.1fe9b8f0.2eaff4e6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20041027002427.GA41478@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116530 On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 14:43:50 EDT, Chancie scribbled these curious markings (which I've properly wrapped because they're longer than 72 characters): > > Chancie: > Actually if I remember corectly, Picture people, can travel without > being in a picture. Do you remember in PoA, when the Trio are trying > to find Divination for the first time? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > And he [Sir Cadogan] ran, clanking loudly , into the left side ot the > frame and out of sight. They hurried after him along the corridor, > following the sound of his armor. Every now and then they spotted > him running through a picture ahead Technically speaking, they're portraits -- they're properly framed, hung on walls, and presumably not taken with a camera or similar "instant", "quantised" mechanism. It can be argued that the length of time and effort taken to create a portrait somehow captures the essence of the person. This is something similar to the beliefs of the Amish with regards to having their photographs taken. Of course, this is just a theory. As is the usual, there's far more questions than answers. I'm really looking forward to this possible HP Encyclopedia which JKR had mentioned that she may be creating. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From apeiron at comcast.net Wed Oct 27 02:30:21 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:30:21 -0400 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <200410261417624.SM01260@DEVBOX> References: <200410261417624.SM01260@DEVBOX> Message-ID: <20041027023021.GA42573@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116531 On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 14:17:03 EDT, Vivamus scribbled these curious markings: > JKR has already said that none of the three (Harry, Ron, Hermione) will > become animagi -- but could Harry be a metamorphmagus? He did, after all, > make his hair grow back, which one could argue is changing his shape. Tonks > also told him that being a metamorphmagus was not only hard, it was based on > an inborn ability -- as with parseltongue. Actually, if you take very careful notice of the words that Tonks uses in her explanation in the beginning of OotP, you'll see that she uses the word *appearance*. This is an extremely subtle difference, but it's also an extremely important one. To change one's appearance suggests that the stuff which constitutes one's essence remains, but it's just the reflected and refracted photons which change (that's of course assuming that magical appearance changes modify the physics of the universe -- I could and probably will at one point make a post about this basic aspect of magic). To change one's shape suggests that one actually does change the "stuff" -- the matter -- constituting one's self. I'm currently working on an essay for HP Lexicon which covers this topic. Thank you for mentioning Harry's hair growing issue. > Make sense? Yep. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 04:00:31 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew In-Reply-To: <1098776478.13805.82328.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041027040031.39258.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116532 > catkind: > How about: Lupin in this scene slipped through the lines of print to > join Sirius in an entirely different and more primitive genre of > fiction. > > Think LotR. Think Alexandre Dumas. This rat has betrayed our friend, > causing his death. He has to die! In either of those settings it would > seem perfectly normal. > > Harry then heroically drags his father's friends back up into Boarding- > School-Story land. > Renee: > No, don't think LotR, please. > Frodo: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature > [Gollum], when he had a chance." > Gandalf: "Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: > not a strike without need. (...) Many that live deserve death. And > some that die deserve life. Can you give it to him?" > It seems to me LotR and Harry Potter very much belong in the same > camp. KELSEY: Oh, are we going to start drawing parallels between HP and LOTR while concerning ?wormy? traitors? Goody! Because ever since I finished reading LOTR, I?ve gotten a stinking suspicion that Wormtail is going to pull a Wormtongue at the end of HP. Wormtongue was spared a grisly, vengeful death by merciful Aragon/Strider/Gondor-King, just as Wormtail was spared a vengeful death by merciful Harry/boy-hero. Well, let?s just say, it paid off in spades at the end of ROTK (think Vader tossing Emperor into a pit, those bad guys really shouldn?t turn their backs on their right-hand men). Which, of course, is the REWARD for being a good hero, a merciful hero. Opps, sorry, was that a Star Wars parallel. Kelsey, who loves parallels. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 07:32:19 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:32:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116533 Carol: > I don't dispute your point that there's something odd about Scabbers > from the beginning. I just don't think Ron's (and the rule-loving > Percy's) having him as a pet is a violation of the rules--though it > may bend them a little. Finwitch: The list of pets are suggestions, not rules. The pets found on the list are indeed pets most likely to be found - with Owl and Cat on the list, Brown or Patil didn't dare bring her rabbit along. (Some owls/cats EAT rabbits, you know). Toad, though... the fly-eater that can hatch a basilisk out of chicken's egg... what else is there about toads? What is there about Trevor? Finwitch From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 04:24:04 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dirty Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption) In-Reply-To: <1098776478.13805.82328.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041027042404.19658.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116534 imamommy at s... wrote: > Harry may make a lot of mistakes, but he can't become what > Voldemort is: he can't become a cold-blooded killer. Eggplant: > Actually I hope to see something like that in the series, I think > it would make things very interesting. At the end of the series I > want some people to denounce Harry, I want others to say he did > what he had to do, I want moral ambiguity, I want controversy not > a paragon of ethics. I was delighted in the last book when Harry > used a Unforgivable Curse, not because I thought it was the right > thing to do but precisely because I thought it was not. > > In short at least to a degree, I want to see Harry Potter turn into > Dirty Harry. Kelsey: Oh, I love this idea (and the name! ?Dirty Harry?). Wouldn?t that be a twist? Wouldn?t that put a wrench in the RW presses that talk about how cute Harry is? Cute, little, socio-pathic, soiled Harry. But I think I might see a hole in that bucket of water. Harry?s an angry teenager, but he?s a goody-two-shoes. From day one, he just intrinsically knows what?s right and what?s wrong (knowing he doesn?t want to be associated with ?dark wizards? of Slytherin). Yeah, he gets fuddled in knowing who?s good and who?s bad (Snape vs. Quirrel). Sure, he falters when he gets mad. But his underlying motives are almost always so pure and good. They?re not even for the sake of increasing his own fortune (i.e. winning the triwizard cup for fame, glory, and cash). His motivation may not exactly be saintly (the side of ?good? was chosen for him the moment Voldie killed his parents and tried to kill him), but he?s good by definition. He?s probably having a crisis at the moment with Sirius gone, but that?ll come to motivate him further. Oh, I?ll put galleons on that he?ll have a big moral dilemma (my dream scenario: whether or not to bring Sirius back from the dead or whether or not to kill Bellatrix). But he?s going to do the right thing in the end. Harry just isn?t the Byronic hero. He?s not the anti-hero. He?s not Anakin Skywalker (redeemed hero). He?s good defined by the evil that is Voldie (hence why Voldie is such a unsatisfactory villain?he?s just evil, flat, boring, evil) and vice versa. Harry?s good, flat, boring, good. Well, maybe not so boring. Harry and Voldie are archenemies. Just as there is no gray area for Voldie, there?s none for Harry. [I don?t think that this in anyway lessens the impact of the books at all, there?s 4.5 billion other characters in the books that are various shades of gray, white, black, red, purple, green, etc.] In short (too late), Voldie cannot be redeemed. Harry can?t go evil (for any short or long amount of time). They define each other as opposite ends of the poles. But I?m really eager and open to having my mind changed! Kelsey, who is horrified by the recent realization that her star tattoo is named after Sirius? murderer. From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Oct 27 04:33:30 2004 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:33:30 -0400 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200410270034203.SM01260@DEVBOX> No: HPFGUIDX 116535 > Kim here, with questions and comments: > > First, Vivamus, where did you find out that JKR said that the 3 kids > wouldn't become animagi? I believe it -- just wondered where you > heard or read it. I'm afraid I can't pin it down, exactly, as it was too long ago, but I'm quite sure I read it, and I'm fairly sure it was a direct quote. I think it was after POA came out, and she was being questioned -- perhaps in an online "meet the author" chat -- about whether Harry, Ron and Hermione would also become animagi, and I seem to remember that she flatly stated that none of them would become an animagus. It's pretty unusual for her to make a flat statement like it, and I remember wondering at the time if it wasn't a red herring for something else. This was before GOF, of course, so it was a while back. As soon as I met Tonks, I wondered if this was what Harry would become, just because it was interesting like an animagus, but "not an animagus." Harry growing his hair back didn't occur to me as evidence for it until later. > Second, in the case of Harry's parseltongue ability, it wasn't > inborn, so maybe some abilities can be transferred from wizard to > wizard. Unless it was only a fluke because of the backfired spell > that Voldemort cast at Harry, so maybe ability-transfer isn't likely > to happen any other way than by accident. Anyway then it would make > sense that Harry had some other innate ability besides being really > good at flying a broom. Well, we know that DD told Harry that he can speak parseltongue because V could speak parseltongue, but how certain can we be that DD is infallible in this? In any case, it doesn't really matter, because parseltongue is still a generally-inborn talent, even if Harry got his through the curse that failed. > So I too agree that Harry could be a metamorphmagus since he's done > it before, but just didn't know that's what he was doing at the > time. Although, wonder why he hasn't demonstrated the ability lately > (or has he?) What other way could he show metamorphmagus ability > than growing his hair or changing hair color (like Tonks)? Lots of > possibilities there, I'd guess. That's a good question. The unfocused unconscious magic seems to happen when the wizard is extremely upset or stressed, doesn't it? So it wouldn't happen in the normal scheme of things. It also has to fit into something that makes sense from his point of view. If Crabbe and Goyle were about to beat him up, for example, it just wouldn't occur to him to be bigger than them -- that's *too* strange. How about this? Harry likes a girl who happens to be taller than him, but somehow, when they get real close, they are always the same height. Harry, of course, never notices this. Or he notices, but the girl doesn't. > I think transfiguration-like abilities (i.e. animagi, metamorphmagi, > Polyjuice Potion) are some of the most interesting aspects of JKR's > books. Hope we'll get to see more of these "deceptions" in the last > two books. I agree, and me, too. > Cheers, Kim (chuckling at the image of an even-more-peeved-at-Harry- > than-usual Snape) Can you imagine the look on Snape's face if something nasty happens to Harry and it just goes away before Snape can gloat? V From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 08:57:12 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:57:12 -0000 Subject: Mind-linked!Snape (Part IV: TBAY conclusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116536 > > Alla: > > I am also wondering about "of course" part. I mean yes, Voldie is a > big show - off, but could it be that he is indeed that confident that > Dark Mark is guranteed kill - kill situation. Finwitch: Hmm-mm. Well, of *course* Voldy will see the traitor *killed*. Someone who kills for fun isn't going to let someone who's a traitor to live! I don't, however, find *automatical* kill propable. The traitor *has* been in contact with the other side, after all, and interrogation is probable. With a bit of Imperius Curse/Veritaserum/Crucio/Legilimens... Then again, Voldy might be stupid enough not to interrogate first, but I don't think so. At any case, the Mark may well serve as a tracker - a DE can not hide from Voldemort, because the Mark reveals him, where ever he is hiding. It is possible that in order to stay alive, fighting the DEs, Snape may have to sacrifice his LEFT ARM, to get rid of the mark. (A kinda opposite to Wormtail, the spy for Voldemort who cut off his Right Hand). Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Oct 27 09:31:39 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:31:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116537 > Steve/bboyminn: > > That's one reason why I don't give much weight to the idea of > chocolate frog cards acting as spys. I simply don't think that > photos have sufficient depth to be anything but a > cartoon/caricature verion of the real person. Also, while it has > been somewhat implied, we really have never heard a photo > communicate in any way. There have been implied minor > vocalization, but no photo has ever talked. > > Snow: > This is an area that has been most puzzling especially since JKR's > statement, from the Edinburgh Book Festival, that the portraits > more or less repeat catch phrases. I have found several instances > were the portrait has presented itself with present day concerns > that they communicate about. For instance, there is Phineas who, > upon hearing of his great grandson's apparent death appears > distraught and proceeds to his Grimmald portrait for verification. > (OOP The Lost Prophecy "Am I to understand," [ ] "that my great- > great-grandson-the last of the Blacks-is dead?" [ ] "I don't > believe it,") Again with Phineas, who makes an astute observation > when Dumbledore escapes apprehension, declares to Fudge, that if > nothing else Dumbledore has style. (OOP The Centaur and the > Sneak "You know Minister, I disagree with Dumbledore on many > counts but you cannot deny he's got style ") These examples are of > present day emotion to a present day situation with a present day > applicable emotional response. If a portrait only continues to > repeat catch phrases that he had heard or had said in the past how > could he possibly react to present circumstances with an emotional > verbal response? Dungrollin: Didn't JKR say that portraits in general shout catchphrases (Mrs. Black), whereas there is something slightly different about the portraits of ex-headmasters and -mistresses in DD's study? I was under the impression that she implied it was the old heads who have left an impression or aura of themselves on the paintings in the study so they can give advice to the current incumbent. However in answering the question about Harry being able to see Sirius again in a painting, JKR was obviously thinking only about the paintings in OotP, and forgot about The Fat Lady and Sir Cadogen. The Fat lady can ask for the passwords, get drunk at Christmas, gossip with the other paintings, and be afraid and ashamed enough to hide in a map of - was it Derbyshire? - when attacked by Sirius, and, like Sir Cadogen, have a (relatively) normal conversation with real people. So it would seem that the distinction between the two types is somewhat blurred. Dungrollin Hoping we'll see more of Phineas. From vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz Wed Oct 27 10:53:06 2004 From: vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz (Vinnia) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:06 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? Message-ID: <20041027105306.30884.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116538 Hi all, My friend and I had just had a discussion about halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose to attack the Potters on halloween. She's convinced that it has something to do with Nearly Headless Nick's deathday. But we can't think of why! I'm sure this has been discussed in great length here, but since we're in halloween mood, surely there's nothing wrong with discussing this again? :) Anyone has any thought on this? Vinnia Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 27 11:20:15 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:20:15 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116539 Carol wrote: > > All I wanted was to know if anyone has listed all the birthdays from JKR's site. Guess I'll have to ask over at OT Chatter. > > Potioncat: The Lexicon has updated individual information based on the site, so you could check on a particular person to see if their birthday was mentioned.(McGonagall's is) IIRC there is a calendar of important dates at the Lexicon, but I don't know if birthdays are listed on it. Good luck! Potioncat who will be keeping an eye out for November birthdays. From garybec101 at comcast.net Wed Oct 27 11:52:32 2004 From: garybec101 at comcast.net (garybec) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:52:32 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: <20041027105306.30884.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116540 > My friend and I had just had a discussion about > halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose > to attack the Potters on halloween. She's convinced > that it has something to do with Nearly Headless > Nick's deathday. But we can't think of why! > Anyone has any thought on this? > Vinnia Becki's response; Some posters have speculated that the significance of the October 31st attack is that it could be the conception date for Harry, 9 months following July 31st. I don't think it has anything to do with Nick, but you never know! Becki From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 13:31:49 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:31:49 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "garybec" wrote: > > > > My friend and I had just had a discussion about > > halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose > > to attack the Potters on halloween. She's convinced > > that it has something to do with Nearly Headless > > Nick's deathday. But we can't think of why! > > > Anyone has any thought on this? > > > Vinnia > > Becki's response; > > Some posters have speculated that the significance of the October > 31st attack is that it could be the conception date for Harry, 9 > months following July 31st. > > I don't think it has anything to do with Nick, but you never know! > Becki My thought would be that maybe there was something monitoring the house at GH for magic being cast, and LV decided to go that night so any mangic he did would be less noticible, because Halloween night is a big holiday in the WW. Meri - desperate to know what really happened that night From red_rider4 at lycos.com Wed Oct 27 13:34:11 2004 From: red_rider4 at lycos.com (Hester Griffith) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:34:11 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "garybec" wrote: > > > > My friend and I had just had a discussion about > > halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose > > to attack the Potters on halloween. She's convinced > > that it has something to do with Nearly Headless > > Nick's deathday. But we can't think of why! > > > Anyone has any thought on this? > > > Vinnia > Hester: I've seen speculations that Halloween only became important to the WW (at least in Britain) after Harry survived the curse and LVs power was broken. I disagree with this though, as Halloween is an ancient holliday. I think LV chose Halloween either because the WW would be celebrating and less vigilant, or because it has even more significance to dark wizards. Hester > Becki's response; > > Some posters have speculated that the significance of the October > 31st attack is that it could be the conception date for Harry, 9 > months following July 31st. That's interesting, but how would LV know it was the conception date? Why would be bother to find out? My youngest was due July 31, but not concieved Oct. 31 so it would have meant time and effort for LV to find out. And I doubt the Potters would have told anyone the conception date, if they even knew for sure. Hester > Becki: > I don't think it has anything to do with Nick, but you never know! > Becki Maybe Nick was beheaded on Halloween for the same reason it is an important holiday in the WW, or maybe he was beheaded by dark wizards and they like to perform execution on Halloween. Maybe there is some kind of benefit magically for performing an execution on Halloween. Hester From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 14:03:03 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:03:03 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <200410261417624.SM01260@DEVBOX> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116543 Vivamus wrote: " JKR has already said that none of the three (Harry, Ron, Hermione) will become animagi -- but could Harry be a metamorphmagus? He did, after all, make his hair grow back, which one could argue is changing his shape. Tonks also told him that being a metamorphmagus was not only hard, it was based on an inborn ability -- as with parseltongue." Del replies : I personally don't think that Harry is a Metamorphmagus. My main argument is that he hasn't shown any sign of it since we've known him (I'll discuss the hair-regrowing incident later). Quite often Harry has wished that he could change something in his appearance. For example, as Tonks immediately pointed out, there have been numerous times when Harry wished he didn't have his scar. There are also all those Dudley clothes he has to wear and that are quite simply horrible. Not to forget his hair, that he sometimes wishes would simply lie flat. But none of those things ever happened. Of course, it could be that he hasn't *started* showing signs of his ability. It could be, but somehow I doubt it. Tonks had apparently mastered her own gift quite well by the time she left Hogwarts. That to me indicates that she must have known about it for quite a while, maybe right from her childhood. I doubt she would have discovered it in her very last years at Hogwarts and yet managed to master it so well. So what about the time when he regrew his hair ? Well, that could just be exactly what it looks like : accidental magic. But it looks just like Metamorphmagic, you'll say ! Agreed. But maybe JKR hadn't created the Metamorphmagi when she wrote her first book. Or maybe she forgot about that detail when she introduced us to Tonks and didn't realise what it would remind us of (Mark Evans, anyone ?) Even worse : maybe she *did* remember about the incident, and she *intended* to make us wonder (in other words, she planted a red herring and she's now having some fun at our expense :-) ) ? Or maybe you're right, my red herring is actually a true blue clue, and Harry is a Metamorphmagus. It could be. But it would take away from my fun of trying to figure out who is the real unknown-to-us Metamorphmagus, and what it will mean to Harry ;-) Del From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 14:02:46 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:02:46 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hester Griffith" wrote: > Becki: > > > > Some posters have speculated that the significance of the October > > 31st attack is that it could be the conception date for Harry, 9 > > months following July 31st. Hester: > That's interesting, but how would LV know it was the conception date? > Why would be bother to find out? My youngest was due July 31, but > not concieved Oct. 31 so it would have meant time and effort for LV to > find out. And I doubt the Potters would have told anyone the > conception date, if they even knew for sure. Geoff: Maybe, but that raises a question. As Hester remarked, always assuming that it was the second anniversary of Harry, what significance should that have on Voldemort's decision to attack? The conception is over and done with, Harry is born and now 15 months old. I feel that some of the other thoughts about the choice of Hallowe'en must be nearer to the truth. Whether we ever find that out is open to question.... Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 27 14:09:24 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:09:24 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > > All I wanted was to know if anyone has listed all the birthdays from > JKR's site. Guess I'll have to ask over at OT Chatter. > Hickengruendler: I'm sorry Carol, I really answered to your post and didn't recognize that my post didn't make it on the list. I suppose my post somehow got lost. Anyway, here's the list: Ron: March 1st (We know this from a chat) Fred and George: April 1st (Source: Weasley section on JKR's website) The rest is from the calendar on the website, although we of course already knew Harry's and Hermione's birthday before. Neville: July 30th Harry: July 31th Ginny: August 11th Percy: August 22nd Hermione: September 19th McGonagall: October 4th Flitwick: October 17th >From the books we also know that Dudley's birthday is at the end of June and Angelina's at the end of October. The Lexicon mentions Dudley's birthday as June 23. But I'm not sure. It's an assumption based on the fact that it was on a Saturday on book 1. But we all know that JKR isn't very good in dates, and I'm not sure she checked the calendar to see on which day Dudley's birthday was in 1981. Anyway, as long as we haven't any information that contradicts this date, it's a good enough assumption. From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Wed Oct 27 14:13:10 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:13:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116546 Hester wrote: Maybe Nick was beheaded on Halloween for the same reason it is an important holiday in the WW, or maybe he was beheaded by dark wizards and they like to perform execution on Halloween. Maybe there is some kind of benefit magically for performing an execution on Halloween. Lady Macbeth replies: Among modern (real life) witches and wizards, Halloween is an important holiday. It falls about the same time as the old holiday of Samhain, the celebration of the Celtic New Year and the end of the old year. It was a time for bringing in the harvest so it wouldn't be blighted by frost and for remembering the year past. Magically, it's also significant to the spirit world. The Veil Between Worlds (yep, there's a reference to a Veil again) is thinnest this time of the year, and lifts entirely during Halloween. This allows free passage between the Other World and our world, and any number of ghosts or other spirits could be wandering the Earth during this time. This is where the tradition of guising (going out in costume) arose - travellers disguised themselves as something other than human on that night, so that they wouldn't be disturbed or maligned by wandering spirits. I'm fairly certain that JK Rowling found at least a summary of the old holiday, such as what I've posted above, during her research and has incorporated that into the books, hence the importance of Halloween to her witches and wizards and hence the Veil Room in the Department of Mysteries. What advantages that would give Voldie would be anyone's guess. I know that I'm using it as a plot device in one of my fics, but I'm not sure if JK Rowling is going to go anywhere with it or not. -Lady Macbeth No more bounces! No limits on mailbox size or attachments Check mail from your desktop (IMAP or POP3), from the web, or with your cell phone! Better than YahooPlus, Hotmail, or Gmail! http://www.unlimited-mail.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 27 14:45:38 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:45:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's mind powers was Re: DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116547 > Carol responds: I'm not convinced that we have enough evidence to convict Lupin of the crimes that canon currently assigns to Pettigrew. And if we call this canon evidence "Faith," and consider it a slippery foundation for interpreting the story, surely arguments that ignore such ambiguous canon as we have are even more prone to topple when Books 6 and 7 come out.< Pippin: First let me apologize for the confusion--"Faith" is the T-BAY personification of opposition to far-fetched theories and is defined here: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#history She is the proponent of ANTITHESIS (All Nice Theories, I Think; However, Each Supposition Is Strained) ::irons hands for not giving the link in the first place:: Carol: > But I didn't mean to get into an anti-conspiracy theory discussion again. I'm only wondering what evidence you have that Lupin has talent as a Legilimens.< Pippin: All references PoA: In chapter 8, Lupin believes that Harry's boggart would have been Voldemort, although Harry himself has forgotten that he thought of Voldemort first. In chapter 10, Harry is unable to ask his question about why dementors affect him so strongly, but Lupin answers it, "as though he had read Harry's mind." In chapter 17, Lupin is shown "staring so intently at Black it seemed he was trying to read his mind." There are also hints that Lupin is an Occlumens. In chapter 14, Lupin's face assumes an "odd, closed" expression as he contemplates the map. In chapter 19, Snape says, "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works." Granted none of that is proof, but now that we know some characters have mind powers, is it really far-fetched to suppose that the text hints that Lupin is one of them? "Odd, closed" seems especially obvious. Carol: But I don't see how Lupin, who urged Harry to take Snape's Occlumency lessons seriously, fits into this picture. If he were a Legilimens, shouldn't he have worked in tanedm with Snape to teach Harry Occlumency rather than having Snape use a Legilimency spell for Harry to fight against? > Pippin: It's mentioned in OOP that Dolores Umbridge "drafted a bit of anti-werewolf legislation two years ago that makes it almost impossible for him to get a job." So while Dumbledore might have wanted Lupin to help teach Harry occlumency, it would have been difficult to find a pretext for his being at Hogwarts to do it. Pippin From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Wed Oct 27 16:38:02 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:38:02 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley and the Quidditch Cup (7th year) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116548 I've been catching up on some posts so I apologize to the group if this theroy has been discussed but I have a theory on what happen during Charlie's last year at Hogwarts. Could Charlie have gotten injured prior to the final game? McGonagall named Oliver Wood to take over for that final game. Gryffindor lost so badly to Slytherin that they lost the cup. The only remarks that we have are that the team did not win a cup since Charlie was seeker (F&G) and the team was flattened in the last match by Slytherin (McGonagall). This goes along with a previous stated theory that McGonagall and Snape have a spirited but friendly rivilary when it comes to the Quidditch Cup and matches between their two houses. We see this time and time again in the books where the Quidditch games between Gryffindor and Slytherin. There seems to be a school wide build up to their matches that are not present when Gryffindor plays Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. Back to my theory of Charlie being injuried - This would also make F&G's statement true since Charlie would have been replaced for the final game and therefore he was no longer on the team when they lost the Quidditch Cup. kmc From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 27 16:48:32 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:48:32 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116549 > catkind: How about: Lupin in this scene slipped through the lines of print to join Sirius in an entirely different and more primitive genre of fiction. > > Think LotR. Think Alexandre Dumas. This rat has betrayed our friend, causing his death. He has to die! In either of those settings it would seem perfectly normal. < Pippin: I'm not a Dumas expert, but in The Three Musketeers, the protagonists are well aware that they are risking both their earthly futures and their immortal souls by taking on the (apparently) extra-legal execution of Milady. But there is no such realization in Prisoner of Azkaban until Harry articulates it, and when he does, Sirius and Lupin immediately concede that he is right -- James would not have wanted this. Pippin From books_lot at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 08:57:28 2004 From: books_lot at yahoo.com (books_lot) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:57:28 -0000 Subject: Befuddlement charms - the way he's feeling? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116550 Hey guys, just asking if you agree with me or I am just the thinking too much. In Order of the Phoenix, pg 340 (UK), Harry reads about the uses of scurvygrass, lovage and sneezewort. It states that "these plantes are moste effacious in inflaming the braine, and are threfore much used in Confusing and Befuddlement draughts, where the wizard is desirous of producing hot-headedness and recklessness..." It seems to describe Harry to a T. No matter what everybody say about teenagers, Harry's behaviour this time around seemed to be much different than the Harry we know and love. Can anybody reply to this please cause I don't see that anybody has mentioned this so far. I don't know how, or who slipped it into his drink, but this could be an alternative reason to his behaviour. Drop me a line about your thoughts!!!! books lot * * * Elf Note: Previous posts speculationg on the use of Befuddlement charms are in messages 69977, 71896, 91233, and the beginning of the longest thread on the subject, 93021. From hautbois1 at comcast.net Wed Oct 27 17:16:09 2004 From: hautbois1 at comcast.net (ohnooboe) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:16:09 -0000 Subject: Befuddlement charms - the way he's feeling? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116551 > books lot wrote: > > I don't know how, or who slipped it into his drink, but this could be an alternative reason to his behaviour. Drop me a line about your thoughts!!!! Though I do think that these charms and potions will come up again, I don't think that Harry has been suffering from the effects of either. While Harry is definitely much different then the one we "know and love" I think it has more to do with hormones and mental anguish then anything. The difference between a 14 year old and a 15 year old is astounding (I'm surrounded by HUNDREDS everyday...) Patrick From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 17:33:59 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:33:59 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116552 Finwitch wrote: >[JKR] said that "Harry won't become an animagus like his father". While that could mean that Harry won't become an animagus at all, it could also mean that 1) Harry will become a *registered* animagus and/or taught how to do it by McGonagall - unlike his father; that 2) Harry's animagus form is NOT a stag. Again, not like his father. Kim here: I can really see your interpretations of what JKR said (and hope you're right). In any case it's pretty rare for her to come out and say *exactly* what she means anyway. Finwitch: >Hmm-mm... Howabout this: his glasses had been broken several times due to Dudley having punched his nose, covered in Sellotape. Harry's nose, however, does NOT have any sign of having been broken or hit.< Kim again: I think that's a very good observation about Harry's nose. One of those little details it's easy to miss or not take into account. Some might say his nose wasn't broken on account of the natural "indestructibility" of wizards (i.e. it's much harder to hurt them physically vs. how easy it would be to hurt a Muggle under the same conditions), but remember Harry did break his arm, so why then wouldn't his nose have been broken by a big ham-fist like Dudley's? Harry might have called on his innate Metamorphmagus ability as a quick self-defense mechanism to keep his nose from getting broken (or to repair itself instantly) and not even realized it at the time. The thing too about Harry's inborn magical abilities is that they would have shown themselves during the years before he ever knew he was a wizard, and in the company of the pea-brained-Muggle Dursleys, there was no nice wizard mom or dad there to say "Look at little Harry, he's a natural at ...." Also wouldn't the kind of magical ability that would just "happen" tend to be the kind that's innate to that person? Finwitch continued: >Also: how did he turn his teacher's wig blue? What area of magic does that belong, or was it Harry at all (I sure can imagine Dudley to put dye into it and blame Harry)? ... He made the sweater shrink.< Kim again: Wouldn't those be examples of transfiguration, like when Harry made the glass in the snake's cage disappear in SS/PS? He "transfigured" an inanimate object into something else, as in making a brown(?) wig into a blue wig, a big sweater into a smaller sweater, or turning a sheet of glass into air. If you can transfigure your own appearance at will, you're a Metamorphmagus. If you can transfigure yourself into an animal, you're an Animagus. They all seem to be part of the same basic ability. And some folks are just naturally better at it than others. Finwitch: >How did he 'jump' onto the school roof? Harry's description sounds more like flying than apparition...? Kim: IMO that kind of jumping, if it's not a form of apparating, seems to point, as you say, to a natural ability to fly. But Harry being a natural at flying on a broom is far dfferent from flying without a broom. There hasn't been an example in the books of anyone flying without the aid of either a broom or a flying animal, has there? Which is kind of odd, considering it's the wizarding world. Just one of those things maybe that JKR doesn't want in her version of a magical world, like not letting people come back from the dead; maybe she also doesn't want them to be able to just flap their arms and take off... Finwitch: >Uhh.. what if Harry's a natural Phoenix-animagus, and has been since birth? That way he sure wouldn't *become* animagus, because he's always *been* one, he just didn't know it... Or maybe he'll be Poly-animagus, and can turn into any animal he likes..<< Kim: >Except for this, wouldn't Harry know he could turn into a Phoenix by now? Harry's definitely like a Phoenix though, in that someone (he who must not be named) has tried to kill him and he didn't die. Poly- animagus is a really interesting idea too -- no reason why that couldn't apply to a talented wizard, though I guess that would be breaking the natural rules when it comes to animagus ability -- i.e. that your animagus is the animal reflection of your inner self -- so one would assume you could only be one animal. But hey, what if you've got multiple "inner selves"...? ;-) Plus I could see someone as old and wise (and talented) as Dumbledore being a Poly-animagus. Best wishes, Kim (who's having a bad hair day and really wishes she could be a metamorphmagus for about 2 minutes...) From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Wed Oct 27 17:40:40 2004 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:40:40 -0000 Subject: Lupin's mind powers was In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116553 > > Carol responds: > > But I didn't mean to get into an anti-conspiracy theory > discussion again. I'm only wondering what evidence you have > that Lupin has talent as a Legilimens.< > > Pippin: > > All references PoA: > > In chapter 8, Lupin believes that Harry's boggart would have > been Voldemort, although Harry himself has forgotten that he > thought of Voldemort first. > > In chapter 10, Harry is unable to ask his question about why > dementors affect him so strongly, but Lupin answers it, "as > though he had read Harry's mind." > > In chapter 17, Lupin is shown "staring so intently at Black it > seemed he was trying to read his mind." > > There are also hints that Lupin is an Occlumens. > > In chapter 14, Lupin's face assumes an "odd, closed" > expression as he contemplates the map. > > In chapter 19, Snape says, "Don't ask me to fathom the way a > werewolf's mind works." > > Granted none of that is proof, but now that we know some > characters have mind powers, is it really far-fetched to suppose > that the text hints that Lupin is one of them? "Odd, closed" > seems especially obvious. > >> > Pippin Olivier And if I might add, in chapter 8 PoA, Harry thinks "for a moment of telling Lupin about the dog he'd seen in Magnolia Crescent but decided not to. He didn't want Lupin to think he was a coward, especially since Lupin already seemed to think he couldn't cope with a boggart." And then, the punch line "Something of Harry's thoughts seemed to have shown on his face, because Lupin said, "Anything worrying you, Harry?"" There are other evidence in OoP. Note that if one admits that Lupin is a Legilimens, one can surmise that Lupin knows Sirius' first aim is not to kill Harry since the dog did not attack Harry. Olivier, quite impressed that Pippin actually wrote a post about Lupin without an indictment, seems now and then even she and I can agree about Remus From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 27 17:42:24 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:42:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116554 Dungrollin: > However in answering the question about Harry being able to see Sirius again in a painting, JKR was obviously thinking only about the paintings in OotP, and forgot about The Fat Lady and Sir Cadogen. The Fat lady can ask for the passwords, get drunk at Christmas, gossip with the other paintings, and be afraid and ashamed enough to hide in a map of - was it Derbyshire? - when attacked by Sirius, and, like Sir Cadogen, have a (relatively) normal conversation with real people. > I think the paintings are meant to be a bit like the old ELIZA computer program -- an early attempt at artificial intelligence which mimicked a human psychotherapist. It could ask questions, and obey simple commands, based on its repertory of canned responses to certain keywords. Sir Cadogan a can carry on a conversation of sorts, express some emotions and follow simple instructions. However, his ability to reason is quite limited. Given the correct password, he is incapable of denying Sirius entrance to Gryffindor Tower or even raising the alarm. Similarly, the Marauder's Map has enough "intelligence" about its environment to make jokes about Snape being a professor, but not to realize that it would be highly inadvisable to do so. It's lucky it didn't get thrown into the fire. I don't think Harry would be happy with Virtual Sirius for very long. Pippin From steve at hp-lexicon.org Wed Oct 27 18:44:54 2004 From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (hp_lexicon) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:44:54 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116555 > From the books we also know that Dudley's birthday is at the end of > June and Angelina's at the end of October. The Lexicon mentions > Dudley's birthday as June 23. But I'm not sure. It's an assumption > based on the fact that it was on a Saturday on book 1. But we all > know that JKR isn't very good in dates, and I'm not sure she checked > the calendar to see on which day Dudley's birthday was in 1981. > Anyway, as long as we haven't any information that contradicts this > date, it's a good enough assumption. We know that Dudley's birthday is June 23 because it's a month before July 24 and it's a Saturday in a year when July 24 falls on a Tuesday. The only possible day that fits those criteria is June 23. Did Rowling actually figure that out? Probably not. But it's the only possible day that fits what she's written in the books. On the other hand, in book one she has Fred saying "We haven't won since Charlie left!" and at that moment in the stories, Charlie left only two and a half months previous, and there was no Quidditch in that time. So I guess you can take it with a grain of salt. The entire timeline of the Harry Potter saga has been updated with all the newest information, including birthdates, on the Lexicon. It's really quite a good read, if you have the time (it's rather huge). Also, each year is listed with notes after it telling what age each of the major characters is turning during that year. There are annotations all through telling where and how we learned the information listed. You should really take a look if you're interested in the timelines of the stories. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeine_intro.html Steve The Lexicon From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 27 18:49:46 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:49:46 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116556 Pippin: > > Whatever you call it, Peter had to keep it up for a whole year, during part of which Albus Dumbledore, who usually knows when people are lying to him, was actively hunting among those close to the Potters for the spy. We know Peter was close to them, since he sat between them in the picture. Surely DD would detect that Peter's expressions of horror were feigned? > > Carol again: > I don't think Dumbledore uses Legilimency except in one-on-one conversations where he's looking someone directly in the eye. If he suspected Sirius, he wouldn't be paying much attention to Peter,anyway. And if Peter told no complicated lies--in fact, spent most of his time listening for things he could report to Voldemort--there would be no way to catch him in a lie, Legilimency or no.< Pippin: I imagine that if Dumbledore were looking for a spy, he would interview everyone close to the Potters, not just Sirius. Wouldn't he want to know whether Peter had seen anything suspicious? Harry generally feels as if he is being X-rayed when Dumbledore looks at him and asks one of those innocent open-ended "Is there anything you want to tell me" questions. I have a hard time imagining Peter standing up to that. > > Carol: > > >This is a man who, after living as a rat for twelve years, can AK an innocent boy without a second thought.< > > > > Pippin: You'll have to explain to me how it was simple for Peter to put aside the bundle in his arms and get his wand out before Cedric could stop him.< > Carol responds: We only know of three people, if LV counts as a person, being present in that graveyard when Cedric was killed: Harry, who didn't kill Cedric; Voldemort, who couldn't have done it; and Wormtail, who was ordered to do it and did. Unless we bring in a complicated conspiracy theory for which I see no canon > evidence. > > I do think JKR is a bit vague in her details here since the characters do seem to have their hands full, and admittedly there's an awkward moment where Wormtail would need to shift the bundle to his left hand and point the wand (presumably already in his hand) with his right. But note that the same thing happens with Harry later. He has his wand in one hand, is holding onto Cedric with the other, yet somehow grabs the portkey to take them both home. Please don't think I'm rude, but if anyone needs to do some explaining, it's JKR. Pippin, before: > > Cedric had his wand out already. He'd just seen Harry collapse at his side. We are reminded in OOP that Cedric was a world-class champion adult wizard who knew quite as much about duelling as Harry, so this is not one of those minor inconsistencies that JKR lets by. This is something we are to take note of, a clue slipped into an innocent chapter. Somehow Cedric let Wormtail get the drop on him without so much as an "Expelliarmus". Wormtail, who was always hopeless at duelling. Something's not right. > > Carol responds: > Cedric is an innocent boy who doesn't know where he is and doesn't know he's in danger, except for a vague uneasy feeling he presumably shares with Harry. Wormtail is not duelling with him; he's simply obeying an order to "Kill the spare," a cruel, cold action that speaks volumes for Wormtail's capacity for evil but requires no skill in duelling that I can see. (In any case, MCGonagall may be wrong in her impression of Peter, who may well have exaggerated his own ineptitude at duelling--or have been "hopeless" in comparison with James, as no doubt most students were.) Pippin: The "duel" McGonagall is referring to is Sirius's apparently cold, cruel attack on Peter. I disagree that Cedric didn't know he was in danger -- he had his wand out and he knew he was either still engaged in a tournament in which someone had used an Unforgivable Curse on him, or he'd been kidnapped. If Peter was hopeless in comparison with James, he'd be hopeless in comparison with Cedric, who was a tri-wizard champion and, unlike Harry, had fought his way to the cup without FakeMoody cursing obstacles out of his way. Carol: > I agree that the situation is confusing and that we have an inconsistent picture of Peter, but I don't see a need for an invisible fourth person (not counting Cedric) to be present. < Pippin: Trouble is, to get rid of that invisible fourth person, we have to assume that JKR accidentally made awkward, unathletic Peter as agile as a champion Seeker, that she made McGonagall, who correctly tells Neville his only problem is lack of confidence, totally inaccurate about Peter's lack of ability, and that Peter was holding a wand which Harry and Cedric did not see. Peter is not shown with a wand until after Cedric dies. Incidentally, that wand, which he uses to bind Harry ,is not the one which killed Cedric, since the conjured ropes don't appear in prior incantatem. Pippin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 27 19:16:45 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:16:45 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: <20041027105306.30884.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116557 Vinnia wrote: > My friend and I had just had a discussion about > halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose > to attack the Potters on halloween. She's convinced > that it has something to do with Nearly Headless > Nick's deathday. But we can't think of why! > Hannah: I love a good conspiracy theory, especially about GH, but I've always thought that JKR chose Halloween simply because it's the day traditionally associated with witches and wizards (I'm sure it's more complex, but that's how kids and most adults think of it). Something significant always happens on Halloween, in every book. Doesn't it say somewhere (don't have my books on hand) that the Potters had only been hidden there a week before it happened? That could mean that it just took that long for Pettigrew to tell LV, and for the Dark Lord to find a window in his busy schedule. Having said that, I like the suggestions that maybe LV chose that day because the magic world was likely to be distracted, celebrating/ on holiday (though celebrations would presumably have been much lower key given the times). This would tie in with the Halloween's of other books, where people's preoccupation with the feast is exploited by Quirrel (letting in the troll) and Riddle (launching his first attack). And both of those are, in one form or another, LV. I don't go along with the whole conception date theory. How would LV have found out? Would it have been that significant? If it was, wouldn't they have stepped up security on that night? Plus conception takes us into that sensitive subject of sex; I think that makes it an unlikely plot point in canon, though of course it is possible he was conceived on that date, and we adult fans are free to read any significance we like into it. I just can't see it being an important feature in the eventual plot. Hannah, who hopes that the GH explanation and timing is going to be more about the complex and interesting relationships between the adult characters, than simply a magical explanation. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 19:23:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:23:28 -0000 Subject: Rabastan Lestrange (Was: Slytherin Relationships) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116558 Carol earlier: > > I just don't know, but it strikes me as strange, and perhaps > > significant, that there are two Lestrange brothers. Why not just > give Bellatrix a husband? Why bring in Rabastan? > > > Potioncat responded: > Yes they are strange. Another family that lives up (down?) to its > name. Carol again: Yes: "Lestrange" definitely suggests that Bellatrix, her husband, and her brother-in-law are strange. But why two Lestrange brothers? We have two contrasting Dumbledore brothers, one of whom we haven't seen much of yet, and two Black brothers, who took opposing sides in VW1 (and are both now dead as the partial consequence of their own choices). Are Rodolphus and Rabastan part of that pattern of contrasting brothers, as they appear to be in the Pensieve scene? And who is who? Is Rabastan yet another hanger-on like Peter Pettigrew, staying with his brother and Bellatrix because he can't find a pureblood wife of his own? "I have no life, Bellatrix, but in thee"? Why bring him into the story? Any ideas? Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 19:36:34 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:36:34 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption) In-Reply-To: <20041027042404.19658.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kelsey Dangelo wrote: Kelsey: > But I think I might see a hole in that bucket of water. > > Harry's an angry teenager, but he's a goody-two-shoes. From day one, he just intrinsically knows what's right and what's wrong (knowing he doesn't want to be associated with "dark wizards" of Slytherin). Yeah, he gets fuddled in knowing who's good and who's bad (Snape vs. Quirrel). Sure, he falters when he gets mad. But his underlying motives are almost always so pure and good. They're not even for the sake of increasing his own fortune (i.e. winning the triwizard cup for fame, glory, and cash). His motivation may not exactly be saintly (the side of "good" was chosen for him the moment Voldie killed his parents and tried to kill him), but he's good by definition. Geoff: Sorry, but I don't see him as a goody-two-shoes. There are many people who basically lean towards being good. I suppose I do because I had it firmly drummed into me as a kid that "You don't do that sort of thing..." and again I suppose I want to get on well with people; it's a sort of of instinctive thing with me now and I feel it be so with Harry. But. That does not make him perfect. As you said, his motivation isn't exactly saintly. He wants to be good, at least most of the time, but doesn't always make it. That's what I like about him so much. He messes up, he falls over his own feet, he loses his temper, he lies and don't we all? Speaking with my Christian hat on, I recall a minister saying once about Christian behaviour that some people have a start over others in the faith because they were already some way along the road when they came to belief; my description of Harry in the last paragraph makes me think of Simon Peter. But my faith also teaches me that no one is beyond redemption - until they put themselves in that position by refusing to see anything beyond their own world view of what is right. I have commented in the past about Gandalf's comment in "The Return of the King" that it would not enter his darkest dreams that someone would actually /want/ to destroy the Ring. He sees its power as the only thing worth wanting and is blinded to any other values; so it is with Voldemort. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. How true. Harry seeks not only good for himself but that others are safe and cared for; in that respect he resembles the Christian seeker after truth. Voldemort is almost certainly unredeemable because he doesn't see that he needs to be redeemed. He is one of those folk who even as Tom Riddle came over as evil; he exuded something which made us feel uncomfortable. Not the sort of person I would seek to sit next to at dinner. It comes back again to Dumbledore's views in COS. We all are a mix of good and evil and ultimately are the product of our choices. Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Oct 27 19:41:55 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:41:55 -0000 Subject: Clarifying my last post... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: Geoff: Making my last post clear, I should have said that Gandalf was referring to Sauron in the piece about "darkest dreams". I almost turned him into ESE!Gandalf. :-) > Geoff > Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the > preserved West Somerset Railway at: > http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 19:41:46 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:41:46 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <141.3732f02e.2eb05cc8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > Chancie: > I know Buckbeak didn't die because Harry and Hermione saved him, but they > were not forced to replay the same scenario out when they used the time-turner Alla: What do you mean, they were not forced to replay the same scenario ? They did, in a sense that Buckbeak did not die the first time around. Sorry, confused now. Chancie: I think that maybe Dumbledore (since he had heard the prophesy > from Trelawney knowing that only Harry could defeat Voldemort) went back in > time and saved Harry somehow from the house squishing (sorry only word I could > think of =} ) him therefore keeping him alive to defeat > He-who-must-not-be-named later in life! Alla: Could be Dumbledore or somebody else, even Harry himself. I am almost positive that Time Travel will be back, because we only saw it once and we know that all major plot devices are introduced twice. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 19:44:42 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:44:42 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: <20041027105306.30884.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Vinnia wrote: > Hi all, > > My friend and I had just had a discussion about > halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose > to attack the Potters on halloween. .... > > ...edited... > > Anyone has any thought on this? > > Vinnia bboyminn: Here is something to think about, was the attack just after midnight on Holloween /morning/ or was it just after midnight on Holloween /evening/. Of course, if it took place the night of Holloween, and it was after midnight, then it actually took place on Nov 1. On Holloween in general, it think this date was chosen not for the benefit of Voldemort but for the benefit of the readers. Holloween is commonly associated with witches and wizards, and JKR was just re-enforcing and playing off of that connection. Sorry, that's certainly not as interesting as any conspiracy theory, but I think that's all their is to it. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 19:57:50 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:57:50 -0000 Subject: James and Severus (Was: Teen Conflict) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116563 Carol earlier: > > And if Severus is so enamored of the Dark Arts, and again it's > Sirius who says that he was, why is he so intent on his exam in *Defense Against* the Dark Arts? Clearly he knows the subject inside out; his answers to the questions are so detailed that he has to write in a minuscule hand to get them in. Clearly he cares about the subject > (and his mark in it) or he wouldn't be obsessively studying the exam > sheet when the test is over. The adult Snape's desire to teach DADA > is not some whim. He cares about and knows about this topic. It > would be very surprising if he did not get an O ("outstanding") on > both his OWL and his NEWT. An intense fascination with DADA is a > very odd trait in a future DE, and yet there it is. It's Severus, > not James (or Sirius) who's studying the one subject that the future > opponents of Voldemort must master in order to fight him. > Potioncat responded: > He is taking it very seriously. I'll bet that Severus did the same > in all his tests. He seems a lot like Hermione. I wonder how close > in marks he and James were? Carol again: Well, we know that James was Head Boy and, IIRC, he did have top marks in the school. But I agree with you that Severus must also have done very well in most if not all his classes, and that he cared enough to actually study not only DADA but Potions and any other subject he thought was important. Probably he combined hard work with natural intelligence, in part because he was ambitious and in part because, unlike Sirius and James, he was not rich, and could not afford to just slide by on his natural gifts. (Some students get high marks because they have a good short-term memory and do well on tests only to forget the material later because they don't really care about it. Possibly James was that kind of student, except in Transfiguration, where he had a motive for learning and remembering: he wanted to apply his knowledge in order to become an Animagus. Severus, though obviously as intelligent as James, was not that type of student. In DADA, and probably in Potions, he knew the subject inside out. IMO, he wanted the OWL examiners to recognize and acknowledge his mastery of those subjects by giving him an "O.") I agree that Severus resembles Hermione in taking his education seriously, in wanting to *know* everything there is to know--knowledge for its own sake and knowledge for practical application. He must remember what he reads (again like Hermione) to be able to provide such detailed responses to his DADA exam--and clearly he has memorized every potion and antidote that he teaches as an adult--a flick of his wand and the spell is on the board; a glimpse of a student's potion and he can tell exactly which step has been omitted. (Maybe he sees himself in her and resents her "know it all" attitude accordingly?) Anyway, I have a hunch that Severus, who combined obvious natural intelligence with diligent study, may have resented James's appointment as Head Boy as insult added to injury (the Pensieve scene and the so-called Prank). Resentment of an honor he felt rightfully belonged to him seems more in character to me than being jealous of James's skill at Quidditch (which is only Sirius's and Remus's view of the matter). Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 20:09:05 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:09:05 -0000 Subject: James and Severus (Was: Teen Conflict) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116564 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Anyway, I have a hunch that Severus, who combined obvious natural > intelligence with diligent study, may have resented James's > appointment as Head Boy as insult added to injury (the Pensieve scene > and the so-called Prank). Resentment of an honor he felt rightfully > belonged to him seems more in character to me than being jealous of > James's skill at Quidditch (which is only Sirius's and Remus's view of > the matter). > Alla: I have a hunch that Dumbledore had a different view on that matter. If we are to trust Dumbledore's judgment THAT much, wouldn't you think that James indeed deserved the position in his seventh year more than Snape did. The problem is (as always with Snape to me) that we don't know what he is thinking only how is acting and based on his actions him being jealous of James' quidditch talent also seems very IC. He always wants recognition. Seems reasonable that he wanted recognition on the Quidditch field too. From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 20:11:25 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:11:25 -0000 Subject: Funny questions (I hope) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116565 While re-reading GoF last night, I came across this paragraph (ch. titled The House-Elf Liberation Front, p. 381, US Scholastic ed.): <[Says Winky] "... My poor Mr. Crouch, what is he doing without Winky? I is looking after the Crouches all my life, and my mother is doing it before me, and my grandmother is doing it before her... oh what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed? Oh the shame, the shame!" She buried her face in her skirt again and bawled.> Winky's got a mother?! And a grandmother?! And they might still be alive somewhere? Clearly she hasn't been writing tell-all letters to them... For that matter, that must mean she's got a father and grandfather too, and maybe sisters and brothers? And what about Dobby's parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters...? Even sillier question: anyone out there thinking about a Dobby/Winky "ship"? To continue: Has anyone before made the analogy between house elves and dogs? Maybe JKR's RW equivalent to the house elf is the family dog. They have a lot of personality traits in common: loyalty, hard work, faithful service for which they don't expect to be paid, and anxiety and befuddlement at the prospect of being set "free." Even a dog that was mistreated (the way the Malfoys mistreated Dobby) might feel like a fish out of water if he were simply set free. And they'd keep the family's secrets too (paragraph 4, p. 380). Besides, the House-Elf Liberation Front has got to be a take on the Animal Liberation Front. Anyway house elves sure aren't modeled after my cat... "Hard work, what's that? Fetch me another cat treat while you're up, will you?" she purrs drowsily. Kim From lisa at faistudio.com Wed Oct 27 20:16:08 2004 From: lisa at faistudio.com (lisa graves) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:16:08 -0000 Subject: Favorite quotes-Was Re: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116566 Snow wrote: This is an area that has been most puzzling especially since JKR's statement, from the Edinburgh Book Festival, that the portraits more or less repeat catch phrases. I have found several instances were the portrait has presented itself with present day concerns that they communicate about. For instance, there is Phineas who, upon hearing of his great grandson's apparent death appears distraught and proceeds to his Grimmald portrait for verification. (OOP The Lost Prophecy "Am I to understand," [ ] "that my great- great-grandson-the last of the Blacks-is dead?" [ ] "I don't believe it,") Again with Phineas, who makes an astute observation when Dumbledore escapes apprehension, declares to Fudge, that if nothing else Dumbledore has style. (OOP The Centaur and the Sneak "You know Minister, I disagree with Dumbledore on many counts but you cannot deny he's got style ") Lisa here: Snow has reminded me how MUCH I LOVE Phineas- purely for that last quote "but you cannot deny he's got style..." (it's even better when Jim Dale says it). Just curious what everyone else's favorite HP quotes are. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 20:30:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:30:37 -0000 Subject: Tom vs. Voldemort (Was: Fudge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116567 Kneasy wrote: > And it appears that Diary!Tom is a different entity to Voldy (JKR won't let on what would have happened if D!T had been successful in > draining the life force from Ginny - something we'll find out later, > she says) My own theories regarding Possessed!Tom are compatible > with this; D!T is Tom pure and simple, Tom before his mind was > invaded, but Voldy is Tom plus Sally essence. Carol responds: Pure and simple? At the point when he creates the diary with the express intent of carrying on "Salazar's Slytherin's noble work," he has identified himself as the Heir of Slytherin based on his ability to speak Parseltongue and his direct descent from Slytherin; has found and opened the Chamber of Secrets; has controlled the basilisk and released it, killing a Muggleborn student; has framed another student for this crime; and has created a new identity for himself, Lord Voldemort, even recruiting some followers from among his intimate friends. All of this, in your view, before he is possessed by Slytherin. He then kills his hated Muggle father and grandparents and returns to Hogwarts outwardly unchanged, still a handsome, charming, intelligent boy who is now not only a Prefect but Head Boy. He is also four times a murderer (Moaning Myrtle and his own family) and has used the illegal and Unforgiveable Avada Kedavra Curse three times. That, to me, is more than enough to account for his descent into evil. He is already evil at sixteen, irredeemably evil (if I read the Unforgiveable Curses correctly) at seventeen. Only the associating with the Darkest Dark Wizards (Grindelwald?) and the Faustian pursuit of immortality through tranformations (and potions and snake venom?) remains. The transformations permanently alter his appearance, allowing him to put his identity as the half-blood Tom Riddle behind him (only he hasn't fully succeeded, as the events in GoF reveal) and recruit new followers as Lord Voldemort. Only a few people--presumably Dumbledore on the one hand and his original followers on the other--know that Voldemort and Tom Riddle are the same entity, changed in outward appearance and tactics but not in essence. Why and how is this explanation, which can be supported by canon, inadequate to explain what happened to Tom Riddle? Why is possession by Salazar Slytherin necessary, in your view, to account for a transformation that can be accounted for by the information we have already been given? I understand that you *want* Tom Riddle and Voldemort to be separate entities to fit your theory of Possessed!Harry and to resolve the problems surrounding Diary!Tom, but where is the canon evidence for Slytherin possing Tom Riddle? And when would he have done so? TR closed (and resealed?) the Chamber of Secrets *before* he placed his own memory in the diary. Carol From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 20:39:44 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:39:44 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > Trouble is, to get rid of that invisible fourth person, we have to > assume that JKR accidentally made awkward, unathletic Peter > as agile as a champion Seeker, that she made McGonagall, > who correctly tells Neville his only problem is lack of > confidence, totally inaccurate about Peter's lack of ability, and > that Peter was holding a wand which Harry and Cedric did not see. I don't want to get obstinately reductionist, but JKR *did* answer the question pretty straight up in an interview: Wormtail killed Cedric with Voldemort's wand. It's good enough for Faith, it's good enough for me...maybe she didn't realize that we'd all be so befuddled by it, but she doesn't think there's anything so odd that it would point to a discrepancy? I'm going to go with her provided clarification, as I think it works better than another hypothetical Fourth!Man... -Nora sits and copies CDs in the library From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 20:44:09 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:09 -0000 Subject: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption (Was; Vengeance on Sna In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116569 Becki wrote; > But Harry did not make the decision to *free* Pettigrew. He just > didn't want Lupin and Black to "become murderers". That is not the > same as giving Wormtail any slack. He wasn't falling for Pettigrews > feeble attempts at remorse. He had every intention to see him get > justice, by turning him over to the proper authorities. And by > doing that, he also gives Sirius a chance to get cleared. > Unfortunately, none of them had the foresight to see that Lupin was going to change into the werewolf, but that is not Harry's fault. But I guess that wouldn't really matter. somehow, someway, Pettigrew was going to get away, we have that prophecy to thank for that. Carol responds: I agree except for one point. Prophecies *predict* the future; they don't *determine* it. Somehow the voice that spoke through Trelawney knew that "the servant" would return to "the master," but how that would occur was not predetermined. I agree, however, that Harry is not to blame for Peter Pettigrew's actions, and that had he allowed Black and Lupin to become murderers, the consequences would have been even worse (Black given to the Dementors and Lupin sent to Azkaban, not to mention the emotional trauma of the three children who witnessed the cold-blooded murder). And Peter Pettigrew would have turned into a rat and escaped regardless, thanks not to the prophecy but to Lupin's untimely transformation into a werewolf. Carol From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 21:01:02 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:01:02 -0000 Subject: Funny questions (house elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" wrote: > Winky's got a mother?! And a grandmother?! And they might still be > alive somewhere? Clearly she hasn't been writing tell-all letters to > them... For that matter, that must mean she's got a father and > grandfather too, and maybe sisters and brothers? And what about > Dobby's parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, brothers and > sisters...? Yes, it would seem that Winky has family - somewhere. Although, considering her state of inconsolable disgrace, she probably isn't keen on having contact with them, feeling that she has shamed them by being freed. I believe that Kreacher, the illustrious Black family house elf, also has family, referenced in OotP (don't have them here in my classroom; sorry). Sirius mentions some relation of his having begun the tradition of beheading house elves when they became too old to be of service. It may not have explicitly stated in canon that they were Kreacher's family, but I remember *feeling* that it was Kreacher's family; maybe that was an inference on my part. Winky's devotion to the service of the Crouch family reminds me of another slave woman from literature: Mammy, the O'Hara family nurse from Gone with the Wind. Mammy frequently refers to her long service to Scarlett's family, viewing it as a reason for both pride and authority. She has a great deal of loyalty for her *family*, the family she serves, and often goes to pieces when one of them is injured or endangered in some way. I see Winky as being quite the same, in the way of loyalty and pride of service. Just a thought. >Even sillier question: anyone out there thinking about a Dobby/Winky > "ship"? Well, OF COURSE!!! Isn't everyone? Oh, no? Really? Well, it's just us, then. Seriously, I think it's adorable. I, being a relentless SHIPper myself, have imagined, since her introduction, that Winky would be "Dobby's girl" at some point in the story. It just seems right to me (of course, seeming rightfulness isn't rock solid, now is it?). My suspicions were only fueled by Dobby's care- taking efforts at Hogwarts, when Winky is distraught, despondent and very drunk. Dobby is such a loveable character; I want him to have a family of his own to love!! LisaMarie, wondering if all her favorite SHIPs will sink down the toilet when she finally gets her hands on book 6. :( From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Oct 27 21:01:14 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:01:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <13e.4a50ab8.2eb1669a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116571 In a message dated 10/27/2004 12:48:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: > Chancie: > I know Buckbeak didn't die because Harry and Hermione saved him, but they > were not forced to replay the same scenario out when they used the time-turner ***************************************************************************** Alla: What do you mean, they were not forced to replay the same scenario ? They did, in a sense that Buckbeak did not die the first time around. Sorry, confused now ***************************************************************************** CHANCIE: Sorry I was unclear in my meaning. I mean, that Buckbeak didn't die, because Harry and Hermione figured out that they had saved him the previous time. But they were not forced to follow the same actions. If they had decided to let Buckbeak die the second time around, then they were free to do so. When someone is time-turning, they aren't puppets forced to replay events and change things. Or it would be imposible for a wizard to go back in time and kill him/herself, as Hermione tells Harry. Time is change-able!!!! Or else Hermione wouldn't be warned not to "change time", or have said "there must be something that happend around now that he want's us to ****CHANGE****" Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 21:06:31 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:06:31 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <200410270034203.SM01260@DEVBOX> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116572 Vivamus wrote: >As soon as I met Tonks, I wondered if this was what Harry would become, just because it was interesting like an animagus, but "not an animagus." Harry growing his hair back didn't occur to me as evidence for it until later.< Kim here: That's still perceptive reading. That's one of the things I really like about this group, I'm learning to notice and hold onto more details while reading HP than I used to (and I used to think I was a smart cookie of a reader already!) It helps in other books I read too (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell as one current example). Vivamus: >Well, we know that DD told Harry that he can speak parseltongue because V could speak parseltongue, but how certain can we be that DD is infallible in this? In any case, it doesn't really matter, because parseltongue is still a generally-inborn talent, even if Harry got his through the curse that failed.< Kim again: I think the innate parseltongue ability that Tom Riddle/Voldemort has is on account of being Slytherin's (i.e. another parseltongue's) heir. In which case it's almost certain Harry got his from Voldemort's curse. (Which begs the question: is Harry Gryffindor's heir and if so, what innate trait did he inherit from him?) As to parseltongue though, since he does have it, I wonder if it will somehow prove useful to him in future, not just in Chamber of Secrets. Vivamus: > The unfocused unconscious magic seems to happen when the wizard is extremely upset or stressed, doesn't it? So it wouldn't happen in the normal scheme of things. It also has to fit into something that makes sense from his point of view. If Crabbe and Goyle were about to beat him up, for example, it just wouldn't occur to him to be bigger than them -- that's *too* strange.< >How about this? Harry likes a girl who happens to be taller than him, but somehow, when they get real close, they are always the same height. Harry, of course, never notices this. Or he notices, but the girl doesn't.< Kim: I bet you're not off the mark when it comes to how Harry would use Metamorphmagus ability. I can see Harry wanting to fight the likes of C and G on his own terms, even if he is smaller than they are. And you get the sense from canon that he may not end up growing overly tall, so it's quite possible some future girlfriend will be taller than he is, and that might bother him enough subconsciously to make him "grow" taller when he's with her. Vivamus: >Can you imagine the look on Snape's face if something nasty happens to Harry and it just goes away before Snape can gloat?< Kim: Definitely a hoot of an image. These days whenever I think of book Snape's face, I think of Alan Rickman's, which IMO doesn't detract from the books at all! Cheers, Kim From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 27 21:22:36 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:22:36 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > I don't want to get obstinately reductionist, but JKR *did* answer the question pretty straight up in an interview: Wormtail killed Cedric with Voldemort's wand. It's good enough for Faith, it's good enough for me...maybe she didn't realize that we'd all be so befuddled by it, but she doesn't think there's anything so odd that it would point to a discrepancy?< Pippin: Ah, we're back at "Does JKR give trick answers to interview/chat questions." I say yes, you say no, Faith says. "I don't know." Surely it isn't far-fetched that an author who says, "Readers like to be tricked, but not conned" would give answers that are tricky but not demonstrably false? She isn't above asking trick *questions* on the web site -- she admits she puts up poll questions that do not have interesting answers. It isn't far-fetched that the duplicate names plot device will be re-used either, IMO. I think we're bound to see more of time-turners too, not that I am looking forward to it. So, how do *you* see the duplicate names thing being used again? Pippin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 15:24:14 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:24:14 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and moral corruption) In-Reply-To: <20041027042404.19658.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116574 Kelsey Dangelo wrote: >Oh, I love this idea (and the name! >"Dirty Harry"). Wouldn't that be a twist?. >[ ] But I think I might see a hole in that >bucket of water. Harry's an angry teenager, >but he's a goody-two-shoes. In the first 3 books Harry was a bit of a goody two shoes, but less so in book 4 and much less so in book 5; I hope to see this trend continue. The character Dirty Harry was not an evil person, he didn't need redeeming like Anakin Skywalker did because he already knew right from wrong and did the right thing most of the time; it's just that Dirty Harry was very very tough and he did what he had to do; and if he had to put a bullet in the brain of a bad guy he could sleep soundly the next night and not agonize about it the next morning. I think it would be interesting if Rowling started to move in that direction, in fact I once wrote a short fan fiction about Harry Potter turning into Dirty Harry. Eggplant eggplant107 at hotmail.com From moochy4ro at hotmail.com Wed Oct 27 20:55:18 2004 From: moochy4ro at hotmail.com (Lucy) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:55:18 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116575 > Chancie: > > I know Buckbeak didn't die because Harry and Hermione saved him, > > but they were not forced to replay the same scenario out when they > > used the time-turner > > Alla: > What do you mean, they were not forced to replay the same scenario ? > They did, in a sense that Buckbeak did not die the first time around. > > Sorry, confused now. I think it means that Buckbeak didn't die because Harry and Hermione went back and saved him. They changed the time. If they hadn't ever gone back in time then Buckbeak would have died. So if they had changed anything else when they went back in time too much they might have lost themselves as because of the thing that was different they wouldn't have been able to get back in time to start with. Am I making sense? "Lucy" From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 21:39:39 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:39:39 -0000 Subject: Funny questions (house elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116576 LisaMarie wrote: > ...beheading house elves when they became too old to be of service. It may not have explicitly stated in canon that they were Kreacher's family, but I remember *feeling* that it was Kreacher's family; maybe that was an inference on my part.> Kim here: That makes sense though, if you believe Winky when she says both her mother and grandmother served the Crouches. It may be Grandma and Grandpa Kreacher hanging there on the Blacks' wall! I'd forgotten about that part of OotP, though now I do remember thinking "Yuck!" Although that may make them somewhat more akin to dogs or other animals than to slaves. Here in the U.S. (maybe that's where you're from too) I've heard of people who stuff their old family dog rather than burying him/her when he/she dies. Then they can still say say Hi to Rover and pet his head when they walk by. It's not to my taste, but to each his or her own! LisaMarie continued: >Seriously, I think it's adorable [a Dobby/Winky SHIP]. I, being a relentless SHIPper myself, have imagined, since her introduction, that Winky would be "Dobby's girl" at some point in the story. It just seems right to me (of course, seeming rightfulness isn't rock solid, now is it?). My suspicions were only fueled by Dobby's care- taking efforts at Hogwarts, when Winky is distraught, despondent and very drunk. Dobby is such a loveable character; I want him to have a family of his own to love!!< Kim again: I really want Dobby to have his own girlfriend/family too. He's such a sweetheart and his wacky ways only make him more dear IMO. If you ever get sad, all you need to do is think of Dobby with all Hermione's hats piled on top of his head. Hopefully Winky would come to her senses a bit though before she and Dobby got together. But just imagine their kids, and what names they'd give them!? Kim From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 21:41:58 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:41:58 -0000 Subject: Doubles in canon. Was:DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116577 > Pippin: snip. > It isn't far-fetched that the duplicate names plot device will be > re-used either, IMO. I think we're bound to see more of > time-turners too, not that I am looking forward to it. So, how do > *you* see the duplicate names thing being used again? > Alla: Pippin, do you know, how much fun I have talking to you? A LOT, in case you don't know that. Your look at canon seems so unorthodox at first but then you explain it and it begins to look as I am actually not sure that the duplicate names will be used again, if for the only reason that this device had been used so many times already, BUT come to think of it, we still don't know why so many characters have brothers, so maybe you are right and duplicate names will be used again in some major way. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 21:48:14 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:48:14 -0000 Subject: DD and the rat (was:Re: Minerva McGonagall-/Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Ah, we're back at "Does JKR give trick answers to interview/chat > questions." I say yes, you say no, Faith says. "I don't know." > > Surely it isn't far-fetched that an author who says, "Readers like > to be tricked, but not conned" would give answers that are tricky > but not demonstrably false? > > She isn't above asking trick *questions* on the web site -- she > admits she puts up poll questions that do not have interesting > answers. But I don't think those are 'trick' questions of the same sort that you're proposing her answer to the question under discussion is. Some of the questions are things that we've been obsessing over (the deep significance of Mark Evans, for example), that she's quite willing to tell us "Nope, doesn't mean anything at all". IMHO, the "Did Wormtail kill Cedric?" falls into that category. She's willing to answer it straight out because the answer is so straightforward. Where something is meaningful she's often willing to let us know that it's somewhat meaningful by deliberately hedging. All the old questions about whether Sirius would ever get his name cleared, for example. >:) > It isn't far-fetched that the duplicate names plot device will be > re-used either, IMO. I think we're bound to see more of > time-turners too, not that I am looking forward to it. So, how do > *you* see the duplicate names thing being used again? I don't really, at present. But think about the unfortunate demise of FourthMan!Avery and the destruction of his hovercraft; did it really change anything? Did it convey some deeper meaning, or did it have drastic plot effects? Nope. So, now I'm curious. Is there a good, documented case of something that JKR had answered straightforwardly actually turning out to hide a deeply significant trick/mystery/hidden mousetrap? There may as of yet be an inadequate number of test cases--but that's something I'll be watching carefully come book 6 and its promised raft of answers to questions. Should I prove to be wildly wrong, you may, of course, mock me and my charming naivete. :) -Nora gets her hands on another recording of FrOSch and sings along (with the tenor part, natch) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 27 21:53:53 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:53:53 -0000 Subject: Funny questions (I hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116579 "ginnysthe1" wrote: > > While re-reading GoF last night, I came across this paragraph (ch. > titled The House-Elf Liberation Front, p. 381, US Scholastic ed.): > > <[Says Winky] "... My poor Mr. Crouch, what is he doing without > Winky? I is looking after the Crouches all my life, and my > mother is doing it before me, and my grandmother is doing it before > her... oh what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed? Oh the > shame, the shame!" She buried her face in her skirt again and > bawled.> > > Winky's got a mother?! And a grandmother?! And they might still be > alive somewhere? Clearly she hasn't been writing tell-all letters to > them... For that matter, that must mean she's got a father and > grandfather too, and maybe sisters and brothers? Potioncat: I don't think Winky's mother and grandmother are alive. I think the "what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed?" doesn't really mean present tense.I think it's more what would they say if they knew, in the same way that some people might say "Grandpa would spin in his grave if he knew..." Particularly since Winky's mother served the Crouches before Winky and Winky's grandmother served before Winky's mother. From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Oct 27 11:32:32 2004 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:32:32 -0400 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200410270733580.SM01260@DEVBOX> No: HPFGUIDX 116580 > Chancie: > I do recall someone bringing something up about Harry bing a > metamorphmagus. Although wouldn't he have discovered being > able to change something else about his apperance? Like his > scar for instance? > > If you could point me to the post that states JKR says one of > the trio will become an animagus, I would greatly appreciate it! Sorry. She said that NONE of them will become an animagus. I can't recall where, exactly, but I think it was in an online chat shortly after POA came out. I read it in her comments when I read the transcript (I think.) And I don't think it is something he would necessarily find out by accident. I get the impression from what Tonks says and does that it is (1) extremely unusual, so it wouldn't be expected, and (2) somewhat hard to do, even for those who are trained and practiced in it. Maybe something critical will be just out of reach, and he will reach it without realizing how MUCH it is out of reach. > > Kim: > > First, Vivamus, where did you find out that JKR said that > > the 3 kids wouldn't become animagi? > Finwitch: > I don't recall exactly *where*, but it was in an interview - she said > that "Harry won't become an animagus like his father". Vivamus: It was long enough ago that I could easily be mistaken, but I *think* she stated flatly that none of the three would become animagi. I do remember the interview comment in which she said that Harry would not become "an animagus like his father" which sounds like hedging to me, too -- and part of what got me to think he must become something else equally interesting. I'm pretty sure the quote I am remembering was from an earlier piece, and I think it was a transcript from an online group chat, not an interview. I'll have to see if I can find it, if there isn't someone on here who already has it filed away. Here's an additional piece of *possible* evidence for Harry being a metamorphmagus: Harry's hair is naturally ruffled like his father, but James' hair wasn't naturally ruffled; it was ruffled because he kept it that way. Could it be that the year old child knew enough of how his father looked that he was subconsciously making himself look like his father? How about all the comments he gets from people who tell him he looks *extraordinarily* like James, but with his mother's eyes? Maybe that's not just genetics. Another thing: Why aren't Harry's nearsighted eyes correctable with magic? His father wore glasses, didn't he? I know, we haven't heard anything about nearsightedness correction spells, but made up spells are appearing all the time -- just look at the Weasley twins and the Marauder's Map. Perhaps Harry *needs* his eyes to be that way. > Finwitch: > While that could mean that Harry won't become an animagus at all, it > could also mean that 1)Harry will become a *registered* animagus > and/or taught how to do it by McGonagall. - unlike his father, that. > 2) Harry's animagus form is NOT a stag. again, not like his father. If I'm misremembering that quote, you could well be right. > Finwitch: > Still, now that we have this Metamorphmagi to explain that > over-night-groving hair, it is more likely he won't be animagus. > Besides, it was rather curious that as much as McGonagall complained > about those celebrating wizards not wearing Muggle-clothes and OWLs, > *She* in her cat form drew more of the attention of Vernon Dursley by > acting oddly for a cat. (reading a map/sign) Vivamus: I know this is OT, but I felt there were a number of things in that first book, particularly in the beginning, that were indicative of the book being a standalone, with not everything being planned out for a series. McGonagall's reading of the map on a muggle street, but especially her asking DD how he knew it was her, don't quite fit the rest of the series. That is no criticism of JKR. The book is brilliant; I just think she probably hadn't planned things out to the nth detail of seven books before she wrote her first chapter as a completely unknown novelist. > Kim: > > What other way could he show metamorphmagus ability than growing his > > hair or changing hair color (like Tonks)? Lots of possibilities there, > > I'd guess. > Finwitch: > Hmm-mm... Howabout this: his glasses had been broken several times due > to Dudley having punched his nose, covered in Sellotape. Harry's nose, > however, does NOT have any sign of having been broken or hit. Vivamus: Excellent point! > Finwitch: > Also: how did he turn his teacher's wig blue? What area of magic does > that belong, or was it Harry at all(I sure can imagine Dudley to put > dye into it and blame Harry)? Vivamus: Charms, maybe? Good like his mother in that area? > He made the sweater shrink. Transfiguration? No, Charms again -- the opposite of an engorgement charm. > Finwitch: > How did he 'jump' onto the school roof? Harry's description sounds > more like flying than apparition...? > > Harry's also VERY fast, broomstick or no. Vivamus: Maybe that's related to his flying onto the roof? > Finwitch: > Uhh.. what if Harry's a natural Phoenix-animagus, and has been since > birth? That way he sure wouldn't *become* animagus, because he's > always *been* one, he just didn't know it... Or maybe he'll be > Poly-animagus, and can turn into any animal he likes.. Vivamus: Y'know, that sounds extremely cool, but wouldn't that make Harry something of a super-hero? He's extraordinary enough as it is, don't you think? The Metamorphmagus thing would be an interesting touch, but if it starts turning into a central plot point, wouldn't that take away from the courage and general resourcefulness needed to fight V? Harry's already shaping up to be the next DD, and we should expect additional extraordinary skills to emerge as he matures in his NEWT classes, but if he gets too much of an advantage over V, it becomes hard to relate to him. It would turn the seven-book plot, I think, away from a chosen everyman vs cosmic evil plot into a battle of the gods. If Harry had the full ability of Tonks, imagine what he could do with that in fighting V. It's too much. It seems to me that JKR has been moving towards the idea that evil is defeated only when we all stand together to fight it. Harry, like DD, functions best when he is leading others to stand together. Give him too much power, and it becomes Yoda vs. the Sith. I expect, if he turns out to be a metamorphmagus, that it will be a matter of years of training before he can use it properly. That way, it can be a fascinating plot point without upsetting the struggle too much. Vivamus From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Oct 27 11:42:39 2004 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:42:39 -0400 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <20041027023021.GA42573@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <200410270743599.SM01260@DEVBOX> No: HPFGUIDX 116581 > Vivamus: > > Tonks also told him that being a metamorphmagus was not only > > hard, it was based on an inborn ability -- as with parseltongue. Christopher: > Actually, if you take very careful notice of the words that Tonks uses > in her explanation in the beginning of OotP, you'll see that she uses > the word *appearance*. This is an extremely subtle difference, but it's > also an extremely important one. To change one's appearance suggests > that the stuff which constitutes one's essence remains, but it's just > the reflected and refracted photons which change (that's of course > assuming that magical appearance changes modify the physics of the > universe -- I could and probably will at one point make a post about > this basic aspect of magic). To change one's shape suggests that one > actually does change the "stuff" -- the matter -- constituting one's > self. Vivamus: Interesting. Does this mean, though, that Sirius was not really a dog, but only *looked* like a dog? That doesn't seem to fit things like his being unaffected by werewolf bites, being able to drag Ron by the leg, etc. We have to conclude that animagi are truly changing substance, don't we? (One assumes that their "souls" are the same -- "consubstantiation instead of transubstantiation," said the cat with a snicker -- but still affected by the transformation.) If metamorphmagus is the same basic paradigm as an animagus, wouldn't it imply that the physical form does in fact change? > I'm currently working on an essay for HP Lexicon which covers this > topic. Thank you for mentioning Harry's hair growing issue. Looking forward to reading it. Thanks. Vivamus, whose cat has an annoying tendency to jump on the keyboard with inane comments. Unlike cockroaches, of course, cats can use the shift keys. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 22:00:58 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:00:58 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra (Was: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116582 mhbobbin wrote: > > Why is the Astronomy Tower off-limits except for classes. And Would we like to know more about a Professor with the name of > > Sinistra? > > Lady Macbeth replied: > > Good questions on both of those! Sinistra's name may refer to the > > science/measurement aspect more than a subjective aspect of her > name. > Geoff added: > Perhaps it's just because she's left-handed.... > :-) Carol responds: I had the same idea! Here's a definition/etymology of "sinister" from Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: sin?is?ter Pronunciation: 'si-n&s-t&r, archaic s&-'nis- Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English sinistre, from Latin sinistr-, sinister on the left side, unlucky, inauspicious 1 archaic : UNFAVORABLE, UNLUCKY 2 archaic : FRAUDULENT 3 : singularly evil or productive of evil 4 a : of, relating to, or situated to the left or on the left side of something; especially : being or relating to the side of a heraldic shield at the left of the person bearing it b : of ill omen by reason of being on the left 5 : presaging ill fortune or trouble 6 : accompanied by or leading to disaster - sin?is?ter?ly adverb - sin?is?ter?ness noun synonyms SINISTER, BALEFUL, MALIGN mean seriously threatening evil or disaster. SINISTER suggests a general or vague feeling of fear or apprehension on the part of the observer . BALEFUL imputes perniciousness or destructiveness to something whether working openly or covertly . MALIGN applies to what is inherently evil or harmful . Note the evolution of the Latin adjective "sinister" (fem. "sinistra") meaning "on the left" or "left-handed" into our modern English "sinister," suggesting evil or the threat of evil, by way of the archaic meaning of "unlucky" (to others). (In French, of course, left-handedness is merely "gauche"!) I vaguely remember a translation exercise I did in high school involving "Mucius Scaevola, vir sinister" (literally, Mucius Scaevola, a man left-handed"). I expected him to do something evil (e.g., shake hands with his right hand and stab someone with his left). Turns out he was a hero who had thrust his right hand into the fire to demonstrate indifference to torture. Not sure how any of this relates to Professor Sinistra--probably not at all. But as long as we're overanalyzing. . . . Carol, glad to find a use for what remains of her Latin and hoping the lefties on the list have a sense of humor! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 22:44:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:44:57 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: <004801c4b77a$e12ccfc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116583 Sherry wrote: > I see Voldemort almost like a force of evil, as sauron, rather than particularly evil himself. I find him the most boring character in the whole series. I am not one bit interested in what made him go bad. I don't care if he's ever redeemed. > The less book time given over to Tom's poor childhood and making excuses for him because of that, the happier I'll be. The deatheaters are scary, because they actually do things, torture, murder, betrayal. If there's a puppet master, it's Voldemort, but he's not a very clever or smart one, except in knowing how to use the weaknesses of others to get them to do his will. Carol responds: I agree that Voldemort has so far been rather disappointing. Possibly the Voldemort of VW1 was scarier, but we don't encounter him directly, and the Voldemort of Books 1 through 3 has only been a head inside a turban, a disembodied spirit, or a memory. The Voldemort of Book 4, an evil baby-shaped creature capable of murder and forcing others to commit murder was a more promising villain, but JKR could not allow him to come back at full strength ready to kill or be killed by Harry at that point, not with three books left in the series. The plot required him to suffer yet another humiliating defeat at the hands of a kid. (Not that Harry didn't also require unexpected help from his own wand and a group of spectres!) At least he has his body back, along with some of his DEs (who, alas for them, are a bit out of practice, and Crouch!Moody, the most loyal DE, is worse than dead). In OoP he's preoccupied (like Sauron with the Ring) with acquiring the Prophecy so he can finally destroy Harry. I don't think we need to suppose that he's been idle. For one thing, he's sent envoys to the giants--one of them, conveniently, the MoM employee Macnair, who evidently has ties to Fudge and Malfoy. For another, he evidently arranges the escape of the imprisoned Death Eaters. Now, in Book 6, thanks to the need to save the final confrontation for Book 7, Voldemort is still incapacitated, his escaped DEs (except Bellatrix) rearrested, along with those who had gone free before by pleading Imperio. So, what will Voldy do now? It's a bit late to recruit new Death Eaters. I expect an escape and some very angry DEs out for revenge, and some evil uses for giants, goblins, dragons, Dementors, and other Dark Creatures, not to mention Nagini. I expect we'll learn that there are more than three evil, incapacitating spells (Dolohov?), even if only three are illegal. I think that potions (and antidotes) will finally play a crucial role. We may have more betrayals and mutual distrust. But much of it will need to be directly traceable to Voldemort. I hope that he will reveal other powers besides Legilimency, possession, Parseltongue, and the willingness to cast an infinite number of Unforgiveable Curses. The plot has, till now, required an undoubtedly evil but incapacitated and rather inept villain prone to overestimating his own abilities and underestimating Harry's. Otherwise, Harry would long since have been killed and Voldemort's victory assured. I hope that he'll be a more formidable opponent now that the war is on in earnest, though he still needs to gather his minions and regroup. Certainly the imprisoned DEs will escape again to play a role in Book 7, and I think this time they'll be going for the kill. But it's time that we saw something new, preferably from Voldemort himself. This much I can safely predict since at least one person will die: By the end of Book 6, Harry will have more reason to hate Voldemort than just the deaths of his parents in Godric's Hollow fifteen years before. Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 23:24:41 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:24:41 -0000 Subject: Why are they on the Second Floor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116584 I want to touch on one of many complex inconsistencies related to the petrifying of Mrs. Norris the cat and the location of that event. First inconsistencies is that Myrtle haunts the bathroom on the first floor, to you Americans, that's the floor right above the Ground Floor. However, in the events leading up to H/R/H finding the cat, Harry runs out of the dungeons, up the marble staircase (1st floor) then up one more staircase to the second floor. (Am Ed HB pg 138) "[Harry] ...run, up the [dungeon] stairs, into the entrance hall." {now on the ground floor] "Harry sprinted up the marble staircase to the first floor." "...he [Harry] ran up the next flight of steps three at a time..." {now on the 2nd floor} "Harry hurtled around the whole of the second floor, Ron and Hermione panting behind him,..." {second floor is confirmed} However, on page 132, "She [Myrtle] haunts one of the toilets ...on the first floor," said Hermione. I'm sure someone has spotted that before, and indeed that is not even my point; just laying some background. Now they've found the writing on the wall and the cat, and are trying to decide what to do. - Page 139 - "... A rumble, ..., told them that the feast had just ended. From either end of the corridor ... came the sound of hundreds of feet climbing the stairs, and the loud happy talk of well fed people; next moment, students were crashing into the passage from both ends." They are on the second floor (3rd floor to Americans), dorms and house common rooms are in the Dungeon (Slytherin), at the end of the underground/cellar/basement hallway that passes the kitchens (Hufflepuff), on the 7th floor in the tower at the opposite end of the school (assumed Ravenclaw), and on the 7th floor in the Gryffindor tower. Question- Why would any student be in the second floor corridor after the feast? Not one of the dormitories is reached by the 2nd floor corridor. (note: we only have vague information about Ravenclaw, but hints are that it is in a tower similar to Gryffindor, but on the other side of the castle.) Slytherins and Hufflepuffs go down from the entrance hall to the lower levels. Ravenclaw (assumed) and Gryffindor go up to the seventh floor and the towers. On the first point, the error in the floors, there is no way around that, a pure and simple mistake. On the second point we have more /wiggle/ room. Ultimately, the answer is artistic license; JKR playing fast and loose with the truth in order to make the story work. Harry/Ron/Hermione need to get caught, and JKR devises a way for that to happen. However, if we are to immerse ourselves in this world rather than view it from the outside as readers, there must be an explanation for why everyone, students and teachers, ran/walked up to that unlikely corridor. The best I can come up with, is that someone (ghost, student, teacher, Ginny, whatever) found the scene before Harry/Ron/Hermione did, and ran back to the Great Hall to warn Dumbledore, and that caused everyone to come running. So, why did Dumbledore get there last, or at least, late? The best I can come up with is that he was fartherest from the exit doors of the Great Hall. The key to resolving this is to come up with a reason that is sufficient to draw nearly the whole school to that location, but to do so in a way that is not panicked. If the situation is presented as a dire emergency, the teacher would likely /not/ have allowed the students to come. Order of arrival after the attack; Mystery Being (tbd), H/R/H, students, Flich, Dumbledore & teachers, then Lockhart. Anyone else care to venture an explanation? Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 23:53:21 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041027235321.10053.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116585 --- "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > These [DE's] are, after all, no longer young, ambitious men and > women full of zealous righteousness. They're middle-aged wizards > with families and comfortable lives. And now here comes that guy > who had them all worked up years ago, but he's a mere shadow of his > former self. How excited would you be to follow him now? > > --boyd > gotta stop those midday drinking binges This is the real weak link in the DE chain, IMO. How much is Lucius Malfoy willing to give up just to kill muggles? Was it really so bad putting up with the halfbloods and muggleborns as long as he was wealthy, controlled the Minister of Magic, was well-respected in wizarding society and in general was a community leader in the WW? Is bigotry really so much more attractive? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From apeiron at comcast.net Wed Oct 27 23:15:57 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:15:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <200410270743599.SM01260@DEVBOX> References: <20041027023021.GA42573@prophecy.dyndns.org> <200410270743599.SM01260@DEVBOX> Message-ID: <20041027231556.GA21508@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116586 On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:42:39 EDT, Vivamus scribbled these curious markings: > Vivamus: > Interesting. Does this mean, though, that Sirius was not really a dog, but > only *looked* like a dog? That doesn't seem to fit things like his being > unaffected by werewolf bites, being able to drag Ron by the leg, etc. We > have to conclude that animagi are truly changing substance, don't we? (One > assumes that their "souls" are the same -- "consubstantiation instead of > transubstantiation," said the cat with a snicker -- but still affected by > the transformation.) Pardon? As far as I can see, I was describing metamorphmagi -- not animagi. > If metamorphmagus is the same basic paradigm as an animagus, wouldn't it > imply that the physical form does in fact change? I've thought about that, and it's really a scary prospect if it's true. It's stated in _Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_ that there is no known spell which allows a wizard to fly unassisted. If a metamorphmagus adopted the form of a bird, they'd be able to take flight, correct? The two facts seem to be mutually exclusive. ... of course, this could be more of JKR's masterful misdirection. She could rebut such an argument with "But the metamorphmagus' ability isn't a spell; it's an innate talent". It'd be rather frightening if a metamorphmagus could take any form they want. I'm forcibly reminded of shapeshifters from Star Trek -- *particularly* of their invasion of Earth in DS9 -- but I digress. Imagine a Death Eater impersonating Dumbledore, or Snape, or Sirius, or anyone else. Imagine that impersonator being an expert Occlumens & Legilmens and imagine them reporting what they've learned to Voldemort or anyone else. > Vivamus, whose cat has an annoying tendency to jump on the keyboard with > inane comments. Unlike cockroaches, of course, cats can use the shift keys. And flick surge protector power switches into the "off" position. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 00:04:38 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:04:38 -0000 Subject: Why are they on the Second Floor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116587 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: snip > The key to resolving this is to come up with a reason that is > sufficient to draw nearly the whole school to that location, but to do > so in a way that is not panicked. If the situation is presented as a > dire emergency, the teacher would likely /not/ have allowed the > students to come. Order of arrival after the attack; Mystery Being > (tbd), H/R/H, students, Flich, Dumbledore & teachers, then Lockhart. > > Anyone else care to venture an explanation? > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) Ah, a challenge! Weren't there runors that DD had booked a troop of dancing skeletons for that particular feast? Well, maybe the dancing skeletons were going to perform on the lawn and the school was headed up to the Astronomy tower to watch, because the castle steps wouldn't afford a good enough view of their spectacular aerial acrobatics? I don't know. I'm reaching, but that's all I can think of. Meri From steve51445 at adelphia.net Thu Oct 28 00:20:20 2004 From: steve51445 at adelphia.net (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:20:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why are they on the Second Floor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041028002022.SJYJ15118.mta13.adelphia.net@steveupstairs> No: HPFGUIDX 116588 >Steve wrote > >The best I can come up with, is that someone (ghost, student, teacher, >Ginny, whatever) found the scene before Harry/Ron/Hermione did, and >ran back to the Great Hall to warn Dumbledore, and that caused >everyone to come running. > >So, why did Dumbledore get there last, or at least, late? The best I >can come up with is that he was fartherest from the exit doors of the >Great Hall. > >The key to resolving this is to come up with a reason that is >sufficient to draw nearly the whole school to that location, but to do >so in a way that is not panicked. If the situation is presented as a >dire emergency, the teacher would likely /not/ have allowed the >students to come. Order of arrival after the attack; Mystery Being >(tbd), H/R/H, students, Flich, Dumbledore & teachers, then Lockhart. > > >Anyone else care to venture an explanation? The other Steve now: I posted a similar question awhile back. My take on the students coming up were that the students were Gryffindors and Ravenclaws heading up to bed after the Halloween feast. JK writes of hundreds of feet climbing the stairs. At 10 students per house/year, that's 140 students and 280 feet. I feel that Gryffindors and Ravenclaws have a legitimate reason for being there, however the only student other than the trio that is named is Malfoy. What was he doing up on the 2nd floor, especially without the usual description of Crabbe and Goyle? I think DD and the teachers left the great hall after the students to make sure none were left inside. Filch seems to be prowling around to catch rule breakers at this point, and came up on the crowd. DD and McG have their offices on the 7th floor I think. Lockhart's office is on the 3rd, being where DD takes the trio, and Mrs. Norris. Snape I have no explanation for. His office is in the dungeons as is his house. All I can think of is that he needed to be in the office to show more tension between himself and Harry. Cheers, Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 00:25:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:25:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin as a metaphor (was: DD and the rat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116589 Pippin wrote: > We may be slightly at cross purposes here. I've never said that > because Lupin has minor character flaws he must be ESE!. My > argument was with those who say that because he has only > minor character flaws, he *can't* be ESE. > > JKR has already shown us that minor character flaws can lead > to major lapses in judgment, and we agree that Lupin made > one of those when he kept back the information he had about > Sirius. Though Lupin could honestly say that he wasn't helping > Sirius get into the castle, he certainly wasn't doing all in his > power to keep him out. That amounts to a betrayal of > Dumbledore, as Lupin himself admits. > > We've already seen that Voldemort can analyze people's > characters and lure them into making bad decisions. We've > seen people keep making bad decisions because the > consequences of admitting the first one was poor would be so > painful. The argument was that Lupin must be spared this trap, > because if he showed such poor judgment it would justify the > persecution of werewolves. It's as if when Harry screws up it's > because he's only human, but if Lupin did, it would be because > he's a werewolf. That's demeaning, IMO. Carol responds: While I don't believe in ESE!Lupin (only weak Lupin who should have told DD what he knew about Sirius), I think Pippin's repeated assertion that we can't excuse Lupin's flaws because he's a werewolf is very important. We don't excuse Kreacher's treachery because he's a House Elf. We would consider it prejudice if Hermione's individual character flaws were blamed on the fact that she is Muggleborn. So Lupin may be a werewolf with limited choices, but he is also a human being (most of the time), and his choices, however limited, are still his own. And it's demeaning, as Pippin says, to deny him full human responsibility for his actions and the he choices makes when the moon is not full. Just as Kreacher's malice doesn't justify the persecution of House Elves, Lupin's errors (or sins or crimes or whatever they are) do not justify persecution of werewolves. The important thing is to *forget* that he's a werewolf and hold him responsible for his own actions. To do otherwise is to compensate for the half-human status that much of the WW assigns to him by withholding judgment. If Snape is responsible for his actions despite the poverty and abuse he (apparently) suffered as a child, surely Lupin is also responsible for his own character flaws despite having been bitten by a werewolf as a child. A liar who has suffered lifelong prejudice because of a harelip or a deformed arm is still a liar. A thief in a wheelchair is still a thief. To excuse their behavior because of a limitation or deformity is to rob them of their humanity. And Lupin, whatever limitations he suffers, whatever prejudice he has endured, is human and must be judged as human. To judge him otherwise because he's a werewolf is to view him and the disabled people we're told he represents as less than human. Carol, who is *not* calling Lupin a thief or a liar, much less a traitor and murderer, only arguing that he is accountable for his own behavior, werewolf or no werewolf From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Thu Oct 28 00:42:21 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:42:21 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: <20041027235321.10053.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116590 > --- "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > > > These [DE's] are, after all, no longer young, ambitious men and > > women full of zealous righteousness. They're middle-aged wizards > > with families and comfortable lives. And now here comes that guy > > who had them all worked up years ago, but he's a mere shadow of his > > > former self. How excited would you be to follow him now? > > > > Magda writes > This is the real weak link in the DE chain, IMO. How much is Lucius > Malfoy willing to give up just to kill muggles? > > Was it really so bad putting up with the halfbloods and muggleborns > as long as he was wealthy, controlled the Minister of Magic, was > well-respected in wizarding society and in general was a community > leader in the WW? Is bigotry really so much more attractive? > kmc adds: I want to know what hold Voldemort has over the DEs. They have seen a 14-year-old defeat the Dark Lord (GOF). Still they go to the MOM and attempt to battle an older, better trained 15 year old to get a prophecy. I can understand the DEs who were in Azkaban following Voldy blindly wherever he leads. But Boyd is correct that the majority of DEs are no longer having the fervor that is associated with the young adult. The DEs need the equivalent of foot soldiers (Marcus Flint?) to carry out any war on the WW. I like the idea put forth in a previous thread that the name "Death Eater" means something. The Dark Mark had virtually disappeared when Voldy was Vapormort. It slowly reappeared during Harry's 4th year at Hogwarts. It burns when Voldy summons the DEs. Could the Dark Mark contain a poison that Voldemort can release? Has Snape been drinking the antidote to try and build up immunity? Counting on Book 6 to provide some answers! - kmc From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 01:29:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:29:15 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116591 -> Alla: > > > I love Harry for insisting to bring Pettigrew to justice, but I tend > to side with Dzeytoun - so many problems could have been avoided if > he was killed right away. Carol responds: Are you sure that killing Pettigrew would not have created more problems rather than less? If Sirius had entered the castle accompanied by the kids and the handcuffed Pettigrew, leaving Lupin behind to turn into a werewolf without endangering anybody, Pettigrew could have been brought to justice without escaping. Lupin could have kept his job and Black's name would have been cleared. The only reason those things didn't happen is that Lupin turned into a werewolf. OTOH, if Lupin and Black had killed the unarmed Pettigrew, they would have been guilty of murder regardless of what Pettigrew had done to deserve death. And even if they argued that it was justifiable homicide, who would believe a convicted murderer and a werewolf? The one person who could testify (under veritaserum) that this murder was justifiable, and that Sirius was innocent of the earlier crimes he had been charged with, would be dead. True, Peter could not have returned to Voldemort if he'd been murdered, but the consequences for Black and Lupin would have been horrendous. They would have been convicted of murder and given to the Dementors, or, in Lupin's case, sent to Azkaban. The only way I can see to escape that fate would be for Black to become a fugitive again and for Lupin to join him. And that's not even considering the moral issues. Either they would have become inured to killing or they would have lived for the rest of their miserable lives with remorse gnawing at their hearts. Carol From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 01:49:59 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:49:59 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <20041027231556.GA21508@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116592 Vivamus asked: >If metamorphmagus is the same basic paradigm as an animagus, wouldn't it imply that the physical form does in fact change?< Christopher replied: >I've thought about that, and it's really a scary prospect if it's true. It's stated in _Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_ that there is no known spell which allows a wizard to fly unassisted. If a metamorphmagus adopted the form of a bird, they'd be able to take flight, correct? The two facts seem to be mutually exclusive. ...of course, this could be more of JKR's masterful misdirection. She could rebut such an argument with "But the metamorphmagus' ability isn't a spell; it's an innate talent".< Now Kim adds: I'd wondered recently about wizard flight (in another post). Thanks for sharing that quote from Fantastic Beasts. It seems to me though, that JKR wasn't referring in that quote to transfigurations of any sort, including those that require wands or those that are innate talents. I think she just meant that a wizard couldn't zap himself with a wand (i.e. use a spell) and start flying around *in the form of a wizard.* And from the few examples of Tonks' metamorphmagus abilities (and she's an old hand at it) in OotP, they don't appear to include the ability to turn herself into the form of an animal. That would be too drastic, I think, and would be an overlap (or a kind of contradiction?) of animagus ability, wouldn't it? On the other hand, animagus ability (which either requires a wand or doesn't -- I confess to being confused about this: didn't Peter Pettigrew need a wand to transform himself back into a rat in PoA? But McGonagall doesn't need a wand to turn herself into a cat, does she? So is it a spell for some and an innate ability for others?) could allow a wizard to fly, technically speaking. IMO there's no reason that a wizard's animagus couldn't be a bird, and since most birds can fly, the wizard (in the form of a bird) would be flying. It's been discussed in another thread that if Dumbledore has an animagus (which would only make sense) that his might be a bumblebee, and so in that form DD could fly. Of course DD's animagus abilities are still pure conjecture at this point. And I realize that you were talking about metamorphmagi and not animagi, so you can take what you will (or not) from the points I made :-). Christopher continued: > ... It'd be rather frightening if a metamorphmagus could take any form they want. I'm forcibly reminded of shapeshifters from Star Trek -- *particularly* of their invasion of Earth in DS9 -- but I digress. Imagine a Death Eater impersonating Dumbledore, or Snape, or Sirius, or anyone else. Imagine that impersonator being an expert Occlumens & Legilmens and imagine them reporting what they've learned to Voldemort or anyone else.< Kim again: Polyjuice potion more or less works like that, doesn't it? It's not as versatile as having an innate talent to change shape, but it made Barty Crouch Jr. into an apparent carbon copy of Moody in GoF. Kim From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 02:14:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:14:56 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116593 Frugala wrote: > > I think MM and SS have one of the more interesting relationships in > > the school. We aren't given enough (in my oppinion) to go on but, > > in a way, they must have as much history as Snape and Dumbledore-- > > MM was the one directly in charge of the Marauders, and judging > > from her handling of the trio and the Weasley twins, while she may > > not know everything that goes on, she's not oblivious either. And > > she's FAIR. > > I don't think she approved of their behavior toward Snape, though I > doubt she reolized how far it went. What I wonder is, does she > > reolize *now*? I think Snape's oppinion of her shows in that, as > > bitter as he seems about his school days, he doesn't seem bitter > > toward her. Frugalarugula: > > Neither of these people are warm and cuddly. Attitude-wise, they > > actually have a lot in common--both are stern, formal, highly > > skilled in their feilds. As far as chatting over chocolate... > > maybe. As least as much as is normal with Hogwarts staff. But I'd > > be more inclined to imagine a bitch session about Dumbledore. > > SSSusan responded: > I hadn't thought much about the overlap in Snape's school days with > MM's being his teacher and perhaps Gryffindor HoH already(?), but > what you've said here seems very important--he's bitter about the > Marauders, but he exhibits no apparent bitterness towards the woman > who was likely WMPP's HoH. Maybe she's just ALWAYS been as fair as I see her to be now? Perhaps Snape recognizes that about her? Carol adds: I think you've hit on the key point here. McGonagall was Severus Snape's teacher for seven years as well as the HoH of a rival house. And they've been colleagues now for fourteen years. They must know each other as well as any two people at Hogwarts. I think that she knows and respects Snape's abilities just as he knows and respects her fairness. Their shared belief in firmness and the importance of their subjects would give them common ground. Certainly they also shared a contempt for Lockhart and a loathing of Umbridge. They seem to have a lot in common, despite the considerable difference in their ages, including a friendly rivalry over Quidditch. Both are close to Dumbledore and often they work as a team to aid him. The scene where they appear together, behind Dumbledore, in Moody's foe glass mirrors or reflects this relationship. Their reactions to seeing Barty Jr. sprawled on the floor of "Moody's" office in that same scene are almost identical. McGonagall is assistant headmistress, and Snape obeys her without question when she acts in that capacity, but *he* is Dumbledore's righthand man and I think McGonagall respects him in that capacity and as a colleague. I would even argue that they feel something like affection for each other, as evidenced by their final scene together in OoP. It would be interesting to see them together with no students present--or an overheard conversation where they were unaware of Harry's presence. I think McGonagall would call Snape Severus. I'm not so sure that he would take the same liberty. One side note: When Dumbledore brings Sirius Black (about to shift out of his dog form) and Severus Snape together in GoF, with the interesting remark that "it is time for two of our number to recognize each other for what they are" (Am. ed. 712), McGonagall is not present. She has been sent to fetch Hagrid and Madame Maxime. Nor does she hear Dumbledore ask Snape if he's prepared to undertake his dangerous, previously agreed upon mission and see him accept it and sweep out of the room. Her errand is related to the (new) Order's mission--Hagrid and Madame Maxime are about to be sent as envoys to the giants--but couldn't her errand have waited? Why send her away before Black (still in dog form when she leaves) and Snape are ordered to shake hands? Does that mean she doesn't know about the Order that Dumbledore is in the process of recreating? Neither Bill Weasley (who witnesses the scene and is sent on a less dangerous mission of his own) nor Snape (AFAWK) were members of the original Order, either. Why send McGonagall away so soon? Carol, who almost lost her post by hitting "back" instead of "send"! From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 28 02:37:30 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:37:30 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" wrote: > Now Kim adds: > snip > On the other hand, animagus ability (which either requires a wand or > doesn't -- I confess to being confused about this: didn't Peter > Pettigrew need a wand to transform himself back into a rat in PoA? > But McGonagall doesn't need a wand to turn herself into a cat, does > she? So is it a spell for some and an innate ability for others?) imamommy: Methinks we have a case of movie contamination. The canonical reference is this: Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light--and Ron lay motionless on the ground. Another bang--Crookshanks flew into the air and back to the earth in a heap. "Expelliarmus!" Harry yelled, pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the air and out of sight. "Stay where you are!" Harry shouted, running foreward. Too late. Pettigrew had transformed. Harry saw his bald tail whip through the manacle on Ron's outstretched arm and heard a scurrying through the grass. Prisoner of Azkaban, Scholastic, p.381 So no, an animagus does not require a wand to transform, but I remember in the film Pettigrew *does* point a wand at his own head before transforming. I hope that helps. imamommy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 02:46:57 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:46:57 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: snip. > I like the idea put forth in a previous thread that the name "Death > Eater" means something. Alla: I always wondered how "Death Eaters" eat death exactly. Did Voldemort somehow use all his followers in his experiments with immortality? Is that what still attracts Lucius and Co? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 28 02:54:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:54:45 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra (Was: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116596 > Geoff added: > > Perhaps it's just because she's left-handed.... > > :-) > > Carol responds: > I had the same idea! Here's a definition/etymology of "sinister" from Potioncat: OOps, my delete button was a little excited. Anyway, my post has nothing to do with being left handed. But I think I read that JKR confirmed to one of the translators that Professor Sinistra is male. Does anyone else remember that? From LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com Thu Oct 28 03:05:14 2004 From: LadyMacbeth at unlimited-mail.com (Lady Macbeth) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:05:14 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra (Was: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116597 Potioncat: OOps, my delete button was a little excited. Anyway, my post has nothing to do with being left handed. But I think I read that JKR confirmed to one of the translators that Professor Sinistra is male. Does anyone else remember that? Lady Macbeth replies: I had heard that she confirmed Sinistra was FEMALE. I just double-checked it at the Lexicon now and it says the same thing: Quoted from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/wizards-s-u.html - Sinistra (witch) Professor at Hogwarts, Astronomy department. The question of Sinistra's gender came up during the translation of OP into Portugese. The translation team contacted the Lexicon for an answer to the question, but I couldn't answer for sure, since it never says one way or the other in the books. I suggested that they contact Rowling, which they did. Rowling's reps responded that Sinistra was in fact a woman. - ed. "sinistra" - Italian: "with the left hand" "Sinistra" is the name of a magnitude 3.5 star in the constellation Ophiuchus, the Serpent Handler. "Ophiuchus represented Aesculapius, the ancient healer, believed to be the ancestor of Hippocrates (born 460 BCE) the great physician of Cos, and Serpens was his symbol of healing. The serpent is the symbol for the poison (venom) that can both cure and kill, Ophiuchus controls it and uses it to heal. This same snake is found on the symbol of medicine worldwide, the staff of the god Mercury, the caduceus, and both these constellations are associated with it, the caduceus shows two snakes coiling around a central rod surmounted by two wings of the bird on top." (from The Fixed Stars website) -Lady Macbeth From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 28 03:07:41 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:07:41 -0000 Subject: When did Fudge come to power? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116598 imamommy: I found some seeming inconsistencies with the timing of when Fudge became Minister of Magic. When the trio meets Sirius in Hogsmeade (GoF, Schol. p.529-30), he is talking about what happened with Crouch Sr, shortly after his "son" died in Azkaban: "So old Crouch lost it all, just when he thought he had it made," Snip "So Cornelius Fudge got the top job, and Crouch was shunted sideways into the Department of International Magical Cooperation." Then in OoP, this reference doesn't have any particular time frame attached, but here it is (Oop, Schol. p.93-4, Arthur Weasley speaking): "Of course he doesn't," said Mr. Weasley "He's never wanted the Minister's job, even though a lot of people wanted him to take it when Millicent Bagnold retired. Fudge came to power instead, but he's never quite forgotten how much popular support Dumbledore had, even though Dumbledore never applied for the job." "Deep, down, Fudge knows Dumbledore's much cleverer than he is, a much more powerful wizard, and in the early days of his ministry he was forever asking Dumbledore for help and advice," said Lupin. Then later, as reported in the Quibbler (Oop, Schol. p.192): Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic, denied that he had any plans to thake over the running of the Wizarding Bank, Gringotts, when he was elected Minister of Magic five years ago. Hmm. If the attack on the Potter's was Halloween 1981, and the attack on the Longbottoms was later that year or early 1982, then the trial may have been a few months later, the person believed to be Barty Crouch, Jr. probably died in 1983 or '84. "Five years ago" from the beginning of OoP would be 1990, or a year before Harry started at Hogwarts. But my first example seems to indicate that the transfer of power occured not long after the death in Azkaban. Any thoughts? imamommy Who's well aware that the Quibbler can hardly be counted on for facts From apeiron at comcast.net Thu Oct 28 03:00:04 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:00:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etymology of "Death Eater" (was Re: With enemies like these.....) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041028030004.GD22545@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116599 On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 22:46:57 EDT, Alla scribbled these curious markings: > I always wondered how "Death Eaters" eat death exactly. Did > Voldemort somehow use all his followers in his experiments with > immortality? Is that what still attracts Lucius and Co? There's symbolism in certain cultures which states that if you take something into your body -- e.g., eat it -- you gain its powers, abilities, or you gain resistance to it. I can't think of any in particular, but I remember learning about this either in my senior year in high school in English Literature or through my browsing of sites like http://www.sacred-texts.com . This gives literal meaning and value to the term, but doesn't answer the question of "how", and for that I apologise. :) Now that I think of it, this very symbolism is present in HP: consider the dark ritual that Wormtail and Voldemort perform at the end, with Harry. Voldemort takes part of Harry, his blood, and apparently gained the same protection that Harry has. There's also the issue of Harry being imbued with Voldemort's traits, like the parseltongue ability. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From apeiron at comcast.net Thu Oct 28 02:33:01 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:33:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: References: <20041027231556.GA21508@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20041028023301.GB22545@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116600 On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 21:49:59 EDT, Kim scribbled these curious markings: > Now Kim adds: > > I'd wondered recently about wizard flight (in another post). Thanks > for sharing that quote from Fantastic Beasts. It seems to me though, Eep. See the correction that I've just sent to this list about that. It's from _Quidditch Through the Ages_, NOT _Fantastic Beasts ..._. Thank you for indirectly alerting me to this. My caffeine intake must be below average... > that JKR wasn't referring in that quote to transfigurations of any > sort, including those that require wands or those that are innate > talents. I think she just meant that a wizard couldn't zap himself > with a wand (i.e. use a spell) and start flying around *in the form > of a wizard.* And from the few examples of Tonks' metamorphmagus > abilities (and she's an old hand at it) in OotP, they don't appear to > include the ability to turn herself into the form of an animal. That > would be too drastic, I think, and would be an overlap (or a kind of > contradiction?) of animagus ability, wouldn't it? I'm frankly not sure of what was meant or was not meant. Though yes, it would be an overlap -- though who's to say that there can't be such overlaps? JKR, of course, though I have yet to encounter any such statement. If anyone knows of one, please do correct me. :) I don't think that it would be too drastic. But then again, I'm not JKR, and I'm not the one who designed the rules of magic for her world. As I've stated elsewhere, I *do* believe that it would be scary. > On the other hand, animagus ability (which either requires a wand or > doesn't -- I confess to being confused about this: didn't Peter > Pettigrew need a wand to transform himself back into a rat in PoA? > could allow a wizard to fly, technically speaking. IMO there's no > reason that a wizard's animagus couldn't be a bird, and since most > birds can fly, the wizard (in the form of a bird) would be flying. How would he (Peter) use a wand to resume his human form? It's been postulated here (I remember reading it, at least I think I do...) and elsewhere I imagine that the animagus ability is something innate, and wandless. And I completely adore your technicalities. :) They seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that JKR would use. > Kim again: > > Polyjuice potion more or less works like that, doesn't it? It's not > as versatile as having an innate talent to change shape, but it made > Barty Crouch Jr. into an apparent carbon copy of Moody in GoF. Ooh, very nice point. But as you say, it's not as versatile -- and as Hermione figured out, it's also not as easy as just willing oneself to look like someone else. Though to be honest, I really expected her to have been more careful than that. Verification of one's ingredients is one of the most basic, common-sense aspects of Muggle chemistry, which I see as very similar to Potion-brewing (and of course, who's to say that modern chemists didn't learn a thing or two from a particular expert potion-maker or two?). Christopher, who shall henceforth triple-proofread his posts before sending them. -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From apeiron at comcast.net Thu Oct 28 02:13:29 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:13:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <20041027231556.GA21508@prophecy.dyndns.org> References: <20041027023021.GA42573@prophecy.dyndns.org> <200410270743599.SM01260@DEVBOX> <20041027231556.GA21508@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20041028021328.GA22545@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116601 On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 19:15:57 EDT, Christopher scribbled these curious, *incorrect* markings: > I've thought about that, and it's really a scary prospect if it's true. > It's stated in _Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_ that there is ACK!!! I sincerely apologise; this information is in _Quidditch Through the Ages_. I must learn to be more careful. Again, I apologise. Thanks to Kim for indirectly alerting me to my mistake. Christopher, hoping this correction will obviate the requirement for too many Howlers. -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 28 03:29:49 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:29:49 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra (Was: Over-Analysis of Minor Plot Points - Astronomy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lady Macbeth" wrote: > > Potioncat: > OOps, my delete button was a little excited. > Anyway, my post has nothing to do with being left handed. But I > think I read that JKR confirmed to one of the translators that > Professor Sinistra is male. Does anyone else remember that? > > > Lady Macbeth replies: > I had heard that she confirmed Sinistra was FEMALE. I just > double-checked it at the Lexicon now and it says the same thing: > > snip Potioncat: Thanks for clearing that up! I personally always thought she was a she. Oh well...now, does anyone know where I can find some memory enhancing potion? From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 28 03:31:09 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:31:09 -0000 Subject: With enemies like these..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" > wrote: > > snip. > > > I like the idea put forth in a previous thread that the > name "Death > > Eater" means something. > > > Alla: > > I always wondered how "Death Eaters" eat death exactly. Did > Voldemort somehow use all his followers in his experiments with > immortality? Is that what still attracts Lucius and Co? imamommy: I see different reasons for different DE's. Wormtail has nowhere else to go. Barty Crouch, Jr. and Bellatrix seem to be zealots/cultists. Crabbe and Goyle are a lot like their sons: whatever Malfoy says. But whay Lucius? Maybe name recognition. Lucius is much like the dementors in that he would have a lot more scope for his pleasures if Voldemort were running the show. And even if we know Voldemort to be somewhat weaker than he was, most of the WW still can't bear the sound of his name. Voldy did a good job with PR; his name inflicts terror and his mark inspires panic. It seems like prior to VM's untimely downfall, things were not going well for the OoP. Lucius may think it's only a matter of time before they are able to regain control. If anything, I think Lucius's age and status have given him a false sense of security to add to his already cocky nature; I am sure he didn't anticipate HP getting out of the MoM alive. Perhaps his vacation in Azkaban will have knocked him down a peg or two, but now that he's been revealed, he won't have anywhere else to go, either. My two knuts imamommy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 03:49:24 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:49:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116604 Del wrote: > Ha, the temptation ! If I remember correctly, JKR said that Harry would never be tempted to go to the other side. But that still leaves room for a nasty piece of temptation. I wonder... Carol responds: I can't see Harry being tempted to go over to the side that killed his parents (and, unless Pippin is right, Sirius as well), but I can certainly see him being tempted to use the other side's weapons. We've already seen him attempting to use a Crucio and the lesson of what happened to Barty Sr. when he allowed the aurors to use Unforgiveable Curses apparently has not sunk in. I don't think he can (or should) use Voldemort's weapons any more than Frodo can (or should) use the One Ring. Harry needs to learn that evil begins with the desire to use or harm others and that it cannot be defeated by its own weapons. That would only substitute one Dark Lord for another (and, no, I'm not reading LOTR into HP though I see the parallel). I wonder what means Dumbledore used to defeat Grindelwald and why that question has never been raised by Harry and his friends. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:02:46 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:02:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116605 Kneasy wrote: > Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen. > Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her > website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution. > > Because I can't see any such evidence. > > Cries of "Oh, she must!" don't work, nor do expostulations that > "She couldn't do that in a childrens book" because she didn't write > the books for children. On more than one occasion she's stated that > she wrote the books *for herself* - and it wasn't a particularly > easy time in her life, either. > > This is why I posted 101614 "Which way?" hoping to get some > feedback on the idea that she might do something radical. > She's written a series like no other - what evidence do you have > that the ending will not also be like no other? Carol responds: I'm confused. "Will *not* also be like no other"? If Harry dies destroying Dumbledore, as you appear to expect, that would hardly be an original ending. I expect JKR to thwart Harry's expectation of "murder or be murdered" by doing something radically original and unexpected. I know you're looking for evidence and all I can present is the last word of the epilogue being "scar"--not true canon but from JKR herself but implying that Harry will live because the epilogue tells what happens to the survivors. All I'm saying is that Harry heroically sacrificing himself to destroy Voldemort will *not* be an ending "like no other." It will be an ending we've all seen too many times before. I expect something better: Harry defeats evil using the power of good in some original way and becomes, once again, The Boy Who Lived. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:07:16 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:07:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116606 > Carol responds: > I can't see Harry being tempted to go over to the side that killed his > parents (and, unless Pippin is right, Sirius as well), but I can > certainly see him being tempted to use the other side's weapons. We've > already seen him attempting to use a Crucio and the lesson of what > happened to Barty Sr. when he allowed the aurors to use Unforgiveable > Curses apparently has not sunk in. I don't think he can (or should) > use Voldemort's weapons any more than Frodo can (or should) use the > One Ring. Harry needs to learn that evil begins with the desire to use > or harm others and that it cannot be defeated by its own weapons. That > would only substitute one Dark Lord for another (and, no, I'm not > reading LOTR into HP though I see the parallel). > > I wonder what means Dumbledore used to defeat Grindelwald and why that > question has never been raised by Harry and his friends. > Alla: Hmmm. Somebody recently brought Frodo into debate too. Carol, I have a feeling you are right in a sense that Voldemort will be defeated by unconventional weapon (Love and all that stuff), but Harry is SO MUCH better character to me that Frodo even if due to the fact that he TRIED to use the other side weapons and failed . In the moment of the greatest pain, even than, he did not have enough hate in his heart to cast Crucio. Yeah, he tried, but what matters to me is that he failed. Frodo on the other side is just so Blah as character with no temptation to use other side weapon present (well, I guess he wanted to use a Ring, but just not strongly enough). Boromir was so much better. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:10:52 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:10:52 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Death Eater" (was Re: With enemies like these.....) In-Reply-To: <20041028030004.GD22545@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christopher Nehren wrote: > There's symbolism in certain cultures which states that if you take > something into your body -- e.g., eat it -- you gain its powers, > abilities, or you gain resistance to it. snip. Alla: Thanks for the link and yes, Graveyeard scene did strike me as being symbolic. So, does it mean that if Voldie and his followers eat some part of "death" (which part I wonder?), did they expect to become immortal? Hmmmm, could it be that Snape managed to make a potion out of some "part of death" and that is what Voldie and Co are having for dinner? From ctcasares at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 28 04:08:46 2004 From: ctcasares at sbcglobal.net (tylerswaxlion) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:08:46 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <13e.4a50ab8.2eb1669a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116608 CHANCIE: Sorry I was unclear in my meaning. I mean, that Buckbeak didn't die, because Harry and Hermione figured out that they had saved him the previous time. But they were not forced to follow the same actions. If they had decided to let Buckbeak die the second time around, then they were free to do so. ---- Tyler: I agree with this--they are free to choose. People always have free will. However, knowing Harry and Hermione, we know that they will choose to save Buckbeak if they can. More than that, b/c Buckbeak lives, we *can* know H&H save him before they do it. They made free choices, but Dumbledore already knows they will succeed in freeing Buckbeak before they do it. Because they already DID do it. The "second time around" was ONLY for H&H, and it's only their PERCEPTION. The TIME happened once. JKR tries very hard to make this clear by having Harry explain it all in the end. Harry *knows* he can cast a real Patronus b/c he ALREADY did it. Harry does it "later" in HarryTime, but he'd already done it in reality--and saw himself do it. The only reason there is any confusion is b/c of time travel, which is so often done badly and illogically. There are no multiple lines in this book. This is not Star Trek or Back to the Future--which while entertaining are impossible paradoxes (and BTTF even breaks its own rules. Topic! We know Harry and Hermione save Buckbeak b/c they already did it. The time happened once. H&H happen twice. The "later" to them is NOT actually later, but earlier. --------- Chancie: When someone is time-turning, they aren't puppets forced to replay events and change things. Or it would be imposible for a wizard to go back in time and kill him/herself, as Hermione tells Harry. Time is change-able!!!! Or else Hermione wouldn't be warned not to "change time", or have said "there must be something that happend around now that he want's us to ****CHANGE****" ---------- Tyler: No, Chancie, no. Hermione even claims at the end of PoA that she's not sure--HERMIONE DOESN'T FOLLOW IT. Harry gets it--he really UNDERSTANDS time-travel. And even though Hermione has time travelled all year, she has trouble reconciling her rules with the reality. Hermione was warned not to try to "change" things. That bad things can happen. She was given rules, and Hermione LIKES rules and generally wants to obey them. And rules are a good idea--as discussed, seeing yourself is likely to make you think some evil magic is afoot. Bad things *can* happen, so it's better not to tempt fate--if you're time-travelling DON'T BE SEEN. If you could really change things, then why did Hermione miss Charms? If it's a multiple line/changable past, then why doesn't she just go back and do it? B/c she CAN'T. Harry and Ron have reported that she missed it. Hermione can go back as much as she likes, and still have free will, but will still miss Charms b/c TIME HAPPENS ONCE. And that's a danger, too. She could spend years of her life turning back hours trying to get into that class, but *something* thwarts her--and we know she's thwarted if she tries b/c SHE WASN'T THERE. But, for argument's sake, let's suppose it IS a multi-timeline world with changing pasts. We still know from what Rowling wrote that that is NOT what happens in PoA. H&H do not live through a time without any time-travel. They would be dead if Future!Harry hadn't cast the Patronus. From Harry's pov, he is attacked by Dementors and then 3 hours later he chases the Dementors away. ****From any other pov, Harry is being attacked at THE SAME TIME as Harry is casting the Patronus.***** That's what time travel means. It means you travel in TIME. And if you go back in time, then you were always back in time. You don't go back and CHANGE things, b/c you *already* CHANGED them. Sure, H&H were "free" not to save Buckbeak, but we know they did, and therein lies the paradox. It's like if you read the end of the book first. The characters still "behave" as though they are free, but you know how it will end b/c you skipped ahead. In effect, you time travel through the book. Dumbledore doesn't send the kids out to CHANGE the past--he KNOWS Buckbeak escaped. He understands that the kids time-travelled--he figured it out--and he HOPES they can save Sirius, too. Regardless of what Hermione says or what she was told, we read what happened. More than that JKR makes HARRY explain it again at the end. He knew he could cast the Patronus this time b/c he had done it "before". And he knew that the "before" was now "now". Could have have chosen not to cast it? Sure, but Harry would never choose to let himself, Hermione, and Sirius die. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:19:20 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:19:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116609 > -Nora adds in one long thoughtful note about Occlumency; learning to > relax is a skill, and a very tricky one at that; it is NOT well- > developed by taking a beginner and hitting them until they chance to > actually manage to relax and deflect a hit; should be interesting to > see if teaching method is addressed at all... Carol: The problem with your analogy is that Occlumency, like resisting an Imperius Curse, requires being on your guard and fighting off the enemy's attempts to penetrate your mind. Relaxing would be disastrous and could even be fatal. Snape is trying to demonstrate to Harry what he would be up against if LV tried to invade his mind and the only way to do that is to impersonate Voldemort. Basically Snape tells Harry what he needs to do--whatever it was that he instinctively did to fend off the invasion by Crouch!Moody. But Harry isn't listening. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:25:53 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:25:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116610 > Carol: > The problem with your analogy is that Occlumency, like resisting an > Imperius Curse, requires being on your guard and fighting off the > enemy's attempts to penetrate your mind. Relaxing would be disastrous > and could even be fatal. Snape is trying to demonstrate to Harry what > he would be up against if LV tried to invade his mind and the only way > to do that is to impersonate Voldemort. Basically Snape tells Harry > what he needs to do--whatever it was that he instinctively did to fend > off the invasion by Crouch!Moody. But Harry isn't listening. > Alla: I believe what Nora was trying to say and she an correct me if I am wrong is that we DON'T KNOW the true nature of Occlumency yet. It is reasonable to assume that without achieving relaxation first it is impossible to learn how to fight off Voldemort. We don't know that relaxation could be fatal, ont he contrary, it seems that it is quite useful and necessary. Since Snape continuously tells Harry to clear his mind. it looks like relaxation to me. But how can Harry relax with such deep level of mistrust achieved over the years he feels towards Snape? From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:33:33 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:33:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > >> -Nora adds in one long thoughtful note about Occlumency; learning >> to relax is a skill, and a very tricky one at that; it is NOT well- >> developed by taking a beginner and hitting them until they chance >> to actually manage to relax and deflect a hit; should be >> interesting to see if teaching method is addressed at all... > > Carol: > The problem with your analogy is that Occlumency, like resisting an > Imperius Curse, requires being on your guard and fighting off the > enemy's attempts to penetrate your mind. Relaxing would be > disastrous and could even be fatal. Snape is trying to demonstrate > to Harry what he would be up against if LV tried to invade his mind > and the only way to do that is to impersonate Voldemort. Basically > Snape tells Harry what he needs to do--whatever it was that he > instinctively did to fend off the invasion by Crouch!Moody. But > Harry isn't listening. No offense, but you misunderstand (and I did not properly explain (or it was shunted into other notes on this thread, because I did discuss it), I think), what true aiki relaxation (what I meant by relaxation) is. It most definitely is NOT limpness, as we so often think of it. Someone who is relaxed is actually far *stronger* than someone who is not, because muscles and mind are in unity. You must be relaxed to effectively fend off someone and be truly on your guard...relaxation is a state that keeps you on your guard. If you're tight and nervous and stiff, you are actually brittle and weak and easier to break through. I think it's a good analogy to Occlumency (for me, at least), because of what it feels like. When I attack someone who is truly relaxed in an aiki way, I literally *bounce* off of them. It's the coolest feeling ever. If they actually try to exert force against me, I have something that I can resist against, and it becomes a force contest that I might win, but it's a collision rather than a deflection. Snape says that resisting the Imperius curse is like Occlumency. I say this with some lack of clarity on the mechanics, but one generally does not fight back effectively by flailing and struggling and hitting directly at someone. One fights back by getting everything lined up together, getting oriented in one's center, and presenting resistance from there. That's relaxation. -Nora tries to keep this on-topic, but would be happy to try to explain more in OT-chatter or elsewhere From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:36:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:36:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > : > > > Carol responds: > Since Draco is present, it seems likely that he's the > culprit, "accidentally" knocking over Harry's potion while > > > handing in his own. Snape maintains his usual favor-the- > Slytherins, > > > antagonize-Harry stance, with his snide little remark and the > > > supposed zero. > > Alla: > > Carol, truly and honestly, I am not being sarcastic, but , in your > opinion,is Snape EVER wrong in his treatment of Harry or could you > justify every incident which happened between these two? > > Maybe you could admit once that he is an unprofessional git, or he > is always a shining example of how teacher should behave? :o) > >Alla: If you read my complete post, you'll notice that I concede that he's wrong to gloat and wrong to give the zero. But I don't think he would really break the flask or poison a toad any more than he would (or could) expel Harry. Snape is a very intelligent man and knows exactly how far he can push. And of course he is sometimes wrong, most notably when he tells Hermione that he sees no difference in her teeth. That stung, and I was put out with him for those words. I never said that he was a shining example of how a teacher should behave. Please don't put words in my mouth and please read the evidence I presented regarding Hermione's reaction and Harry's anger at her, neither of which points to Snape breaking the vial. Most people posting to this thread are assuming that because, in their view, Snape is an "unprofessional git," he must have broken the vial on purpose. I think that Snape would be risking his job if he were to break a vial in front of his students. I was merely presenting an alternative hypothesis, that draco broke it and Snape condoned his actions (not admirable, either, but not as bad). However, I think now, based on Draco's laugh, that Harry probably missed the counter in his haste to turn in the vial and get out of there. If you've never done something of the sort, then I envy your competence and grace. Carol, hoping you'll come back to my earlier post and actually address the arguments From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:55:13 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:55:13 -0000 Subject: Villains in potterverse In-Reply-To: <20041022012310.50405.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116613 Kim wrote: > I agreed with most of the rest of your post, but left out most here to focus on your sign-off which was intriguing. Did you mean that you're hoping that Voldemort will be able to find his lost humanity by finding his inner Tom Riddle, that is, the Tom Riddle who may have been born with the potential for goodness like any other child? If so, that's what I keep hoping too. It's far-fetched, I realize. Else why was Tom Riddle's wand the alternate of Harry's? If anybody's a real "good guy" IMO, Fawkes is. So why would the only other feather that Fawkes donated to a wand be in the wand of Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort? I mean, in the hands of a real baddie like LV, Fawkes's feather ought to explode or something. Teenage TR was definitely on the road to evilhood (or already there) but maybe the child TR wasn't so bad. And the phoenix is a symbol of rebirth and redemption after all. Carol responds: I don't know if an eleven-year-old could already be on his way to becoming evil, but I think the wands have a kind of foresight or intuition rather like the "brains" in the Sorting Hat and can tell who they're suited to. James's wand senses his skill at Transfiguration, Lily's senses her skill at Charms, Harry's apparently knows that he's The One with the Power to defeat Voldemort. I'm not saying that Voldemort's wand was evil, but it was a powerful wand made of yew with a Phoenix feather core, both the wood and the core being associated with immortality. (Note that yew trees are often planted in graveyards as symbols of eternal life.) I think the wand sensed Tom's potential as a great wizard and the latent longing for immortality (and greatness) that he himself would have been unaware of at the time. The wand chose him and is not likely to explode in his hands regardless of how he uses it. Perhaps the wand becomes evil along with the wizard if it's frequently misused: Note Amos Diggory's reference to "the guilty wand" in GoF. There's more to it, I'm sure, but I seriously doubt that Tom Riddle, now transformed into Voldemort, will be or can be redeemed. I also believe that by searching for eternal life in *this* world (or rather the WW), he's somehow missed out on the opportunity to find eternal peace or redemption or whatever is offered in the "next great adventure." He'll be like someone whose soul has been sucked by a Dementor, condemned forever to darkness and nothingness--the Abyss or the Void, but not the world beyond the Veil. But how JKR could convey that fate, if I'm right, I have no idea. Carol From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 28 04:56:55 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:56:55 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > >> Carol adds: > I think you've hit on the key point here. McGonagall was Severus > Snape's teacher for seven years as well as the HoH of a rival house. > And they've been colleagues now for fourteen years. They must know > each other as well as any two people at Hogwarts. I think that she > knows and respects Snape's abilities just as he knows and respects her > fairness. Their shared belief in firmness and the importance of their > subjects would give them common ground. But that begs a huge question, doesn't it? Namely, how does McGonagall regard Snape's unfairness? Particularly how does she regard his viciousness toward Harry? Her brief smile in the Career Advice session shows that she is aware there is no love lost there. And somehow, for all her stern demeanor, I can't believe she simply shrugs her shoulders and says "It's for the boy's own good." Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 05:04:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:04:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > >> By the time Snape is McGonagall's age (and she's 105), he'll be > ready > > to be Headmaster himself. > > > > Just my opinion--quite possibly not JKR's, unfortunately! > > > > > Alla: > > McGonagall is in her 70s actually, as far as I am aware of > according to one of the interviews and forgive me, but I am > desperately hoping that we will never get to read about the > nightmare "Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts{". :) Carol: Oig! What was I thinking? I know perfectly well that JKR said in an interview that Dumbledore was 150 and McGonagall "a spritely 7)" in GoF, I think. McGonagall at this point is about twice Snape's age. Bad fingers! Bad proofreading! Carol, going off to iron her fingers From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 05:23:52 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:23:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116616 -Carol wrote: > > >> By the time Snape is McGonagall's age (and she's 105), he'll be ready to be Headmaster himself. Alla responded: > > McGonagall is in her 70s actually, as far as I am aware of according to one of the interviews and forgive me, but I am > > desperately hoping that we will never get to read about the > > nightmare "Snape as headmaster of Hogwarts{". :) khinterberg kindly explained: > I believe Carol means that as Snape is around 35 now, after another 35 years he will be the same age as McGonagall is now, around 70. By > this point, she will be 105. > > khinterberg, who can't imagine what 70-yr-old Snape would be like Carol again: Yes! Thank you, khinterberg! Yes, that's exactly what I meant. She was 105 (her current age plus his current age) in my scenario, when she retires as headmistress and Snape becomes headmaster. Obviously I missed a step somewhere and confused a few people, including myself. Carol, who also can't imagine a 70-year-old Snape From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 05:48:15 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:48:15 -0000 Subject: Crabbe as potential job applicant (or Snape's attitude about his own house) In-Reply-To: <20041022141413.87244.qmail@web90102.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116617 Christelle, quoting Snape: > > "And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I'm afraid I shall have to > > mention it in your reference if ever you apply for a job." > > > > I almost could see a insult for Crabbe in the 'ever apply for a job', like to remind that he really loathes stupidy. > > RedLena: > > >Snape certainly has demonstrated that he loathes stupidity. But as I think about the glimpses of Snape's past that we've been given, he seems to have grown up in a different economic situation than Malfoy, and (I'm presuming) Crabbe and Goyle. > > Juli: > > I do agree that Snape hates stupidity, maybe that's the reason he *hates* Neville, or why he *thinks* he hates Neville. MM and Lupin have shown as Neville can be in fact intelligent so it's his lack of confidence that kills him when doing magic. Carol responds: I agree that Snape loathes stupidity, but I don't think he hates Neville as a person. He hates Neville's *incompetence*, which is not only annoying but dangerous to himself and his fellow students. The point of the quotation is that Snape is cleverly saving Neville's neck (literally) from the suffocating grip of Crabbe and aiming a subtle blow at Crabbe's intelligence at the same time. It's one of my favorite scenes because it shows Snape unexpectedly performing an act of kindness to a Gryffindor appearing to do so and without slipping out of character. Fortunately for Snape, it's most unlikely that he'll have to deal with Crabbe or Goyle in NEWT Potions, but they'll still be his students in the sense that he's their Head of House. And Draco will probably be in NEWT Potions as he seems to be a good student who never ruins his potions or ruins his cauldrons. I'm wondering how the Snape/Draco relationship will be affected by the arrest of Draco's father. Snape, Head of Slytherin House, as counselor to the angry Slytherins? It could get sticky. Let's hope they don't suspect that he's in the Order! Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 05:56:57 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:56:57 -0000 Subject: Wizards at Large In-Reply-To: <003a01c4b864$f5ece540$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116618 Ffred wrote: > I've speculated, for example, that the reason for the devastation at > Godric's Hollow was that one of the effects (intended or otherwise) of the protection on Harry was to short circuit _all_ magics in the vicinity. Perhaps there are other spells that also de-magic a vicinity (for use to clean up after magical accidents, for example...) Carol asks: By "the protection on Harry," do you mean a Charm performed by Lily as part of the "ancient magic" that also required her self-sacrifice? I agree that there probably was some such Charm and that the self-sacrifice was not all that was involved in saving Harry and causing the AK to rebound. But if that protection short-circuited all other magic in the vicinity, how could James have duelled with Voldemort and how could Voldemort have killed Lily and James? Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 06:11:31 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:11:31 -0000 Subject: Killing Pettigrew: Yea or Nay? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116619 Jennifer asked: > > If Peter used Voldemort's wand to blow up the street would that > make any difference to his abilities (power) or none at all? > > Carolyn responded: > We've heard from JKR at the Edinburgh chat that Peter hid Voldie's > wand, so he probably did not have either it, or Voldie's robes with > him when he blew up the street. He probably used his own wand if he > blew up the street himself. > Carol adds: I agree with Carolyn that he hid Voldemort's wand and used his own to blow up the street. But note that he didn't have a wand with him, either Voldemort's or his own, when he was forced back into human form in the Shrieking Shack. He must have dropped his own wand in the street along with the bloody finger and robes just after he killed the Muggles. Don't ask me how he did all that--no clue--but the wand would be further evidence that he was "dead" since dead wizards don't take their wands with them on their "great adventure." Carol, who thinks that Peter was more powerful than McGonagall gave him credit for From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 06:52:27 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:52:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > > Hmmm. Somebody recently brought Frodo into debate too. Carol, I have > a feeling you are right in a sense that Voldemort will be defeated > by unconventional weapon (Love and all that stuff), but Harry is SO > MUCH better character to me that Frodo even if due to the fact that > he TRIED to use the other side weapons and failed . In the moment of > the greatest pain, even than, he did not have enough hate in his > heart to cast Crucio. > > Yeah, he tried, but what matters to me is that he failed. Frodo on > the other side is just so Blah as character with no temptation to > use other side weapon present (well, I guess he wanted to use a > Ring, but just not strongly enough). Boromir was so much better. Geoff: Tsk, tsk, you're forgetting your "Return of the King". 'Then Frodo stirred and spoke with a clear voice, indeed with a voice clearer and more powerful than Sam had ever heard him use and it rose above the throb and turmoil of Mount Doom, ringing in the roof and walls. "I have come," he said. "But I do not choose now to do what I came to do. The Ring is mine!" And suddenly, as he set it on his finger, he vanished from Sam's sight.' (ROTK "Mount Doom") It is often pointed out that Frodo, in reality, did not fulfil his quest. Had it not been for the intervention of Gollum, the Ring would not have been destroyed. Although, Frodo, like Harry, is one of my favourite characters in fiction, he is a flawed character because the Ring has gnawed at his strength and resolve and the power it assumed as he reached the Sammath Naur just overwhelmed him. Frodo certainly, at the last, tried to use the enemy's weapon and would have been overcome but for the "pity" of Bilbo 78 years previously. No, he's not Blah. in his own way, he's had as many hurdles as Harry to surmount. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 10:43:53 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:43:53 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116621 > Finwitch: > > >How did he 'jump' onto the school roof? Harry's description sounds > more like flying than apparition...? > > Kim: > > IMO that kind of jumping, if it's not a form of apparating, seems to > point, as you say, to a natural ability to fly. But Harry being a > natural at flying on a broom is far dfferent from flying without a > broom. There hasn't been an example in the books of anyone flying > without the aid of either a broom or a flying animal, has there? > Which is kind of odd, considering it's the wizarding world. Just one > of those things maybe that JKR doesn't want in her version of a > magical world, like not letting people come back from the dead; maybe > she also doesn't want them to be able to just flap their arms and > take off... Finwitch: There's no known spell for wiz. to fly unaided. (one of those school- books...) Still, to consider: 1)Harry's very small and light. 2)he was wearing clothes too big for him. Flapping extracloth may well have worked like a bit like in that squirrel who can slide or "fly" from tree to tree. (Wind caught Harry) It's also possible that Harry transfigured his bones hollow - the kind that birds have. But to get up? well, there is that Leviosa spell... Still, if he did that to his bones, turning into a bird is not far. > Kim: > > >Except for this, wouldn't Harry know he could turn into a Phoenix by > now? Finwitch: How would he know? He didn't realise he talked to snakes in their own language until Ron told him... he, on his own, does not know whether it's English or parseltongue he speaks... He may even speak Phoenixian? and Mermish, without knowing it. He ALWAYS greets Fawkes, and even seems to understand the bird... of course, Dumbledore can do that, too. And how did Harry manage to talk to the Merpeople and be understood, unless he has innate ability for Mermish? (Apparently Dumbledore speaks it - did he learn or is it innate?) Harry's got lots of talent (says Sorting hat), and he's apparently been able to use transfiguration wandlessly as a kid (not so odd there, I think Fred did that, too). Kim: Harry's definitely like a Phoenix though, in that someone (he > who must not be named) has tried to kill him and he didn't die. Poly- > animagus is a really interesting idea too -- no reason why that > couldn't apply to a talented wizard, though I guess that would be > breaking the natural rules when it comes to animagus ability -- i.e. > that your animagus is the animal reflection of your inner self -- so > one would assume you could only be one animal. But hey, what if > you've got multiple "inner selves"...? ;-) Plus I could see someone > as old and wise (and talented) as Dumbledore being a Poly-animagus. Finwitch: Well, I consider any-animal being different technique! A bit like that partial transfiguration Krum used. After all, if Harry could self-transfigure rather than use animagi - it doesn't involve that much "inner self". Trouble is, of course, that turning back requires ability to do human- transfiguration without using a wand (because using paws/wings won't help you there) and incantation (because most animals can't pronounce the sounds). Or, that you have a friend to do it for you. Of course, with multiple inner selves, one can have more than one animal - but I'd say that would be limited to 3. Anyway, a *strong* Metamorhmagus could, ultimately, take on forms of animals. It's only a matter of degree, I think. Maybe, as they'll get to human-transfiguration, it'll come up, a talent Harry never realised he had. He takes this growing hair of his as something *natural* and not at least bit odd. "It just grew that way". Harry believes his hair won't change, and if someone tries to force it to, it corrects itself, because that's just the way his hair is. Because of that conviction, Harry's vain, Muggle efforts, do nothing. (Imagine, to practice i.e. changing hair-colour/hair-cut - in pairs or otherwise. NOTHING happens to Harry. NOW... what if, in GoF, when Malfoy had his wand out etc. he tried to turn Harry's hair red or something, it hit, but it didn't work!) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 11:09:01 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:09:01 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116622 Now, Dumbledore's trust.. When McGonagall doubts Hagrid (his ability to cope) Dumbledore says: "I'd trust Hagrid with my life." When Harry questions Snape, DD says simply: "I trust him". Harry reckons that 'you could usually count on (a.ka trust) Dudley to know the days of week, because of television'. Harry also trusts Sirius like he trusts no one else. What bothers me here, is: just *how far* is Dumbledore's trust in Snape go? Is it just trusting Snape to come up with a potion, or trusting him with his life, or, most likely, something in between? When it comes to Potions, that's where Snape can be trusted Snape CAN recognise a potion by smelling it. Not when he goes around accusing people. Not to DADA. Occlumency-lessons. Was there a goal to make Snape&Harry to 'walk in each other's shoes' as the saying goes, in order to create an understanding between them? At least, Dumbledore's regret about not realising that 'wound' being too deep seems to mean that, putting Snape to teach Harry Occlumency was an attempt to help Snape to put aside his old grudge over a dead man, help him heal and for the two to repair their relationship... Didn't work. Finwitch From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 11:49:37 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:49:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116623 Carol: Please don't put words in my mouth and please read the > evidence I presented regarding Hermione's reaction and Harry's anger > at her, neither of which points to Snape breaking the vial. Alla: Ooops, soory. But neither of those evidence points to Snape NOT breaking the vial. Hermione is angry at herself that she cleaned up Harry's cauldron, therefore he could not give the second vial to Snape. it has NOTHING to do with first part of the act - Snape allegedly breaking the vial. Carol: > > Most people posting to this thread are assuming that because, in their > view, Snape is an "unprofessional git," he must have broken the vial > on purpose. I think that Snape would be risking his job if he were to > break a vial in front of his students. Alla: Yes, because it would be very IC action for him, IMO. Also, he already committed even more serious wrongdoings as to Harry for which he did not lose his job, I don't see why he would over this. Regardless, as I told Potioncat - it is apossibility that someone else did it, I just think that it is a tiny one. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 28 12:15:21 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:15:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116624 > Carol: > > > > Most people posting to this thread are assuming that because, in > their > > view, Snape is an "unprofessional git," he must have broken the > vial > > on purpose. I think that Snape would be risking his job if he were > to > > break a vial in front of his students. > > > Alla: > > > Yes, because it would be very IC action for him, IMO. Also, he > already committed even more serious wrongdoings as to Harry for > which he did not lose his job, I don't see why he would over this. > > > Regardless, as I told Potioncat - it is apossibility that someone > else did it, I just think that it is a tiny one. Potioncat: Did I hear my name? ;-) I'm still curious as to why JKR wrote it this way. Did she expect everyone to think Snape broke it? Did she expect anyone to question it? Did he break it? (My earlier statement was that if Snape wanted to get at Harry, he would break the flask in front of him, not behind his back. And therefore, I don't think he did.) It's a little mystery, but it doesn't seem important enough to re- visit in a later book. If nothing else, it further divides Harry and Snape. And when Harry needs someone to rely on, he never even thinks of Snape. From vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz Thu Oct 28 12:16:08 2004 From: vinnia_chrysshallie at yahoo.co.nz (Vinnia) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:16:08 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041028121608.11975.qmail@web41201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116625 Hannah: > Doesn't it say somewhere (don't have my books on > hand) that the > Potters had only been hidden there a week before it > happened? That > could mean that it just took that long for Pettigrew > to tell LV, and > for the Dark Lord to find a window in his busy > schedule. Vinnia: Here is the canon you are looking for: PoA chapter 10 (The Marauder's Map) --start quote-- (Fudge) 'And then, barely a week after the Fidelius Charm had been performed - ' --end quote-- Now...did Peter wait a week because Voldemort hadn't asked yet, or because he is trying not to betray James? Or did Peter tell straight away, and Voldie decided to wait a week? Hannah: > Having said that, I like the suggestions that maybe > LV chose that > day because the magic world was likely to be > distracted, > celebrating/ on holiday (though celebrations would > presumably have > been much lower key given the times). This would > tie in with the > Halloween's of other books, where people's > preoccupation with the > feast is exploited by Quirrel (letting in the troll) > and Riddle > (launching his first attack). And both of those > are, in one form or > another, LV. Vinnia: I like those suggestions as well. Good point about the events on halloween book 1 & 2. And come to think of it, Sirius attacked the Fat Lady on Halloween for that very reason. bboyminn: > Here is something to think about, was the attack > just after midnight > on Holloween /morning/ or was it just after midnight > on Holloween > /evening/. Of course, if it took place the night of > Holloween, and it > was after midnight, then it actually took place on > Nov 1. Vinnia: That's a very interesting question. If it happened on Halloween morning, I do wonder why Vernon found it strange to see people dressed in robes. Or maybe celebrating Halloween is not normal in his PoV? Another alternative is it took place before midnight on Halloween evening. I don't know why, I always imagine that Lily and James were still awake when Voldie came. One thing I find very strange about the date. PS/SS chapter 1 --Start quote-- (weatherman) Perhaps people have been celebrating Bonfire Night early - it's not until next week, folks! --end quote-- Bonfire night is 5 November. PS/SS begins on a tuesday (PS p1: When Mr and Mrs Dursley woke up on the dull, grey Tuesday our story starts,...). If it was 1 November, then 5 November was on saturday...definitely not counted as 'next week' Vinnia Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From madettebeau at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 12:45:46 2004 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:45:46 -0000 Subject: Crabbe as potential job applicant (or Snape's attitude about his own house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116626 > Christelle, quoting Snape: > > > "And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates > it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I'm afraid I shall have to > > > mention it in your reference if ever you apply for a job." Carol writes: > I'm wondering how the Snape/Draco > relationship will be affected by the arrest of Draco's father. > Snape, > Head of Slytherin House, as counselor to the angry Slytherins? It > could get sticky. Let's hope they don't suspect that he's in the > Order! Maddy writes: I think it's possible for Malfoy and the others that were in Umbridge's office to already suspect him. When Harry shouts at him, "He's got Padfoot in the place where it's hidden!" Snape brushes it off and makes fun of Harry. But at the same time, from the Slytherin's POV, why would Harry seemingly ask for help from Snape (albeit in a very cryptic fashion) if Snape was really against Harry? And then his remark that saves Neville and makes fun of Crabbe only further clinches it. It may have been too subtle for Malfoy to notice right away, but it's quite possible. He may have even realized it after the fact. It also might count against Snape that he did not cooperate with Umbridge very much. =) Maddy (who's suddenly a little worried about old Snapey) From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 13:14:48 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:14:48 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: <200410270733580.SM01260@DEVBOX> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116627 Vivamus: > Here's an additional piece of *possible* evidence for Harry being a > metamorphmagus: Harry's hair is naturally ruffled like his father, but > James' hair wasn't naturally ruffled; it was ruffled because he kept it that > way. Finwitch: Or James just *pretended* that. Willingly at first, and then it was second nature... But oh well. Vivamus: > Could it be that the year old child knew enough of how his father > looked that he was subconsciously making himself look like his father? How > about all the comments he gets from people who tell him he looks > *extraordinarily* like James, but with his mother's eyes? Maybe that's not > just genetics. Finwitch: Think little Harry saw a LOT of his father when they were hiding... He kept trying to remember his parents (and got only the green light until Hagrid told him the truth). Of all those comments - Ollivander says the usual comment of Harry's eyes, but NOT about his father's looks. He talks about their wands, though. I think Ollivander's eyesight is very peculiar. Vivamus: > Another thing: Why aren't Harry's nearsighted eyes correctable with magic? > His father wore glasses, didn't he? I know, we haven't heard anything about > nearsightedness correction spells, but made up spells are appearing all the > time -- just look at the Weasley twins and the Marauder's Map. Perhaps > Harry *needs* his eyes to be that way. Finwitch: Apparently they can't. Harry's eyes are naturally near-sighted, so there's no illness in them, really, and certainly not a curse. Dumbledore has half-moon glasses, McGonagall has square ones, Harry has round ones, and even Rita Skeeter has glasses. And then there's Moody and his Magical Eye. (though a "paranoid?" man like him would certainly prefer to be able to see what's behind his back). For some reason I think that trouble in a Muggle-sense gives them a more keen magic-sense. (something I think goes to extremes with Ollivander. I think he's blind to Muggle light, but he can sense magic.). I also think that eyes, being the mirror of the soul, are somewhat magical. > Vivamus: > I know this is OT, but I felt there were a number of things in that first > book, particularly in the beginning, that were indicative of the book being > a standalone, with not everything being planned out for a series. > McGonagall's reading of the map on a muggle street, but especially her > asking DD how he knew it was her, don't quite fit the rest of the series. Finwitch: Well, they WERE well away from Hogwarts (where recognising Professor McGonagall in her cat form would not be that surprising.) Also, it IS and evening and Dumbledore was quite aways from her... She was recognised from *afar*, in a place where he'd not expect to see her. Of course she asks, if not for any other reason, to know why Vernon stared at her. How did she blow her cover. And it is that what Dumbledore tells her as well with that. "I've never seen a cat sit so stiffly". and her response: "You'd be stiff, too..." obviously to keep her dignity on *her* being unrecognisable. > Vivamus: > Charms, maybe? Good like his mother in that area? > > > He made the sweater shrink. > > Transfiguration? No, Charms again -- the opposite of an engorgement charm. > > > Finwitch: > > How did he 'jump' onto the school roof? Harry's description sounds > > more like flying than apparition...? > > > > Harry's also VERY fast, broomstick or no. > > Vivamus: > Maybe that's related to his flying onto the roof? > Finwitch: Dunno- or Harry's flying is a combination of a charm and wearing clothes WAY too big for him. His clothes probably worked like-- well, like a kite? > > Vivamus: > If Harry had the full ability of Tonks, imagine what he could do with that > in fighting V. It's too much. Is it? I've read several series of fantasy where the heroes have, in theory at least, the ability to turn into any animal at will. And even so, they still need co-operation etc. to do what must be done. And anyway, I'm not saying Harry wouldn't need to learn how to control it. (And actually, as I'm imagining it now, it's not exactly animagi either, but close enough). You know... What if, in order to save someone, Harry throws himself in front of AK, in the end battle. And it is because of that he learns that he can turn into a phoenix (saves his life, because he does that reborn out of ashes- thing). If that ends Book 6: Imagine Harry being sent to Dursleys, again, after being restored to his human self by McGonagall or Dumbledore or Hermione. All 7th book, he keeps changing shape every now and then, as he's not able to control it. Yes, at Privet Drive, too. Imagine that. Then, at the END of the whole series: Harry will remain as a phoenix permanently. (Someone tells the others that it was inevitable, and that all phoenixes come to be born that way). Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 13:38:45 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:38:45 -0000 Subject: Charlie Weasley's age /Percy's birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116628 Steve: > We know that Dudley's birthday is June 23 because it's a month > before July 24 and it's a Saturday in a year when July 24 falls on a > Tuesday. The only possible day that fits those criteria is June 23. > Did Rowling actually figure that out? Probably not. But it's the > only possible day that fits what she's written in the books. On the > other hand, in book one she has Fred saying "We haven't won since > Charlie left!" and at that moment in the stories, Charlie left only > two and a half months previous, and there was no Quidditch in that > time. So I guess you can take it with a grain of salt. Finwitch: We can also look at *who* says it: Fred is sort of playing a joke, I think. They *haven't* won a game since Charlie left - because they haven't *played* any. Can't win if you don't play, now can you? And I suppose Fred was missing Charlie as well. He's also giving credit to his brother as Seeker&Captain... and both Wood as Captain & Harry as Seeker are yet to be tested in the game, and to be seen if they can match Charlie Weasley. Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Oct 28 13:47:23 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:47:23 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: <20041028121608.11975.qmail@web41201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Vinnia wrote: Vinnia: > That's a very interesting question. If it happened on > Halloween morning, I do wonder why Vernon found it > strange to see people dressed in robes. Or maybe > celebrating Halloween is not normal in his PoV? > Geoff: I would find it strange to see people in robes on Hallowe'en morning. The acknowledgement of Hallowe'en is something that has grown in recent years in the UK. Parties and other events tend to be aimed at children and take place in the evening. Vernon first noticed them when he was driving to work. 'As he sat in the usual morning traffic jam, he couldn't help noticing that there seemed top be a lot of strangely dressed people about. People in cloaks, Mr.Dursley couldn't bear people who dressed in funny clothes - the get-ups you saw on young people!... ..Mr.Dursley was enraged to see that a couple of them weren't young at all; why, that man had to be older than he was and wearing an emerald-green cloak!' (PS "The Boy Who Lived" p.8 UK edition) But, this aside, it needs to be remembered that this was on the morning of 1st November. It is now All Saints Day or All Hallows Day. All Hallows Even (Hallowe'en) was over. Those (Muggle) folk who had been at parties would have gone home by now and changed. Voldemort had attacked Godric's Hollow the previous evening and the news had obviously spread quickly. Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 14:45:22 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:45:22 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116630 > Chancie: When someone is time-turning, they aren't puppets forced > to replay events and change things. Or it would be imposible for a > wizard to go back in time and kill him/herself, as Hermione tells > Harry. Time is change-able!!!! Or else Hermione wouldn't be warned > not to "change time", or have said "there must be something that > happend around now that he want's us to ****CHANGE****" > > ---------- > > Tyler: No, Chancie, no. Hermione even claims at the end of PoA > that she's not sure--HERMIONE DOESN'T FOLLOW IT. Harry gets it--he > really UNDERSTANDS time-travel. And even though Hermione has time > travelled all year, she has trouble reconciling her rules with the > reality. > > Hermione was warned not to try to "change" things. That bad things > can happen. She was given rules, and Hermione LIKES rules and > generally wants to obey them. And rules are a good idea--as > discussed, seeing yourself is likely to make you think some evil > magic is afoot. Bad things *can* happen, so it's better not to > tempt fate--if you're time-travelling DON'T BE SEEN. --- > > Could have have chosen not to cast it? Sure, but Harry would never > choose to let himself, Hermione, and Sirius die. Finwitch: Excellent post. That's how it is. Because Hermione is one who needs the cause and consequence nicely put. Yes, we are free to choose, but as Dumbledore says, It is our choices that show what we truly are. We always choose similarly, under same circumstances, because of who we are. This isn't about logic. This is about time and choices that WILL always be the same, because those who make them are the same. No, Hermione doesn't understand time-travel. Not back-wards with a time-turner, nor forwards by Divination. Her utter demand for logic was enough for Trelawney to know her disability. Harry learned to understand time-travel in the end of his third year, and early next year, Trelawney declares that he has the Sight. She ALSO knows Harry had a vision! That's what it means, I think - that you can SEE the reality of time. It's not about knowledge or logic, but about understanding and acceptance. Time's the fourth *dimention*. You move in both time and space. We all do. Because the Earth does. Because the Sun does. Because all the Galaxies, including the one we're part of, move. The dimentions, time, width, length, and depth, do not. They stay still, because they are eternal and need not go anywhere(or anywhen), because they are everywhere and everywhen. That time would somehow move or change is an illusion, just as Moon remains whole, even though we only see parts of it or not at all. Sun never rises, but our planet rotates so that the light which travelled from where the sun was makes it seem like that to us, who are upon it. I think that's what Trelawney trys to do: Rid us of our illusions. Death is something that WILL come to us, as much as we like to think it won't. It's that disillusionment that's first step in becoming a True Seer. Of course she keeps predicting Harry's death. We all die. Even stars do. Understanding and accepting that truth is, I believe, truly one of the first steps in True Seeing. You must also see people for who they are.(Ron's pretty good at this - he does SEE what Hermione fears most, failure in exams - and that's even before *Hermione* does!) Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 28 15:10:41 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:10:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116631 > Potioncat: > Did I hear my name? ;-) > I'm still curious as to why JKR wrote it this way. Did she expect everyone to think Snape broke it? Did she expect anyone to question it? Did he break it? (My earlier statement was that if Snape wanted to get at Harry, he would break the flask in front of him, not behind his back. And therefore, I don't think he did.)< Pippin: I think it's written so that those who don't analyze this stuff too deeply will assume that Snape broke it in plain view of Draco, and it will not significantly impact the story if they go on thinking so right to the end. I think Snape broke it with wandless magic so that it looked like the potion exploded spontaneously a la Neville. Thus the "whoops", the zero, and Draco's snigger. We may get to see Snape cause a surreptitious explosion in the future, so that those of us who are sadly obsessed with this sort of thing can go, "Aha!" As to *why* he did it...remember in PoA when he backed out of Lupin's office after delivering the potion? He's not only getting back at Harry for abusing his confidence, he's also saying, "Don't turn your back on an enemy." Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 28 16:11:41 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:11:41 -0000 Subject: Crabbe as potential job applicant (or Snape's attitude about his own house) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116632 > Maddy writes: > > I think it's possible for Malfoy and the others that were in Umbridge's office to already suspect him. When Harry shouts at him, "He's got Padfoot in the place where it's hidden!" Snape brushes it off and makes fun of Harry. But at the same time, from the Slytherin's POV, why would Harry seemingly ask for help from Snape (albeit in a very cryptic fashion) if Snape was really against Harry? And then his remark that saves Neville and makes fun of Crabbe only further clinches it. It may have been too subtle for Malfoy to notice right away, but it's quite possible. He may have even realized it after the fact. It also might count against Snape that he did not cooperate with Umbridge very much.< Pippin: Assuming DoubleAgent!Snape, then Voldemort thinks Snape is spying for the Death Eaters while pretending to spy for the Order. So if Harry turns to Snape for help, that merely proves to Voldemort that Snape has been doing a good job maintaining his cover, which is, of course that he is spying for the Order while pretending to spy for Voldemort. (Confusing, I know. But I can't think of a way to state it plainer.) Since Harry found his way to the Ministry without hindrance from Snape, Voldemort has nothing to complain of. If Snape allowed Goyle to damage Neville, he would not be maintaining his cover, besides which if Goyle has a black mark on his record it *will* make it difficult for him to get a job, which will not help Voldemort or please the Malfoy family. Assuming that Umbridge is not a DE, Voldemort is not going to approve of handing her a bottle of veritaserum. It wouldn't do for her to discover that Harry really did see Voldemort's return. Pippin From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 16:49:12 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:49:12 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116633 Kim asked: >... On the other hand, animagus ability (which either requires a wand or doesn't -- I confess to being confused about this: didn't Peter Pettigrew need a wand to transform himself back into a rat in PoA? But McGonagall doesn't need a wand to turn herself into a cat, does she? So is it a spell for some and an innate ability for others?) < Imamommy responded: >Methinks we have a case of movie contamination. The canonical reference is this: "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light--and Ron lay motionless on the ground. Another bang--Crookshanks flew into the air and back to the earth in a heap. "Expelliarmus!" Harry yelled, pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the air and out of sight. "Stay where you are!" Harry shouted, running foreward. Too late. Pettigrew had transformed. Harry saw his bald tail whip through the manacle on Ron's outstretched arm and heard a scurrying through the grass." -PoA, Scholastic, p.381. >So no, an animagus does not require a wand to transform, but I remember in the film Pettigrew *does* point a wand at his own head before transforming. I hope that helps.< Here's Kim now: Thanks for looking that up! Unfortunately I'd already looked at the same passage a while back and didn't interpret it the same way you have. I'd looked it up after seeing that the same scene in the movie seemed to contradict what I'd thought was true about self- transfiguration (in this case animagus ability), i.e. that a witch/wizard didn't need a wand to turn her or himself into an animal. What I read in that passage is that Peter had had the wand in hand for just long enough to start the process of "rat transformation" before Harry's "Expelliarmus!" knocked the wand out of his hand. I realize it doesn't say that explicitly, but I also don't think there would have been a bang and burst of light for a self-transfiguration spell anyway, so that part is naturally missing from what's written. And the "Too late" implies (to me anyway) that Harry had been too late in expelling Lupin's wand away from Peter and so Peter'd been able to transform himself back into Scabbers right before. Of course, you could argue that I was trying to make sense out of the movie portrayal of that scene, so unconsciously was "seeing what I wanted to see" in the book passage. But I honestly don't want to see anything that's not there or doesn't make sense (if any of this stuff really makes sense... ;-)). What I do see is that transfiguration, on the one hand, is something that has to be taught in a class using wands (isn't that how Peter and the other "marauders" learned transfiguration in the first place? Why do you need a wand for the "small stuff" if you don't need it to transform yourself?), but on the other hand, it appears at times as an innate ability that doesn't require a wand. So what I'm saying is that there seem to be contradictions in JKR's writing about it. After all, if it does require a wand, then cats and rats wouldn't be able to turn themselves back into people, would they? But clearly they can so they don't need a wand then. But I also think that JKR had a lot of input into scene interpretation in the Azkaban movie and isn't likely to have let them stick in the part where Pettigrew wands himself if she thought it was flat-out wrong. But I could be wrong about that too. Nevertheless I'm standing my ground til I see more solid evidence, and have no problem with agreeing to disagree! Kim (who says Pshew! and Sorry! for what appears to be a long-winded argument to your succinct response) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Oct 28 17:22:53 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:22:53 -0000 Subject: How much do the DE kids know? (was Crabbe as potential job applicant) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116634 Pippin said in Crabbe as potential job applicant - 116632: Assuming DoubleAgent!Snape, then Voldemort thinks Snape is spying for the Death Eaters while pretending to spy for the Order. So if Harry turns to Snape for help, that merely proves to Voldemort that Snape has been doing a good job maintaining his cover, which is, of course that he is spying for the Order while pretending to spy for Voldemort. (Confusing, I know. But I can't think of a way to state it plainer.) Since Harry found his way to the Ministry without hindrance from Snape, Voldemort has nothing to complain of. If Snape allowed Goyle to damage Neville, he would not be maintaining his cover, besides which if Goyle has a black mark on his record it *will* make it difficult for him to get a job, which will not help Voldemort or please the Malfoy family. Assuming that Umbridge is not a DE, Voldemort is not going to approve of handing her a bottle of veritaserum. It wouldn't do for her to discover that Harry really did see Voldemort's return. Dungrollin: This has got me thinking about how much the DE kids at Hogwarts are told by their parents. Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle and Nott were all at the graveyard, all mentioned by name by Voldy, all in the inner circle, and all have kids at Hogwarts in Harry's year. Did they tell their kids all about it? Bearing in mind how little Lucius told Draco about the chamber of secrets, I would have thought that they wouldn't let on too much. Although, I suppose there's a big difference between twelve years old in CoS and fifteen going on sixteen in OotP. But if LV was using the dark mark to summon the DEs throughout the summer, surely the kids would have noticed that Daddy kept having to disapparate in the middle of dinner. However, thinking about it a bit more, after what DD says at the feast at the end of GoF, I can't imagine Draco not wheedling as much information as he could out of Lucius. I just wonder whether Lucius would tell him. Draco does appear to have believed DD's leaving feast speech, as it's his 'They'll be the first to go now the Dark Lord's back!' speech that earns him the hexing at the end of GoF. But then, it was over the summer that other people started changing their minds about it, too, wasn't it? If he got home, and his father said 'Don't be ridiculous, Potter's insane.' Wouldn't Draco believe him? If you were a DE, would you trust them with sensitive information like that? Particularly with Umbridge around? The kids could have been instructed by their parents to help Umbridge as much as possible, in order to get DD kicked out. That wouldn't necessitate them knowing for sure that Voldy was back. But then there's that remark of Draco's on the train, `I'll be *dogging* your footsteps in case you step out of line', which makes it look as though Malfoy senior's been telling Draco a good deal. Actually, it could also be interpreted as Draco knowing something of Umbridge's plans for the coming year. The other big question is what the DE parents have told their kids about Snape. If the kids are in the know about Voldy's I'vegotanewbody party, then it would make sense that they've been told *something* about Snape. And it clearly can't be that he's a traitorous Judas who's going to get rubbed out in the next dark alley he chances upon. Could some of Draco's anger at the end of OotP be that Daddy being chucked in the slammer was the first time he actually knew for *sure* that LV was back? (Personally doubt it, myself, but would be interested to read what others think, and to know if there's any obvious canon that I've missed.) Dungrollin (who has just eaten a whole packet of chocolate hobnobs, and doesn't regret a single one) From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Thu Oct 28 17:23:00 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:23:00 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Now, Dumbledore's trust.. > > When McGonagall doubts Hagrid (his ability to cope) > > Dumbledore says: "I'd trust Hagrid with my life." > > When Harry questions Snape, DD says simply: "I trust him". > > Harry reckons that 'you could usually count on (a.ka trust) Dudley to > know the days of week, because of television'. > > Harry also trusts Sirius like he trusts no one else. > > What bothers me here, is: just *how far* is Dumbledore's trust in > Snape go? Is it just trusting Snape to come up with a potion, or > trusting him with his life, or, most likely, something in between? Pat here: You have touched on something that has always bothered me about that phrase. When DD says that he would trust Hagrid with his life, I really want to know why. Hagrid doesn't seem particularly able as a wizard, especially since he stopped any formal education after just three years. But that one I can accept as DD realizing that Hagrid is fiercely loyal to him. [snipped] But with Snape--there is a totally different issue. Why does he trust Snape so much? What did Snape tell him or do to earn that trust? I don't think that is an easy thing where DD is concerned. And DD seems so unwavering in his trust of Snape. It's something that the kids can't understand, and usually children have pretty good instincts about people. The other adults don't really talk about it--except Sirius, who does seem to accept DD's acceptance of Snape, even though reluctantly. He, however, is in the same position as Snape, in that he can't let go of whatever it was that happened when they were in school--and it has to be a lot more than the two things we've so far been told. After DD's admission to Harry in OotP (about making a mistake in telling him about the prophecy), it really makes me nervous that he trusts Snape so completely. I just wish we knew why--and I hope that is explained in the next book. My guess is that it won't be until the last book. Then we will either see that DD was right to place his trust in Snape, or that he, once again, has made an error in judgement. The whole "I trust him" issue has always seemed like one of those never-say-never kinds of things. Nothing is so black and white-- there are usually shades of gray that cloud the issue. But DD is so adamant about trusting Snape, that it seems like it has to be one of those things that will backfire when he least expects it. To Snape's credit, though, so far he has done nothing to show that DD (and Harry) shouldn't trust him. He was still nasty to Sirius, but that was mutual. And I can't quite figure out why he is so nasty to Harry, Neville, Hermione, etc in class--unless that is an intentional way to keep his link with the Death Eaters, knowing that Draco will report all to daddy. > Occlumency-lessons. Was there a goal to make Snape&Harry to 'walk in > each other's shoes' as the saying goes, in order to create an > understanding between them? [snipped] Pat again: I think this was a case of DD just underestimating how Snape felt. And it turned out to nearly be disastrous--except that Harry did get some more insights into Snape, when he saw some of his childhood memories. Now if he can just set aside that intense hatred he is directing toward Snape, perhaps they can at least make some progress- -well, I can hope anyway. I think, though, that all that was included to show us that no one is infallible. Everyone, even someone like DD, can make mistakes. It's what we do after we realize that we've made a mistake that is important. And digressing a bit--I found it interesting that, even though DD made some huge mistakes, Harry was still taking his anger out on Snape. After all, it wasn't Snape's fault that DD didn't tell Harry about the prophecy, or that he had to learn occlumency from Snape--DD was responsible for both those things that ended badly, yet Harry is not really angry with DD--not like he is with Snape, anyway. I think that JKR has included that as a way to show that no one is perfect. It also shows the path that grief takes--it's not rational, but is something that we feel. Until Harry gets through some of the grieving process, he won't be able to deal with DD, the prophecy or with Snape in a rational manner. Right now, with Sirius's death so new, Harry can't be angry at DD--it would be too scary to have Sirius pulled away from him AND to quit trusting DD, who has always been Harry's foundation. And now we are back to that trust issue again, aren't we. Harry trusts DD implicitly, just as DD seems to trust Hagrid and Snape. So, now the question is--are they all justified in placing trust in these particular people, or will it cause some disaster in the future? Pat (who really needs a cup of coffee now that I've made my brain hurt) From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 17:30:58 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:30:58 -0000 Subject: Timetravel again? (plus some unsolicited levity) Was: Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116636 Tyler wrote: >...Hermione even claims at the end of PoA that she's not sure-- HERMIONE DOESN'T FOLLOW IT. Harry gets it--he really UNDERSTANDS time-travel. And even though Hermione has time travelled all year, she has trouble reconciling her rules with the reality. Hermione was warned not to try to "change" things. That bad things can happen. She was given rules, and Hermione LIKES rules and generally wants to obey them. And rules are a good idea--as discussed, seeing yourself is likely to make you think some evil magic is afoot. Bad things *can* happen, so it's better not to tempt fate--if you're time- travelling DON'T BE SEEN. Could have have chosen not to cast it? Sure, but Harry would never choose to let himself, Hermione, and Sirius die.< Finwitch responded: >Excellent post. That's how it is. No, Hermione doesn't understand time-travel. Not back-wards with a time-turner, nor forwards by Divination. Her utter demand for logic was enough for Trelawney to know her disability. Harry learned to understand time- travel in the end of his third year, and early next year, Trelawney declares that he has the Sight. She ALSO knows Harry had a vision! That's what it means, I think - that you can SEE the reality of time. Kim comments: I love reading such intriguing discussions of something (time-travel) that can't really happen... or can it? ;-) Finwitch continued: >It's not about knowledge or logic, but about understanding and acceptance. Time's the fourth *dimention*. You move in both time and space. We all do. Because the Earth does. Because the Sun does. Because all the Galaxies, including the one we're part of, move. The dimentions, time, width, length, and depth, do not. They stay still, because they are eternal and need not go anywhere (or anywhen), because they are everywhere and everywhen.< >That time would somehow move or change is an illusion, just as Moon remains whole, even though we only see parts of it or not at all. Sun never rises, but our planet rotates so that the light which travelled from where the sun was makes it seem like that to us, who are upon it.< Kim again: Hey, wait a minute, I thought I stayed still and everything else moved around me. Or is it just that I feel so often like I'm running real fast but getting nowhere... Kim (who, joking aside, is truly appreciative of other listers who think and write so beautifully) P.S. May I suggest a book that touches on this topic? Einstein's Dreams, by Alan Lightman. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Oct 28 17:33:53 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:33:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Timetravel again? Was: Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <1ee.2d134291.2eb28781@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116637 In a message dated 10/27/2004 9:13:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, ctcasares at sbcglobal.net writes: Tyler: No, Chancie, no. Hermione even claims at the end of PoA that she's not sure-- Hermione was warned not to try to "change" things. That bad things can happen. She was given rules, and Hermione LIKES rules and generally wants to obey them. And rules are a good idea--as discussed, seeing yourself is likely to make you think some evil magic is afoot. Bad things *can* happen, so it's better not to tempt fate--if you're time-travelling DON'T BE SEEN. ************************************************************************ Chancie: Huh? OK if you admit that she's told not to change anything, then why would there be a problem with something bad happening? If As you say, time is set in stone, and you can only replay events, Then HOW could a wizard go back in time and Kill themselves??? *************************************************************************** If you could really change things, then why did Hermione miss Charms? If it's a multiple line/changable past, then why doesn't she just go back and do it? B/c she CAN'T. Harry and Ron have reported that she missed it. Hermione can go back as much as she likes, and still have free will, but will still miss Charms b/c TIME HAPPENS ONCE. ************************************************************************* Chancie again: I agree, this confused me too. I don't know why Hermione didn't go back to charms class! If you ask me it doesn't quite make since. (Kind of like, If the Weasley clock show's the condition of each of their members, then why is Molly worried that they were possibly dead in GoF when they are at the Quiddich world cup? We are told that the clock has a spot that says "mortal pearel", yet when she sees the twins, she's overcome by releif that they weren't hurt!---But that's another story!) But that is a good point to make, however, I'm not sure how that exactly seals your point. *********************************************************************** That's what time travel means. It means you travel in TIME. And if you go back in time, then you were always back in time. You don't go back and CHANGE things, b/c you *already* CHANGED them. Sure, H&H were "free" not to save Buckbeak, but we know they did, and therein lies the paradox. It's like if you read the end of the book first. The characters still "behave" as though they are free, but you know how it will end b/c you skipped ahead. In effect, you time travel through the book. *********************************************************************** Chancie: Ok, a BIG problem I'm having with all of this, WHERE in cannon does it say -1, time can't be changed, ( we only have cannon that it CAN be changed-or McGonagall wouldn't tell Hermione, that wizards who have messed with time have killed themselves) -2 That there is such a thing as a paradox, (this is JKR's story, she makes her own rules for things, such as Lupin only changing into a werewolf when the moonlight hits him, in other story's that I've read, werewolves are in their wolf state for the entire full moon period). I think we as readers sometime try to change what the books say in order for us to relate to it a bit better. Harry did figure out that he cast the patronus the previous time, and therefore had the courage to cast it once again, because he saw himself do it. But just as you admit, he didn't have to! Therefore if you aren't forced to replay events, then that means you CAN CHANGE TIME!!!!!!!! Chancie~whos wondering if ANYONE sees her point or if it's pointless to continue to try and explain? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 17:44:19 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:44:19 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116638 Finwitch wrote: >What if, in order to save someone, Harry throws himself in front of AK, in the end battle. And it is because of that he learns that he can turn into a phoenix (saves his life, because he does that reborn out of ashes-thing).< >If that ends Book 6: >Imagine Harry being sent to Dursleys, again, after being restored to his human self by McGonagall or Dumbledore or Hermione. All 7th book, he keeps changing shape every now and then, as he's not able to control it. Yes, at Privet Drive, too. Imagine that.< >Then, at the END of the whole series: >Harry will remain as a phoenix permanently. (Someone tells the others that it was inevitable, and that all phoenixes come to be born that way).< Kim adds short comment to Finwitch: Boy, if we could vote on an ending to the series, your ideas would be way up on the top of my list of choices! And on that note, could Fawkes be Godric Gryffindor? Kim From manawydan at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 28 19:03:29 2004 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:03:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizards at Large References: <1098959421.12091.83181.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <006c01c4bd20$cfedfc60$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 116639 > Carol asks: > By "the protection on Harry," do you mean a Charm performed by Lily as > part of the "ancient magic" that also required her self-sacrifice? I > agree that there probably was some such Charm and that the > self-sacrifice was not all that was involved in saving Harry and > causing the AK to rebound. But if that protection short-circuited all > other magic in the vicinity, how could James have duelled with > Voldemort and how could Voldemort have killed Lily and James? I'd say that until Voldemort attacked Harry directly, the Charm wasn't triggered. There was certainly a lot of magic expended that night. I don't think Voldemort would have come sneaking through the back door, it doesn't seem like the Evil Overlord style: he'd have come straight up the front path. I could conceive of James taking him on on the threshold (given the traditional magical properties of thresholds in legends). Just possibly, this exchange was enough to damage the Fidelius sufficiently that the house was no longer hidden when Hagrid arrived (together with "X" or possibly "Y", the person who witnessed Voldemort's downfall and passed the message on to the media). Then Voldemort killed Lily. And only then did he trigger the Charm when he turned his attention to Harry. It was at that point that (I think) _all_ magics in the vicinity were nullified. But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 28 19:36:36 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:36:36 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116640 Finwitch wrote: > > What bothers me here, is: just *how far* is Dumbledore's trust in Snape go? Is it just trusting Snape to come up with a potion, or > > trusting him with his life, or, most likely, something in between? > > Pat replied: > You have touched on something that has always bothered me about that > phrase. When DD says that he would trust Hagrid with his life, I > really want to know why. Hagrid doesn't seem particularly able as a wizard, especially since he stopped any formal education after just three years. But that one I can accept as DD realizing that Hagrid is fiercely loyal to him. > [snipped] > > But with Snape--there is a totally different issue. Why does he > trust Snape so much? What did Snape tell him or do to earn that > trust? I don't think that is an easy thing where DD is concerned. > And DD seems so unwavering in his trust of Snape. > After DD's admission to Harry in OotP (about making a mistake in > telling him about the prophecy), it really makes me nervous that he trusts Snape so completely. I just wish we knew why--and I hope > that is explained in the next book. My guess is that it won't be > until the last book. Then we will either see that DD was right to > place his trust in Snape, or that he, once again, has made an error > in judgement. > > The whole "I trust him" issue has always seemed like one of those > never-say-never kinds of things. Nothing is so black and white-- > there are usually shades of gray that cloud the issue. But DD is so adamant about trusting Snape, that it seems like it has to be one of those things that will backfire when he least expects it. > > To Snape's credit, though, so far he has done nothing to show that > DD (and Harry) shouldn't trust him. He was still nasty to Sirius, > but that was mutual. And I can't quite figure out why he is so > nasty to Harry, Neville, Hermione, etc in class--unless that is an > intentional way to keep his link with the Death Eaters, knowing that > Draco will report all to daddy. > [snipped] > Pat wrote: > > I think this was a case of DD just underestimating how Snape felt. > And it turned out to nearly be disastrous--except that Harry did get some more insights into Snape, when he saw some of his childhood > memories. Now if he can just set aside that intense hatred he is > directing toward Snape, perhaps they can at least make some progress-well, I can hope anyway. > Right now, with Sirius's death so new, Harry can't be angry at DD-- it would be too scary to have Sirius pulled away from him AND to quit trusting DD, who has always been Harry's foundation. And now we are back to that trust issue again, aren't we. Harry trusts DD implicitly, just as DD seems to trust Hagrid and Snape. So, now the question is--are > they all justified in placing trust in these particular people, or > will it cause some disaster in the future? Hannah: Great post Pat! Trust - and the betrayal of it - are such important themes in HP so far, I'm sure that they're going to play a big part in the big conclusion. I've just started tot hink of examples of trust and betrayal in the books and I can't believe how many there are. Here are just some of them: There's GH and Pettigrew - the ultimate betrayal, and also the underlying themes of distrust between the Marauders, who all seemed to suspect each other. Everyone puts a great deal of trust in DD even though it could seem rather unfounded to some readers. DD trusts Hagrid despite his shortcomings. Hagrid trusts Rita and ends up front page news. There's DD and his trust of Snape and apparent suspicion of Sirius. LV apparently trusts Snape too (and he and DD can't *both* be right). Marietta betrays the DA. Dobby betrays his master, Kreacher betrays his. Harry trusts Moody and Quirrel, but they're both not what they seem. People trusted Tom Riddle when he 'caught' the heir of Slytherin. Harry trusted Riddle when he met him in the diary, enough for him to take ages to twig he was the baddie even once they were in the Chamber. Umbridge trusted Snape to support her. Snape distrusts Lupin in PoA, and Sirius and Snape are unable to trust each other fully in OotP. Harry can never bring himself to trust Snape. When you come to think about it, at some point, normally at the climax of each book, Harry is heard to wail 'but I trusted you!' as yet another unexpected villain twirls his wand and prepares to obliterate our hero. With all that suspicion and betrayal going on in earlier books, I can't believe there isn't going to be, as Pat puts it, 'a disaster in the future.' A lot of the trust examples above involve Snape. A lot of people seem to either trust him, or distrust him, and they're usually proved wrong either way. It's one of the great HP mysteries why both LV and DD; both highly intelligent, powerful men, seem to trust Snape. One (or maybe both...) is going to be in for a very nasty shock at some point. My pet theory is that DD and Snape are somehow related. I think Snape told LV that DD knew that Snape was a DE, but didn't want the shame of being related to someone convicted of such crimes, so fabricated the spy story. (I don't think that is what really happened, just the cover story). There's no canon to support it, but I rather like it. Hannah PS. My version of the entire HP backstory, including Snape's entry to the DEs and subsequent conversion, is in my fanfic 'Taken On Trust,' published on Schnoogle (Fiction Alley), if anyone is interested. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 28 20:27:19 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:27:19 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116641 Becki's response: > > Some posters have speculated that the significance of the October > > 31st attack is that it could be the conception date for Harry, 9 > > months following July 31st. Hester: > That's interesting, but how would LV know it was the conception > date? Why would be bother to find out? My youngest was due July > 31, but not concieved Oct. 31 so it would have meant time and > effort for LV to find out. And I doubt the Potters would have told > anyone the conception date, if they even knew for sure. SSSusan: Hester is right that no one would know for certain. Additionally, and this is admittedly a minor point, I know, but....the gestation period for humans isn't 9 months; it's 40 weeks. If one's just *assuming* backwards from July 31 to get conception date, it would be Oct. 24, not Halloween. Siriusly Snapey Susan, emerging from lurkerdom with a really laim post From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 20:32:11 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:32:11 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat: > Did I hear my name? ;-) > I'm still curious as to why JKR wrote it this way. Did she expect > everyone to think Snape broke it? Did she expect anyone to question > it? Did he break it? .... > > It's a little mystery, ... > > If nothing else, it further divides Harry and Snape. And when Harry > needs someone to rely on, he never even thinks of Snape. bboyminn: Well, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. JKR wrote it this way to create a mystery. We are suppose to suspect that Snape broke it on purpose just to harrass Harry, but at the same time, she wrote it from Harry's perspective, and his back was turned. Since his back was turned, and we have no other perspective, it forever remains a mystery. Personally, I think Snape broke it on purpose. But there is no way I can prove that, just as there is no way Harry can prove that Snape intentionally broke it. But that doesn't stop either Harry or myself from increasing our contempt for and anger at Snape. This is one of many events that further alienates Harry from Snape. This increases Harry's belief that Snape is the, or at least his, enemy. With Harry's attitude that Snape is an enemy, at one very critical point in the story, he forgets that Snape is really an ally. Also, in that particular school year, class grades mean very little, it's the results of the OWL test that count. I seriously doubt that a student would be held back because they failed the class, even when the /aced/ their OWLs. So, Snape is being petty and vindictive when (if) he broke Harry's potion, but it's not an event of any greater significants. It has no significants beyond the mini-war between Harry and Snape. It was all a set up, and will forever remain a mystery. I also don't think it has any far reaching significants to the story. That is, I don't think this event or that potion will reappear in later books and turn out to be the key to everything (or anything). It's just a single isolated event that we will forever speculate on but will never resolve. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 22:08:14 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:08:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116643 justcarol67 wrote: " I wonder what means Dumbledore used to defeat Grindelwald and why that question has never been raised by Harry and his friends." Del replies : Maybe because, like so many other questions we so much wish we had an answer to, it is too important for the resolution of the plot ? It's interesting, though. DD is indeed the only person alive who's ever defeated an Evil Lord (as far as we know). And yet, he never mentions this to Harry. He never tells him "this is what I learned from my own experience". Instead, he seems to be concentrating on training Harry. A hands-on approach, but not necessarily one that works very well with Harry. I hope DD will finally realise that, and adopt a different strategy. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 22:29:23 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:29:23 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116644 > bboyminn: > > Personally, I think Snape broke it on purpose. But there is no way I > can prove that, just as there is no way Harry can prove that Snape > intentionally broke it. But that doesn't stop either Harry or myself > from increasing our contempt for and anger at Snape. This is one of > many events that further alienates Harry from Snape. This increases > Harry's belief that Snape is the, or at least his, enemy. With Harry's > attitude that Snape is an enemy, at one very critical point in the > story, he forgets that Snape is really an ally. Alla: Steve, you are most likely right. This is one of the events that will forever remain a mystery. Unless, well after war ends and both Harry and Snape survive it, they will have delightful conversation over cup of tea reminiscencing about Harry's school years and Snape will choose to confess that he really did it OR NOT. :) I can see Pippin's idea that Snape broke it with wandless magic coming to light.In fact I may find it likely. If Pippin reads this post, I just want to ask her to clarify. Do you think Snape performed it wandlessly intentionally or he just did it because he was so angry over Pensieve accident? I can also see Potioncat's reason for Snape not doing it - that if he wanted to do it, he would do it with Harry watching, not with Harry's back turned. The only scenario I cannot see - is Snape having nothing to do with it whatsoever, but of course I could be wrong. And of course you are right - this is one of those events that further alienate Snape and Harry and after which we should not be surprised why exactly Harry forgot in the crucial moment that one of the Members of the Order was still in Hogwarts. From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Oct 28 22:31:42 2004 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:31:42 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: <20041027105306.30884.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Vinnia wrote: > Hi all, > > My friend and I had just had a discussion about > halloween in the book. She wondered why Voldie chose > to attack the Potters on halloween. She's convinced > that it has something to do with Nearly Headless > Nick's deathday. But we can't think of why! > > I'm sure this has been discussed in great length here, > but since we're in halloween mood, surely there's > nothing wrong with discussing this again? :) > > Anyone has any thought on this? Marianne: Wasn't Halloween also celebrated by the Celts as Samhain? (I'm not sure I'm spelling that correctly.) If memory serves, it was believed that the veil between this world and the afterworld was at its thinnest point at this time and that spirits could pass through from one world to the other. Now, how that could have fit in with Voldy's plans is anyone's guess. I just thought I'd throw it out there. From sweetface531 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 23:01:29 2004 From: sweetface531 at yahoo.com (Justine) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:01:29 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116646 Lady Macbeth: The Veil Between Worlds (yep, there's a reference to a Veil again) is thinnest this time of the year, and lifts entirely during Halloween. This allows free passage between the Other World and our world, and any number of ghosts or other spirits could be wandering the Earth during this time. This is where the tradition of guising (going out in costume) arose - travellers disguised themselves as something other than human on that night, so that they wouldn't be disturbed or maligned by wandering spirits. Justine: What interests me most about Samhain is, of course, the Veil. According to Celtic mythology, the Sidhe, or spirits, return to the world of the living on Hallowe'en to visit with family or tribe, and to celebrate for this one night. When it has ended, they leave through the Veil once again. Now here's the kicker: if a being has gone through the Veil before he's actually died, he can come back on Hallowe'en and remain with the living. I'm probably getting my hopes up, but as soon as I discovered this, I literally jumped for joy, especially since Hallowe'en is such a crucial date in the series. Justine, who's been lurking for quite a long while... and who almost picked up an encyclopedia on werewolves today. From empooress at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 04:34:32 2004 From: empooress at yahoo.com (Kim McGibony) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Professor Sinistra In-Reply-To: <1098921888.15936.8618.m13@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041028043433.10419.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116647 Geoff added: > Perhaps it's just because she's left-handed.... > :-) Carol responds: > I had the same idea! Here's a definition/etymology > of "sinister" from Merriam-Webster: > > Etymology: Middle English sinistre, from Latin > sinistr-, sinister on > the left side, unlucky, inauspicious > 1 archaic : UNFAVORABLE, UNLUCKY > 2 archaic : FRAUDULENT > 3 : singularly evil or productive of evil Empooress adds: Found in the online etymology dictionary: " Goth. sineigs "old," sinistra "elder, senior;" And from another online source, an astronomy web site (www.winshop.com.au/annew/cons0.htm just in case any would like to check out other names from the heavens that appear in the the books.) : A star on the right hand of the Serpent Bearer Ophiuchus (or Serpentarius) the hand that is holding the tail of the serpent Serpens. Serpens, is also known as Draco From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 05:40:26 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dirty Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: <1098906237.60131.87212.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041028054026.57835.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116648 Kelsey Dangelo wrote: >Oh, I love this idea (and the name! >"Dirty Harry"). Wouldn't that be a twist?. >[?] But I think I might see a hole in that >bucket of water. Harry's an angry teenager, >but he's a goody-two-shoes. Eggplant: > In the first 3 books Harry was a bit of a goody two shoes, but less so in > book 4 and much less so in book 5; I hope to see this trend continue. The > character Dirty Harry was not an evil person, he didn't need redeeming like > Anakin Skywalker did because he already knew right from wrong and did the > right thing most of the time; it's just that Dirty Harry was very very tough > and he did what he had to do; and if he had to put a bullet in the brain of > a bad guy he could sleep soundly the next night and not agonize about it the > next morning. I think it would be interesting if Rowling started to move in > that direction, in fact I once wrote a short fan fiction about Harry Potter > turning into Dirty Harry. Kelsey: I still want to believe in the Dirty Harry scenario. But I can???t. Remember, Anakin Skywalker knew right from wrong (he was trained as a Jedi and started off as a good kid), he just chose wrong because he wanted the power to be able to protect people and do good things. And he was willing to use the dark side. I???ve never seen that trait in Harry. He wants to help people, but he never really seems willing to be a hero, or a leader (Hermione has to convince him to lead the DA) to gain power or rewards. He???s not tempted to use the dark side--except on Bellatrix, but he failed (no slaughter of a town full of Tusken Raiders). Harry almost chose to die (???Just let it end, then I???ll be with Sirius???) rather than to turn to the dark side (which would be the case if he used dark arts). I have to disagree that he???s become less goody-goody since POA. Harry is very angry in OOP, but I still think he???s a goody-two-shoes. A very angry, rule-bending-for-the-sake-of-goodness goody-two-shoes, but still a goody-goody. He never hurts anyone, never seems to want revenge (I never see him target Malfoy). In fact, I think that in GOF, Harry???s more goody-goody than before. Ever since he nearly murdered his innocent and beloved godfather in POA, he seems to be stepping away from the whole murdering and the vengeance ideas (I think this was Harry???s major lesson). In GOF, he, out of the goodness of his heart, decides to share the trophy with Cedric, save the other people captured by the merpeople, and give his money to Fred and George. I don???t really remember as incidents where he turns from goodness. And, at the end of OOP, he doesn???t want to even think about the fact that his life will ???either end in or include murder???. And that???s referring to Voldemort, his arch-enemy, the dude that???s killed his parents, caused the death of his godfather, caused death and destruction and other horrible things. Harry doesn???t want to murder Voldemort, much less anyone else. I still have to think that Harry???s intrinsically and profoundly good. He???s going to be angry, hurting, tormented, anguished, damaged, but I don???t think morally so. Kelsey, who???s suddenly reminded of Star Wars and mud-baths. From apeiron at comcast.net Thu Oct 28 12:43:04 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:43:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etymology of "Death Eater" (was Re: With enemies like these.....) In-Reply-To: References: <20041028030004.GD22545@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20041028124304.GB24579@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116649 On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 00:10:52 EDT, Alla scribbled these curious markings: > snip. Likewise. > Thanks for the link and yes, Graveyeard scene did strike me as being > symbolic. So, does it mean that if Voldie and his followers eat some > part of "death" (which part I wonder?), did they expect to become > immortal? It's fully possible, I imagine, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way things turn out. That does seem to be Voldemort's ultimate goal, no? So why would his followers follow him and do as he asks if he can't promise them the same thing? > Hmmmm, could it be that Snape managed to make a potion out of > some "part of death" and that is what Voldie and Co are having for > dinner? Ahh, the fact that you mention this reminds me of a very interesting and apropos quote that Snape gives regarding potions and potion lessons in PS, Chapter 8, The Potions Master "... I can teach you to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death -- if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach." Although that makes me wonder if it's in reference to poisons, or something more sinister as we've been discussing. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From cat_kind at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 09:26:47 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:26:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116650 > Kneasy wrote: > > Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen. > > Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her > > website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution. > > (snip) > > She's written a series like no other - what evidence do you have > > that the ending will not also be like no other? > > Carol responds: > I'm confused. "Will *not* also be like no other"? If Harry dies > destroying Dumbledore, as you appear to expect, that would hardly be > an original ending. I expect JKR to thwart Harry's expectation of > "murder or be murdered" by doing something radically original and > unexpected. (snip) > All I'm saying is that Harry heroically sacrificing himself to destroy > Voldemort will *not* be an ending "like no other." It will be an > ending we've all seen too many times before. I expect something > better: Harry defeats evil using the power of good in some original > way and becomes, once again, The Boy Who Lived. catkind: Agreed, hero heroically sacrifices himself in order to destroy evil overlord is hardly an original. But hero heroically destroys evil overlord and lives happily ever after is far more common, surely? I reckon either could be done in an original way, and of course using the "power he knows not". It's a shame about the "neither can live" prophecy; otherwise there could be something really original in leaving the evil overlord alive at the end of the series. I could just about imagine ending the books at the point where the side of good has all its armies and supporters lined up and is heading bravely off into battle... In support of a happy ending: JKR is supposed to have got very upset about killing off Sirius, a character who only appeared occasionally through three of the books. Kill off her own hero, who she's presumably far fonder of? It's not exactly evidence about the ending, I know, but at least it's evidence of a soft heart. catkind From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 23:42:31 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:42:31 -0000 Subject: Funny questions (house elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116651 > LisaMarie continued: > > >Seriously, I think it's adorable [a Dobby/Winky SHIP]. I, being a > relentless SHIPper myself, have imagined, since her introduction, > that Winky would be "Dobby's girl" at some point in the story. It > just seems right to me (of course, seeming rightfulness isn't rock > solid, now is it?). My suspicions were only fueled by Dobby's care- > taking efforts at Hogwarts, when Winky is distraught, despondent and > very drunk. Dobby is such a loveable character; I want him to have a > family of his own to love!!< > > Kim again: > > I really want Dobby to have his own girlfriend/family too. He's such > a sweetheart and his wacky ways only make him more dear IMO. If you > ever get sad, all you need to do is think of Dobby with all > Hermione's hats piled on top of his head. Hopefully Winky would come > to her senses a bit though before she and Dobby got together. But > just imagine their kids, and what names they'd give them!? > cunning spirit now: Alas, though, even though a Dobby/Winky relationship seems like a natural, I believe that recently Rowling said in an interview that Winky would never recover from her alcohol addiction. So if they do get together, it sounds like it will be tainted by Winky's dysfunctions. :-( From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 19:01:41 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (kelsey_dangelo) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:01:41 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116652 Kelsey: > But I think I might see a hole in that bucket of water. > > Harry's an angry teenager, but he's a goody-two-shoes. Geoff: >> Sorry, but I don't see him as a goody-two-shoes. There are many people who basically lean towards being good. I suppose I do because I had it firmly drummed into me as a kid that "You don't do that sort of thing..." and again I suppose I want to get on well with people; it's a sort of instinctive thing with me now and I feel it be so with Harry. But. That does not make him perfect. As you said, his motivation isn't exactly saintly. He wants to be good, at least most of the time, but doesn't always make it. That's what I like about him so much. He messes up, he falls over his own feet, he loses his temper, he lies and don't we all? << Kelsey: Let me clarify my definition of a goody-two-shoes or 'good' in general (which may be different from someone else???s definition). 'Good' means that he???s pure of heart, on the side of good (i.e. opposed to evil), has the best of intentions for the greater good, or he???s for good morals and what???s right. That???s really vague because I don???t want to get into a debate over Kantian vs. Utilitarian definitions of what is considered morally good. I???m talking about Harry???s internal motivation, his inner workings, the self-contained Harry, and what he does and how he reacts to it. In that respect, I think Harry is a goody-two-shoes. Unlike most self- centered, greedy, power-hungry adolescents, he???s always thinking about what???s the right thing to do. Yes, he wants to prove himself, but he puts that aside for the sake of ???doing the right thing??? (i.e. not entering the Triwizard Contest because it would be lying or against the rules and not for a good cause). I guess the reason that I use the term 'goody two shoes' is that while reading, I often am surprised how much other people accuse Harry of 'strutting' or 'wanting attention' because he seems so far removed from all that (getting his narrative/point-of-view we see that it never enters his mind). Obviously, Harry makes mistakes (a lot of them, particularly walking right into the clutches of the Dark Side). He???s not perfect (in that he makes mistakes), he???s not even all that intelligent, but his intentions are always good. Even when he gets angry, its because he???s frustrated that he can???t do anything for the sake of good (i.e. convince people of the truth). I like Harry because he is a real person with real faults, and yet he???s so dedicated and motivated to ???good???. It shows that even people that don???t have great ability can do great things and still be morally sound in the face of great evil, and therefore destroy it. And I guess that???s why I can???t see Harry lying, cheating, stealing, using unforgivable curses, putting bullets in the head of evildoers and sleeping soundly. Kelsey, who is reminded of Roger Ebert???s essay on Schindler???s List. From cat_kind at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 21:25:27 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:25:27 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116653 > Finwitch wrote: > > What bothers me here is: just *how far* is Dumbledore's trust > in Snape go? Is it just trusting Snape to come up with a potion, > or trusting him with his life, or, most likely, something in > between? > > Pat replied: > You have touched on something that has always bothered me about > that phrase. When DD says that he would trust Hagrid with his > life, I really want to know why. Hagrid doesn't seem particularly > able as a wizard, especially since he stopped any formal education > after just three years. But that one I can accept as DD realizing > that Hagrid is fiercely loyal to him. catkind: I read each of those "I trust him"s as "I trust that he is on our side". You wouldn't trust Hagrid to brew a polyjuice potion to save your life, or to keep a secret, any more than you would trust Snape to hatch out a dragon egg, if that happened to be the life-saving task in question. But Dumbledore would trust Hagrid to try his best to save his life. (OT: A friend once said of another, I'd trust him with my life, but not with my wallet. That's rather the sort of trust I think DD has in Hagrid.) > Pat: But with Snape--there is a totally different issue. Why > does he trust Snape so much? What did Snape tell him or do to > earn that trust? I don't think that is an easy thing where DD > is concerned. And DD seems so unwavering in his trust of Snape. catkind: Does trust have to be earned? > Hannah: Great post Pat! Trust - and the betrayal of it - are such > important themes in HP so far, I'm sure that they're going to play > a big part in the big conclusion. > > There's GH and Pettigrew - the ultimate betrayal, and also the > underlying themes of distrust between the Marauders, who all seemed > to suspect each other. > > It's one of the great HP mysteries why both LV and DD, both highly > intelligent, powerful men, seem to trust Snape. One (or maybe > both...) is going to be in for a very nasty shock at some point. catkind: Do we have any evidence that LV trusts Snape? There's the fact that Snape is still alive, I suppose, and that they at least seem to think he may be useful as a spy. It could just as well be that either LV thinks he has used Legilimency and "knows" Snape is loyal, or that he doesn't actually trust Snape and is planning on using him anyway, feeding him false information for example. IMHO trust is being portrayed as a virtue: even if you sometimes end up getting betrayed, those who trust people tend to win out in the end. Even the big Pettigrew betrayal, at least part of the disaster is because of the trustworthy people who fail to trust each other as well as the people who trust PP. If Sirius had trusted Lupin... If they had trusted DD to know the SK had been changed... I think that the way DD trusts people is one of his greatest strengths. He trusts Sirius again after the Prank; he trusts Hagrid when noone else does. He chooses to trust Snape despite his dubious history, and Snape has become a strong weapon on DD's side. Admittedly, Snape has failed his trust with the Occlumency, and is hopefully feeling properly guilty about is - I sincerely doubt DD will stop trusting him because of it, and suspect it will only make him more loyal. If you trust people, they will try desperately hard to live up to it. LV, on the other hand, doesn't seem to trust his DEs further than he can Crucio them. And if you don't trust your followers, they are liable to stab you in the back when it's to their advantage to do so. This is the way I see things going, anyway. catkiknd From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Thu Oct 28 21:42:02 2004 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:42:02 -0400 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200410281742219.SM01260@DEVBOX> No: HPFGUIDX 116654 > Vivamus: > > Could it be that the year old child knew enough of how his father > > looked that he was subconsciously making himself look like his > > father? How about all the comments he gets from people who tell > > him he looks *extraordinarily* like James, but with his mother's > > eyes? Maybe that's not just genetics. > > Finwitch: > Think little Harry saw a LOT of his father when they were hiding... > He kept trying to remember his parents (and got only the green light > until Hagrid told him the truth). > > Of all those comments - Ollivander says the usual comment of Harry's > eyes, but NOT about his father's looks. He talks about their wands, > though. I think Ollivander's eyesight is very peculiar. [snip] > For some reason I think that trouble in a Muggle-sense gives them a > more keen magic-sense. (something I think goes to extremes with > Ollivander. I think he's blind to Muggle light, but he can sense > magic.). I also think that eyes, being the mirror of the soul, are > somewhat magical. Vivamus: Interesting points. I think you are spot on about the magical quality of the eyes. I also think we'll see something related and special about both Ollivander's and Luna's eyes before we're done. (I think Luna is a truly wonderful character, btw, and has revealed depths that will make her important, not only in the struggle against V, but in Harry's eventual deliverance from the terrible burden of responsibility he bears.) > > Vivamus: > > McGonagall's reading of the map on a muggle street, but especially > > her asking DD how he knew it was her, don't quite fit the rest of > > the series. > > Finwitch: > Well, they WERE well away from Hogwarts (where recognising Professor > McGonagall in her cat form would not be that surprising.) Also, it IS > and evening and Dumbledore was quite aways from her... She was > recognised from *afar*, in a place where he'd not expect to see her. > > Of course she asks, if not for any other reason, to know why Vernon > stared at her. How did she blow her cover. And it is that what > Dumbledore tells her as well with that. "I've never seen a cat sit so > stiffly". > > And her response: "You'd be stiff, too..." obviously to keep her > dignity on *her* being unrecognisable. Vivamus: That *does* make sense, thanks very much. "NEVER assume that cats or writers do things by accident!" said the cat. > > Vivamus: > > If Harry had the full ability of Tonks, imagine what he could do > > with that in fighting V. It's too much. > Finwitch: > Is it? I've read several series of fantasy where the heroes have, in > theory at least, the ability to turn into any animal at will. And > even so, they still need co-operation etc. to do what must be done. > > And anyway, I'm not saying Harry wouldn't need to learn how to > control it. (And actually, as I'm imagining it now, it's not exactly > animagi either, but close enough). Vivamus: If it's impaired by a steep learning curve or lack of control, then it's fine. Without that, it is in danger of being a deus ex machina, which would (I think, anyway) detract substantially from the existential struggle JKR has been building up. To me, the principle appeal of the HP books is the struggle of moral courage made by those who are outmatched. JKR has done an incredible job of keeping Harry *normal* as he continues to become " as not normal as a boy can be." He is still believable, and a hero to whom we can relate. So his struggle is, vicariously, the reader's struggle, and we hope, along with DD, that good will triumph through courage and persistence. As much help as he has gotten to date, Harry has every right to feel angry and desperate, even now, because he is still hopelessly outclassed by V. He wasn't being humble when he was yelling at his friends; he really has won by luck (or grace) so far. The final fight between DD and V demonstrated that Harry is nowhere near powerful enough to fight V yet. He still needs many more tools or much more assistance and/or much more growth before he is ready for that, and maybe being a metamorphmagus is one of those things. > Finwitch: > You know... What if, in order to save someone, Harry throws himself > in front of AK, in the end battle. And it is because of that he > learns that he can turn into a phoenix (saves his life, because he > does that reborn out of ashes- thing). Vivamus: What a wonderful idea! I will have to see if I can find that quote about none of them becoming animagi. > Finwitch: > If that ends Book 6: > Imagine Harry being sent to Dursleys, again, after being restored to > his human self by McGonagall or Dumbledore or Hermione. All 7th book, > he keeps changing shape every now and then, as he's not able to > control it. Yes, at Privet Drive, too. Imagine that. Vivamus: I suppose, once he knows it's possible, that all sorts of hysterical possibilities arise. Harry is starving, and his aunt and uncle are deliberately being slow to let him have any food at dinner. Harry reaches for the bowl of potatoes, which just happen to be on the far side of the table. Without his meaning it to, his arm extends to five feet long to pick up the bowl. Furious, Vernon ties Harry's hands behind his back and ties him to his chair, and dares him to eat his dinner now. Gleefully, Vernon piles up some of the best tidbits on Harry's plate, while Dudley whines in frustration. Desperate to reach his food, Harry suddenly discovers he can -- a la Jar-Jar Binks. In the silence after he slurps them up, while the Dursleys are still frozen in shock, he also slurps up the contents of Dudley's plate, which sends all three Dursleys off screaming. Finally full, Harry finds that he can slide out of the cords with no problem. In another scene, Harry gets really mad at Dudley and his friends, and starts towards them, without his wand, to actually fight Dudley. Unbeknownst to Harry, while he is walking towards Dudley, he is growing large fangs and a werewolf snout. Amazing what a bunch of cowards they are, he thinks, while wiping some drool from his (now normal) chin. "When did I start drooling?", he wonders. The possibilities are endless. Vivamus, whose cat Snickersqueak is stone deaf and partly blind, but has luminous eyes that can still see my soul. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 00:39:59 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041029003959.78098.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116655 --- justcarol67 wrote: > One side note: When Dumbledore brings Sirius Black (about to shift > out of his dog form) and Severus Snape together in GoF, with the > interesting remark that "it is time for two of our number to > recognize each other for what they are" (Am. ed. 712), McGonagall > is not present. She has been sent to fetch Hagrid and Madame > Maxime. Nor does > she hear Dumbledore ask Snape if he's prepared to undertake his > dangerous, previously agreed upon mission and see him accept it and > sweep out of the room. Her errand is related to the (new) Order's > mission--Hagrid and Madame Maxime are about to be sent as envoys to > the giants--but couldn't her errand have waited? Why send her away > before Black (still in dog form when she leaves) and Snape are > ordered to shake hands? Does that mean she doesn't know about the > Order that > Dumbledore is in the process of recreating? Neither Bill Weasley > (who > witnesses the scene and is sent on a less dangerous mission of his > own) nor Snape (AFAWK) were members of the original Order, either. > Why send McGonagall away so soon? > > Carol, who almost lost her post by hitting "back" instead of > "send"! Because Dumbledore is protecting her. At this point the MoM is definitely the enemy and what Dumbledore and the others are about to do is crossing the line into the illegal (as probably defined by the Ministry). The less MM actually knows, the better. That way if Dumbledore is forced out of the school (as he was in OOTP), she'll still be there ("Hogwarts needs you, Minerva!"). I'm sure he told her afterwards, but she could easily take veritaserum and swear she never saw Sirius at Hogwarts and that she has no idea where Snape went. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 00:25:44 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:25:44 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116656 > Justine: > What interests me most about Samhain is, of course, the Veil. > According to Celtic mythology, the Sidhe, or spirits, return to the > world of the living on Hallowe'en to visit with family or tribe, > and to celebrate for this one night. When it has ended, they leave > through the Veil once again. Now here's the kicker: if a being has > gone through the Veil before he's actually died, he can come back > on Hallowe'en and remain with the living. I'm probably getting my > hopes up, but as soon as I discovered this, I literally jumped for > joy, especially since Hallowe'en is such a crucial date in the > series. Juli: Now this is extremely interesting for all of us Sirius fans. I just hope JKR reads this, or knows about it, I sure would like to see Sirius next Halloween. (Just thinking, Sunday's Halloween, right?) By the way, do you know where I could find more information on Celtic Mythology? From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 00:31:26 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:31:26 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116657 catkind wrote: > > I think that the way DD trusts people is one of his greatest > strengths. He chooses to trust Snape despite his dubious > history, and Snape has become a strong weapon on DD's side. > Admittedly, Snape has failed his trust with the Occlumency, and is > hopefully feeling properly guilty about is - I sincerely doubt DD > will stop trusting him because of it, and suspect it will only make > him more loyal. Juli: I think neither of us will be happy until we learn WHY DD trusts Snape. I believe he does trust him with his life, but it just wasn't the right time to say it: Harry's devastated about his Godfather's death, saying something like this I think would make him even angrier at DD and at life. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 00:47:06 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:47:06 -0000 Subject: How much do the DE kids know? (was Crabbe as potential job applicant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116658 > Dungrollin: > This has got me thinking about how much the DE kids at Hogwarts are > told by their parents. Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle and Nott were all at > the graveyard, all mentioned by name by Voldy, all in the inner > circle, and all have kids at Hogwarts in Harry's year. > Did they tell their kids all about it? > > Could some of Draco's anger at the end of OotP be that Daddy being > chucked in the slammer was the first time he actually knew for *sure* > that LV was back? Juli: I'm pretty sure Lucius told Draco LV was back. In the train back to London at the end of GoF Malfoy says something like this "Now that the Dark Lord is back the Mudbloods will be the first to die, or the second since Diggory was the first" then Fred, George, Ron, Harry all cast spells on them (Malfoy, Goyle and Crabbe). I don't know for sure how much the kids are told but they seem to know the headlines. If I were Lucius I wouldn't tell Draco too much since he gloats in front of Harry quite frequently and I don't think it's in the DE interest if Harry knows what they are doing. Just a thought. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 01:10:59 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:10:59 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116659 Carol earlier: > > At any rate, and I really want a British perspective on this, it seems to me that men and women follow slightly different traditions in Britain. Among schoolboys and male colleagues (in private conversation), last names are the norm and first names indicate a close friendship, is that correct? McGonagall, it seems to me, is trying to follow the first version of this tradition, with Dumbledore as a colleague except on those few occasions when her emotions get to her, in which case she treats him as an intimate friend. But she's following the *male* tradition if she's following anything at all. > > Finwitch: > > I think it's more of a case of 'depends on the people involved'. > Using someone's surname only does not necessarily mean enmity or even distance as such... > > > 2)We might also look on *other* british books like those of Sherlock > Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes and Watson address each > other by last names all the time, and they ARE friends. > ,snip> > > Anyway, I'm positive that Aberforth Dumbledore calls him Albus or > possibly some nickname - honest, two brothers referring to each other by surname - the surname they both *share*? Carol responds: I'm not sure why you think that I think Albus and Aberforth would call each other by their shared last name. As I said above, I think that the use of first names between men or boys in Britain indicates a close friendship or intimate relationship such as brothers (or possibly cousins). We see that among the Weasleys, for example, and between Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. But we also see Lupin calling Snape "Severus" but Snape calling Lupin "Lupin"--as if Lupin is asking for friendship and forgiveness and Snape is keeping him at a distance, using the normal form of address (surname) rather than an intimate one (first name). And note that Lucius Malfoy calls his fellow Death Eaters by their last names--except for the female Bellatrix and the Lestrange brothers, who need to be distinguished by their first names. I see a schoolboy pattern here extended into adulthood. Oddly, IMO, we see McGonagall following what seems to be a male pattern with Dumbledore, calling him Albus in moments of intimacy or emotional need but calling him Dumbledore--the normal form of address among *male* colleagues most of the time. Of course all of the teachers add the formal "Professor" to the last name when they're speaking to one another in front of the students (Snape uses the ultraformal "Headmaster" when addressing Dumbledore.) But I'm trying to see if anyone else sees her use of "Dumbledore" as a male pattern--like the one you cited for Watson and Holmes. (I could cite other nineteenth-century examples: Wordsworth and Coleridge, for example.) And Tonks, whom you cited and I snipped, is also using a male pattern if I'm reading her correctly--the tomboy type who rejects femininity along with her hated (and admittedly ridiculous) first name. (Note that most other female characters use either first names or the last name plus a title. The only exception I can think of is Hermione, following Harry's and Ron's example with Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle.) Do any Brits on the list, preferably male, recognize a schoolboy pattern carried into adulthood here, for the adult male characters--and for McGonagall? Carol, with apologies for repeating previously expressed ideas but I'm still looking for responses from people with a British schoolboy background From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 01:42:12 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:42:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116660 "cat_kind" wrote: > > > > It would be nice to think the WW will be sufficiently > revolutionised that Lupin is a candidate. He seems to be one of the cooler heads in the books, and is depicted as an inspired/inspiring teacher, even above McGonagall. I could see him slipping into the wise leader role, if he's got over the blind loyalty to his friends. The poor sod hardly has friends left to be blindly loyal to. > > Alla: > > Oh, yes, THAT would be an ending I would LOVE to see (Sorry, Pippin) > After WW is reborn like phoenix, it changed so much that werewolf is > able to take such important position and with all these comments JKR > makes about him being such a wonderful teacher. Who knows? :) Carol responds: There's still the problem that Lupin in his werewolf phase presents a genuine danger to the students. If you have Lupin at Hogwarts, you're going to need Snape as well to provide him his monthly wolfbane potion and see that he takes it! Carol From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 29 02:03:44 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:03:44 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116661 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" wrote: > > Kim asked: > > >... On the other hand, animagus ability (which either requires a > wand or doesn't -- I confess to being confused about this: didn't > Peter Pettigrew need a wand to transform himself back into a rat in > PoA? But McGonagall doesn't need a wand to turn herself into a cat, > does she? So is it a spell for some and an innate ability for others?) > < > > Imamommy responded: > > >Methinks we have a case of movie contamination. The canonical > reference is this: > > "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his > bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light--and Ron lay > motionless on the ground. Another bang--Crookshanks flew into the > air and back to the earth in a heap. "Expelliarmus!" Harry yelled, > pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the > air and out of sight. "Stay where you are!" Harry shouted, running > foreward. Too late. Pettigrew had transformed. Harry saw his bald > tail whip through the manacle on Ron's outstretched arm and heard a > scurrying through the grass." -PoA, Scholastic, p.381. > > >So no, an animagus does not require a wand to transform, but I > remember in the film Pettigrew *does* point a wand at his own head > before transforming. I hope that helps.< > > Here's Kim now: > > Thanks for looking that up! Unfortunately I'd already looked at the > same passage a while back and didn't interpret it the same way you > have. I'd looked it up after seeing that the same scene in the movie > seemed to contradict what I'd thought was true about self- > transfiguration (in this case animagus ability), i.e. that a > witch/wizard didn't need a wand to turn her or himself into an > animal. What I read in that passage is that Peter had had the wand > in hand for just long enough to start the process of "rat > transformation" before Harry's "Expelliarmus!" knocked the wand out > of his hand. I realize it doesn't say that explicitly, but I also > don't think there would have been a bang and burst of light for a > self-transfiguration spell anyway, so that part is naturally missing > from what's written. And the "Too late" implies (to me anyway) that > Harry had been too late in expelling Lupin's wand away from Peter and > so Peter'd been able to transform himself back into Scabbers right > before. Of course, you could argue that I was trying to make sense > out of the movie portrayal of that scene, so unconsciously > was "seeing what I wanted to see" in the book passage. But I > honestly don't want to see anything that's not there or doesn't make > sense (if any of this stuff really makes sense... ;-)). What I do > see is that transfiguration, on the one hand, is something that has > to be taught in a class using wands (isn't that how Peter and the > other "marauders" learned transfiguration in the first place? Why do > you need a wand for the "small stuff" if you don't need it to > transform yourself?), but on the other hand, it appears at times as > an innate ability that doesn't require a wand. So what I'm saying is > that there seem to be contradictions in JKR's writing about it. > After all, if it does require a wand, then cats and rats wouldn't be > able to turn themselves back into people, would they? But clearly > they can so they don't need a wand then. But I also think that JKR > had a lot of input into scene interpretation in the Azkaban movie and > isn't likely to have let them stick in the part where Pettigrew wands > himself if she thought it was flat-out wrong. But I could be wrong > about that too. Nevertheless I'm standing my ground til I see more > solid evidence, and have no problem with agreeing to disagree! > > Kim (who says Pshew! and Sorry! for what appears to be a long-winded > argument to your succinct response) imamommy: Ok, for the sake of argument, we seem to see a lot of animagi transforming without wands. Firstly, when transforming back from animal form they can't use one. Secondly, McGonagal doesn't seem to use one. Thirdly, I can't ever remember a reference to Sirius using a wand to transform; how would he ever have transformed in Azkaban? I guess we have interpreted the text differently. I do think wands would be necessary to *become* an animagus, but not to use that power once you were one. So, until I have further evidence, I stand my ground. imamommy "Then it appears we are at an impass." The Princess Bride From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 02:19:56 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:19:56 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116662 > Kelsey: >> I???m talking about Harry???s internal motivation, his inner workings, > the self-contained Harry, and what he does and how he reacts to it. > > In that respect, I think Harry is a goody-two-shoes. Unlike most self- > centered, greedy, power-hungry adolescents, he???s always thinking > about what???s the right thing to do. Yes, he wants to prove himself, > but he puts that aside for the sake of ???doing the right thing??? (i.e. > not entering the Triwizard Contest because it would be lying or > against the rules and not for a good cause). Alla: Agreed, in fact very much agreed. I can never doubt that Harry's inner core is good. Yes, his everyday actions are not always the actions of the "goody - two shoes" and thanks G-d for that, but in a major way as in as you said being on the side of good, the text never makes me doubt that. I would say even more - I don't mind Harry having a Slytherin side, in fact, who are we all without a little darkness in us,a s long as it does not become the major part of us. But I am afraid that Harry's Slytherin side will dissappear when he will manage to break his connection with Voldemort and destroy him (I am of the opinion that Harry will survive at the end somehow). I think that Harry's Slytherin side is due to some part of Voldemort soul, or whatever it is he is carrying in himself. (maybe link with Voldie as Neri theorised recently) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 02:27:00 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:27:00 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Death Eater" (was Re: With enemies like these.....) In-Reply-To: <20041028124304.GB24579@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116663 Alla earlier: > > Thanks for the link and yes, Graveyeard scene did strike me as being > > symbolic. So, does it mean that if Voldie and his followers eat some > > part of "death" (which part I wonder?), did they expect to become > > immortal? Christopher: > It's fully possible, I imagine, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's > the way things turn out. That does seem to be Voldemort's ultimate goal, > no? So why would his followers follow him and do as he asks if he can't > promise them the same thing? Alla: I would not be that bold to say that that how things will turn out, but surely with JKR's love of names with meanings, the name of the major evil in Potterverse bound to mean something,which should help us uncover some key mysteries . So, I do consider it a possibility. Let's speculate a little further. If "death eaters" indeed eat "death" in the real way, whether Snape managed to put in the bottle or somebody else made something "edible" or "drinkable" from death, could they do it while Voldie was in hiding? Do they know the secret of making something digestable out of death or only Voldie knows that? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 02:52:48 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:52:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's experiences : what's missing ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > It is often pointed out that Frodo, in reality, did not fulfil his > quest. Had it not been for the intervention of Gollum, the Ring would > not have been destroyed. Alla: No, Geoff, I did not forget "Return of the King" :) I don't know, even though Frodo wanted to use the Ring and yes, as you pointed out he would have failed, had not Gollum interfered, I was not impressed much in a sense. I cannot even pinpoint my reaction and explain exactly why. Maybe since it happened at the end, it was not really a temptation to me. Like I knew that something will happen that will save Frodo's Quest. I guess, I did not believe it as real temptation. I don't know. Since I read LOTR three times(once in russian and then twice in English few years after my first reading), I don't even remember my initial reaction. When Harry , on the other hand, tried to use Crucio! I remember being so surprised, and so hurting with Harry and knowing that miracle is not going to happen. It was perfect, IMO. From jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net Fri Oct 29 02:41:13 2004 From: jones.r.h.j at worldnet.att.net (Richard Jones) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:41:13 -0000 Subject: Time-Travel Again? (Of course we can change the past) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116665 It is clear from the POA that under JKR's theory we can change history. True, time-traveling Harry and Hermione didn't change history in the POA ? they just participated in events twice and so the events came out differently than if they had not time-traveled and participated in them only once. But we are not limited to just that ? Hermione tells Harry that McGonagall told her that "loads of [time-traveling wizards and witches] ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake" (p. 399). That is definitely changing history: the "earlier" wizards have been eliminated from history by time-travel events. How can you go back in time and kill your former self without changing the past? Some people will argue that we can't change history through time- travel because of the basic paradox that you could accidentally kill yourself. In fact, the cardinal rule of time-travel in sci fi is that time-travelers cannot change events that would affect their ability to time-travel. But JKR is the only physicist in the Potterverse, and what she says goes. If she says that time- travelers can change history ? e.g., by killing their former selves ? then time-travelers can change history, and that's that. JKR sets the rules, and that has to be our starting point for thinking about time-travel. Also notice that in the POA time-traveling Harry wanted to run out of the forest when he and time-traveling Hermione were hiding there to get the Invisibility Cloak (p. 405) and to get Wormtail (p. 408). Hermione had to grab and stop him. She only expressed concern about being seen, but the fact remains that Harry would have changed the history that got them to that point if he had done what he wanted to do. If Harry had stopped Wormtail or had just gotten the Invisibility Cloak, all the events of that evening from that point on would have changed. No "laws of nature" or "magical forces" or "laws against time paradoxes" kept Harry from changing history ? only Hermione's quick action did. Also consider Dumbledore's comment about being careful because time- travel's consequences are complicated and unpredictable (p. 426). Why say that if the past is "fixed" and unchangeable? We wouldn't have to be careful since we couldn't change history even if we wanted to! If history is fixed, it is not as if we could make a mistake and change things -? what happened happened, and there is nothing we can do accidentally or intentionally about it. So why would he say to be careful? In sum, if our actions during time- travel are somehow fixed and predetermined, his comment doesn't make sense; and if our actions aren't fixed, then we can intentionally or accidentally change the course of events and thus we must be careful. From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 03:02:09 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:02:09 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116666 Reading through this thread, a thought occured to me. Maybe Dumbledore trusts Snape because he (DD) sent him to the DEs in the first place to spy on Voldemort; maybe Snape became a DE to spy on Voldemort for Dumbledore. Maybe he trusts Snape because he's never betrayed anyone... --Frugalarugala, Speaker of Blasphemies From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 03:07:46 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:07:46 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frugalarugala" wrote: > > Reading through this thread, a thought occured to me. Maybe > Dumbledore trusts Snape because he (DD) sent him to the DEs in the > first place to spy on Voldemort; maybe Snape became a DE to spy on > Voldemort for Dumbledore. Maybe he trusts Snape because he's never > betrayed anyone... Alla: Maybe, but I think that Dumbledore's infamous "returned to our side and he is now no more death Eater than I am" disproves it. Personally, I would not want that to be true. It means that i won't get my long awaited "redemption of Snape" story. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 03:25:28 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:25:28 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages and Bill as Curse Breaker (was:BIll Weasley as DADA?) In-Reply-To: <1098229487.13946.20.camel@prophecy.dyndns.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116668 LisaMarie wrote: > > Magic and languages. This makes me wonder: Are there language barriers in the magical world? Are the spells universal (read: accessible to users of any language), or are they language-specific? An example may help me illustrate my question. I'll use Bill Weasley. > Christopher Nehren responded: > The "language of magic" seems to be (for the most part, anyway) an > amalgamation of Latin, pseudo-Latin, and Aramaic. Consider all of the different languages in just the areas surrounding Hogwarts: various types of English, numerous Celtic and Gaelic dialects, and so forth -- even some Teutonic influences in the earlier forms of what I'll call English for lack of a better term. All of these different people have collaborated and devised the usage of mostly Latin and some Aramaic for the purpose of using magic. Carol responds: I think Christopher (along with Geoff in his response) has pretty much covered the "language of magic" as a lingua franca of sorts from early Christian times, or even pre-Christian early Roman times, to the present. But the Egyptian curses that Bill is breaking predate both Christianity and the Romans. They would have to be recorded in heiroglyphic form, if recorded at all, and the spoken language would most likely have been Coptic or some earlier form of Egyptian. Which brings us back to Lisa Marie's question about Bill: Can he break the curses using the Latin/Aramaic hypbrid language used in the modern spells? Or would he have to know the countercurses in the original languages? Obviously we can't answer the question definitively, but what does anyone think and why? Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 03:40:37 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:40:37 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers (formerly known as Family Secrets) In-Reply-To: <00e501c4b646$ff72dc20$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116669 > moonmyyst said - > > My son had a thought. Is there any reason in cannon as to Why a person cannot be their own secret keeper? We know that they are not but Why? Kethryn responded: > > I'll bite, I don't think that there is a reason listed in canon. And, now, I'll raise. Why didn't Lily be James Secret Keeper and James be Lily's? Other than the fact that Harry would have loving and doting parents now and we would be out a lovable might-as-well-be orphan, that particular scenario makes the most sense to me. If you want to live, tell the person the secret that you trust the most. And, you know, if you don't trust your spouse with your life, you have problems. Maybe the person living in the house can't be the Secret Keeper because that would lock them in some weird parallel dimension thing? Or a logic loop? How about a circular argument? Carol adds: Whatever the reason, I don't think a person can be his or her own Secret Keeper or Dumbledore would have made that suggestion rather than proposing himself (or after proposing himself and being turned down because James wanted Sirius). As for the Potters being each others' Secret Keepers, it was the whereabouts of the whole Potter family, especially Harry, that was at stake, and it's not clear where Harry would fit into the Each Other's Keeper scenario. Also, I believe that Lily, who was skilled at Charms (or so we can infer from Ollivander's words about her first wand in SS/PS) placed the Fidelius Charm on Peter and could conceivably have placed it on James (if the spell would "take" in those circumstances). But according to Dumbledore, the charm is extremely complex and James, despite his great skill at Transfiguration (also foreshadowed in the wand scene with Ollivander) might not have had the skill at Charms to place the spell on Lily. Just some thoughts in response to moonmyst's son's very logical question From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 29 03:51:03 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:51:03 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116670 Alla reported Potioncat's view: > I can also see Potioncat's reason for Snape not doing it - that if > he wanted to do it, he would do it with Harry watching, not with > Harry's back turned. Bboyminn said: > Well, I think you've hit the nail right on the head. JKR wrote it > this way to create a mystery. We are suppose to suspect that Snape > broke it on purpose just to harrass Harry, but at the same time, > she wrote it from Harry's perspective, and his back was turned. > Since his back was turned, and we have no other perspective, it > forever remains a mystery. > Personally, I think Snape broke it on purpose. But there is no way > I can prove that, just as there is no way Harry can prove that > Snape intentionally broke it. But that doesn't stop either Harry > or myself from increasing our contempt for and anger at Snape. > This is one of many events that further alienates Harry from > Snape. SSSusan: I agree with Steve and, for once, totally disagree with Potioncat. As I said almost a full week ago (in two different posts): Harry isn't *supposed* to know for certain that Snape broke it--that way he can't accuse him or report him! IMO, Snape saw what Hermione was doing, saw that Harry's back was turned, made a quick decision to "repay" Potter for the Pensieve incident. Perfect! Potter will "know" from the look on his face and the "Whoops" but he won't be able to DO anything about it because he didn't see it directly. Steve's right that none of us can prove our view, but I did find it interesting that Nora brought up what a typical 12-year-old would think about this scene. To test that theory, I found my 8-year-old daughter who's read/listened to OotP 4 or 5 times. "Hey, Kristen." "Yeah?" "You know that scene in OotP after Harry got into Snape's pensieve and he's in Potions class? Where he's just turned in his potion vial--" "Yeah, and he dropped it on the ground!!" "Who's `he'?" "Well, duh--Snape!!" Is this evidence that I'm right? Of course not. But it is evidence that the kid's way of viewing this scene is that it's obvious that Snape did it. Now, maybe JKR wants the mystery to be there, wants the obvious answer to be Snape when it's really not. But I agree w/ Steve that I don't think this is going to turn into a major plot point; I don't think it's going to MATTER in some significant way. Therefore *I* think the most obvious answer is the best fit. And again, I think the mystery is there only because it's Harry's POV and Snape made SURE Harry couldn't be certain! Snape has threatened to poison Neville's toad in front of an entire class. Why would he care if Draco or a couple of other kids saw him letting Potter's potion crash to the ground? He gets Harry **better** by ensuring that he's unable to go off and complain to anyone about it. Carol: However, I think now, based on Draco's laugh, that Harry probably missed the counter in his haste to turn in the vial and get out of there. SSSusan: Yup. I've done this. But the thing is, I've never started walking away and *then* had the glass hit the floor. I've always been in the *process* of turning away when I realize it's falling but have been unable to quite grab it as it heads down. I don't see how Harry could have set it so precariously that it would fall by itself but *not* have it do so `til his back is fully turned & he's walking away. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 03:58:02 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:58:02 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116671 > SSSusan: snip. > To test that theory, I found my 8-year-old > daughter who's read/listened to OotP 4 or 5 times. > > "Hey, Kristen." > "Yeah?" > "You know that scene in OotP after Harry got into Snape's pensieve > and he's in Potions class? Where he's just turned in his potion > vial--" > "Yeah, and he dropped it on the ground!!" > "Who's `he'?" > "Well, duh--Snape!!" > > Is this evidence that I'm right? Of course not. But it is evidence > that the kid's way of viewing this scene is that it's obvious that > Snape did it. Alla: Oh, Susan, thank you for testing it on your daughter. :o) Believe it or not, I think that it matters A LOT. As I said many times, I do believe that books are oriented on younger audience in many ways (of course, I want to believe that JKR also does not forget about us, adults), therefore intuitive reaction of the younger generation is often correct in many ways. As I said I can see Potioncat point, but I also think that this action is so very IC for Snape that for me the number one possibility is what your daughter said: "Well, duh - Snape'- I LOVE that line. Thannks again for posting it. From musicofsilence at hotmail.com Fri Oct 29 03:59:23 2004 From: musicofsilence at hotmail.com (lifeavantgarde) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:59:23 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra In-Reply-To: <20041028043433.10419.qmail@web52103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116672 > Empooress adds: > > Found in the online etymology dictionary: > " Goth. sineigs "old," sinistra "elder, senior;" > > And from another online source, an astronomy web site > (www.winshop.com.au/annew/cons0.htm just in case any > would like to check out other names from the heavens > that appear in the the books.) > : A star on the right hand of the Serpent Bearer > Ophiuchus (or Serpentarius) the hand that is holding > the tail of the serpent Serpens. Serpens, is also > known as Draco Stefanie: Ooo! I posted extensively on this in message 101410, but didn't get much response then. There are some interesting myths associated with this star and the constellation it's housed in. Since this all with Sinistra is coming up again, what do you all think of it? I have some serious reservations about this teacher because of the subject/professor name connection that has cropped up throughout the books (Herbology/Sprout, Arithmancy/Vector)...It's just too significant for comfort. I mean, why pick this relatively insignificant star (and yes, I believe the name originates from the star...astronomy?) for the Astronomy teacher? From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 29 04:08:57 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:08:57 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116673 SSSusan: > > To test that theory, I found my 8-year-old > > daughter who's read/listened to OotP 4 or 5 times. > > > > "Hey, Kristen." > > "Yeah?" > > "You know that scene in OotP after Harry got into Snape's > > pensieve and he's in Potions class? Where he's just turned in > > his potion vial--" > > "Yeah, and he dropped it on the ground!!" > > "Who's `he'?" > > "Well, duh--Snape!!" > > > > Is this evidence that I'm right? Of course not. But it is > > evidence that the kid's way of viewing this scene is that it's > > obvious that Snape did it. Alla: > Oh, Susan, thank you for testing it on your daughter. :o) Believe > it or not, I think that it matters A LOT. As I said many times, I > do believe that books are oriented on younger audience in many > ways.... > As I said I can see Potioncat point, but I also think that this > action is so very IC for Snape that for me the number one > possibility is what your daughter said: > > "Well, duh - Snape'- I LOVE that line. SSSusan: Believe me, you wouldn't love it if you heard it on a routine basis. We're trying to eliminate "well, duh" from the vocabulary. But just this *once*, I did rather appreciate it. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 04:36:56 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:36:56 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116675 SSSusan wrote re Snape and McGonagall: > > You're right, we don't hear her call him fair. OTOH, we don't > > hear her saying he's *not* fair, either, rolling her eyes > > about "yet another Snape story" from the students, or etc. She > > *does* let her true feelings show--even in front of a classroom of > > students--concerning Divination & Trelawney, so I'd rather expect > > her to let *something* show, too, regarding Snape if, indeed, > > she thought he wasn't fair. > > > > Perhaps she does know he's unfair at times but is bothered less by > > that than she is by an entirely fraudulent subject, which is what > > she sees Divination to be. > > Dungrollin responded: > I think that McGonagall and DD have a pretty good idea of how unfair > Snape is. > However, what I suspect that DD and MM aren't aware of, is the > venomous malice with which Snape treats Harry when there aren't > any adult witnesses. They're both aware that Snape can be unfair, > but since they don't see the full extent of his unpleasantness, > they assume that it can't be doing that much harm. Kids often take a > teacher's attitude personally, so they may assume that Harry > hates Snape disproportionately to how much Snape hates Harry, thus > laugh it off. Potter'll grow out of it. It won't do any > lasting damage. > > If they were fully aware of how nasty he can be, I think they'd > disapprove somewhat. > > Dungrollin Carol responds: As an earlier thread (or probably about a dozen such threads) points out, we see Snape from Harry's POV. When the narrator says something like "Snape didn't just dislike Harry. He hated him," we are seeing Harry's interpretation of Snape's words and expressions. We do know from Snape himself that he regards Harry as arrogant and a rule breaker and he has more than once suspected him (not always falsely) of lying. But we don't know Snape's *thoughts.* Neither Harry himself nor the narrator who reports from his limited and sometimes distorted point of view really *knows* anything about any other character. It's all observation and perception and sometimes guesswork and assumption. In fact, what we're seeing is how much Harry hates Snape, and on occasion, how angry Snape is at Harry, but never that Snape actually hates Harry. He repeatedly attempts to keep Harry out of trouble and on more than one occasion, has tried to save his life. That's hard to reconcile with genuine hatred. Where we apparently agree is that if Dumbledore or McGonagall thought Snape was doing lasting harm to the students, they would voice their disapproval. Clearly, in the harsh world of the WW for which Hogwarts is preparing these students, Snape's unfairness and occasional ridicule are teaching a lesson even more valuable than the potions and antidotes they are learning to make: how to cope with unpleasant reality when they are adults. Those who make life too easy for their children (like the Dursleys) or their students (Snape with the Slytherins?) are, IMHO, doing them no favor in the WW or the real world. Carol From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 04:44:48 2004 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:44:48 -0000 Subject: Funny questions (I hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" wrote: > > While re-reading GoF last night, I came across this paragraph (ch. > titled The House-Elf Liberation Front, p. 381, US Scholastic ed.): > > <[Says Winky] "... My poor Mr. Crouch, what is he doing without > Winky? I is looking after the Crouches all my life, and my > mother is doing it before me, and my grandmother is doing it before her... oh what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed? Oh the shame, the shame!" She buried her face in her skirt again and bawled.> > > Winky's got a mother?! And a grandmother?! And they might still be alive somewhere? (snip) Tonks here: I don't think that Winky's mother and grandmother are still alive. I think that she just uses poor English. A house-elf serves their whole life, so her mom and grandy are gone. She just uses the word *is* incorrectly. What she really means is *what would they say if they knew*... sort of like the expression we use *they would turn over in their grave if they knew*. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 05:27:02 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:27:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 29, Career Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116677 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Carol: > > Snape's reaction does not prove that he broke the vial, only that > > he's glad it was broken. > > SSSusan: > True, there's no proof. But it's written this way for a reason, > imo! (See below.) > > > Carol: > > Harry is furious, to be sure, but even he does not accuse Snape of > > breaking the vial. > > SSSusan: > But the REASON he didn't accuse him is the key, isn't it? Here's > what I wrote previously: > > >>>The reason is that we're seeing this from Harry's POV as > usual. HARRY isn't supposed to know for certain that Snape broke it-- > that way he can't accuse him or report him! That Snape's a smart > guy! IMO, he saw what Hermione was doing, saw that Harry's back was > turned, made a quick decision to "repay" Potter for the Pensieve > incident. Perfect! Potter will "know" from the look on his face and > the "Whoops" but he won't be able to DO anything about it because he > didn't see it directly. We're supposed to feel it the way Harry felt > it--frustration and all, I think.<<< > > You believe Snape is smart. Hopefully you also agree that he can be > a royal asshole, esp. where Harry & Neville are concerned. Add to > that that, in this case, he is *justifiably* angry with Harry for > having looked in the pensieve. Doesn't 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 pretty clearly > here? Of coure there are alternate possibilities, but what's > likeliest? What fits best? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Carol: Sorry, SSS. I just can't see him *deliberately* breaking the vial. I think it slipped out of Harry's fingers and he took advantage of the situation. I also think that JKR set up the scene to make it look *to the reader* as if Snape broke it. But Harry never makes that accusation even in thought, and if it had happened, surely Hermione would have complained *to Harry* and *for Harry* (because he won't speak for himself) about the unfairness. Instead, she takes the blame on herself. IMO, it's just like the turban and scar incident in SS/PS where it looks as if Snape is responsible but he isn't. I'm not saying that Snape isn't taking malicious pleasure in the broken vial and the resulting zero; obviously he is. And I agree that he's justifiably angry with Harry over the Pensieve incident, but he's obviously cooled off to the point of giving him the silent treatment throughout the class--good plan for both their sakes. I don't think he would deliberately seek petty revenge despite his anger--but when the chance to gloat, and to administer what he probably sees as a just punishment (no potion, no mark) comes, he takes advantage, and gladly. Since neither of us can prove anything, thanks to the POV, maybe we should agree to disagree? Carol From mablake at pacbell.net Fri Oct 29 03:25:34 2004 From: mablake at pacbell.net (John) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:25:34 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116678 > Becki: > > > Some posters have speculated that the significance of the October > > > 31st attack is that it could be the conception date for Harry, 9 > > > months following July 31st. > > Hester: > > That's interesting, but how would LV know it was the conception > > date? Why would be bother to find out? My youngest was due July > > 31, but not concieved Oct. 31 > > SSSusan: > Hester is right that no one would know for certain. ....the > gestation period for humans isn't 9 months; it's 40 weeks. If one's > just *assuming* backwards from July 31 to get conception date, it > would be Oct. 24, not Halloween. Becki, Hester, Susan The physical act is not when fertilization takes place. It is usually later. I will let your imaginations take over the when of the actual fertilization. So is the 40 weeks from the physical act or the fertilization? John From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 04:40:50 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dirty Harry/Clean Harry In-Reply-To: <1099022051.174112.41272.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041029044050.7254.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116679 Alla: > I can never doubt that Harry's inner core is good.... > I would say even more - I don't mind Harry having a Slytherin side, in fact, who are we all without a little darkness in us, as long as it does not become the major part of us. > But I am afraid that Harry's Slytherin side will dissappear when he will manage to break his connection with Voldemort and destroy him (I am of the opinion that Harry will survive at the end somehow). > I think that Harry's Slytherin side is due to some part of Voldemort soul, or whatever it is he is carrying in himself. (maybe link with Voldie as Neri theorised recently) Kelsey: While reading OOP, I thought the same thing, that Harry's anger and "darkness" (of mood not of morality) could very well be attributed to his connection of Voldemort and Harry's inability to break that connection. I think Harry even says that he finds himself having mood swings because of the way Voldemort is feeling. And yet, despite that connection, Harry is still very fundamentally good. That's a major test of his goodness, and he passes. Kelsey, who thanks Alla for the further fuel to the "Clean Harry" scenario. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Oct 29 05:56:50 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:56:50 EDT Subject: "I trust him". Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116680 catkind wrote: > >I think that the way DD trusts people is one of his greatest >strengths. He chooses to trust Snape despite his dubious >history, and Snape has become a strong weapon on DD's side. >Admittedly, Snape has failed his trust with the Occlumency, and is >hopefully feeling properly guilty about is - I sincerely doubt DD >will stop trusting him because of it, and suspect it will only make >him more loyal. Juli: I think neither of us will be happy until we learn WHY DD trusts Snape. I believe he does trust him with his life, but it just wasn't the right time to say it: Harry's devastated about his Godfather's death, saying something like this I think would make him even angrier at DD and at life. Juli(e) adds: I don't think the Occlumency incident affected DD's trust in Snape. DD was disappointed that Snape couldn't overcome his animosity toward James and approach Harry as a separate person in his own right. Had Snape done so, he might have recognized Harry's disappointment in James' behavior, rather than simply assuming Harry would react just like James. And the Occlumency lessons might have been salvaged despite Harry's misplaced curiosity. Still, there was no betrayal of trust in Snape's failure. It was just human failure, which DD should have foreseen as a possible outcome. (I won't say probable, only because DD couldn't have foreseen Harry's violation of Snape's privacy, which changed the dynamics of the situation.) And while DD's told Harry before that he completely trusts Snape, pressing the point wouldn't achieve much while Harry is emotionally distraught over Sirius's death. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 04:21:20 2004 From: kelsey_dangelo at yahoo.com (Kelsey Dangelo) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Crabbe as potential job applicant (or Snape's attitude) In-Reply-To: <1099002865.104191.13869.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041029042120.16376.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116681 Carol writes: > I'm wondering how the Snape/Draco relationship will be affected > by the arrest of Draco's father. Snape, Head of Slytherin House, > as counselor to the angry Slytherins? It could get sticky. Let's > hope they don't suspect that he's in the Order! Maddy writes: > I think it's possible for Malfoy and the others that were in > Umbridge's office to already suspect him. > > Maddy > (who's suddenly a little worried about old Snapey) Kelsey: Thank you Maddy for that last line! I've been worried about dear old Snapey ever since GOF and waited on pins and needles to see if he'd (and I'd) survive to see OOP. In GOF, we learn that Snape was a Death Eater and was publicly revealed to be a spy for Dumbledore (come on, Voldie and his spies just can't be that oblivious). And, in the cemetery scene, Voldie says, "One [missing Death Eater], who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed, of course..." I assumed he was referring to Snape who he knows betrayed him, who has refused to come that night. I really can't imagine that he's referring to Karkaroff (more likely "the coward"). And I can't see Voldie just accepting Snape back with open arms after all that; look what he did to Wormtail and his more faithful followers who didn't work as a Dumbledore-suck-up for 13 years. Malfoy and Crouch, Jr. were there to first hand witness Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore. And then, there's no mention at all of him being in grave danger in OOP. He's frankly the same old Snape, just now spying for the Order. I have a horrible feeling that Voldie's dangling a noose around Snape's neck, and yet he doesn't know it. As ambiguous a character Snape is, Dumbledore's trust is not ambiguous. And there's so much evidence that Snape is (a jerky) good guy. I wonder why Dumbledore trusts Snape, but I really wonder why Voldie trusts him. Or if he trusts him at all. Kelsey, who has had a horrible feeling about this for three years. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 29 06:47:50 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:47:50 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > Do any Brits on the list, preferably male, recognize a schoolboy > pattern carried into adulthood here, for the adult male > characters--and for McGonagall? > > Carol, with apologies for repeating previously expressed ideas but I'm > still looking for responses from people with a British schoolboy > background Geoff: Please, Miss, I fall into the above requested category! :-) To save me reposting what I have said before, may I just say that I think I covered a lot of this is messages 115863 and 116253 which I hopes had clarified the position. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 29 06:53:57 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:53:57 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kelsey_dangelo" wrote: Kelsey: > Let me clarify my definition of a goody-two-shoes or 'good' in > general (which may be different from someone else???s > definition). 'Good' means that he???s pure of heart, on the side of > good (i.e. opposed to evil), has the best of intentions for the > greater good, or he???s for good morals and what???s right. Geoff: I think your definition is where the problem lies. I don't know whether you are a contributor from the US but, in UK terms, "goody two shoes" is normally used as a derogatory term of description. It is someone who is too "squeaky clean", too "nice" to be true, if you get my drift. If I was told I was a "goody two shoes", I think I would be quite irritated and annoyed. Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 08:34:35 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:34:35 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116685 > > Kim adds short comment to Finwitch: > > Boy, if we could vote on an ending to the series, your ideas would be > way up on the top of my list of choices! > > And on that note, could Fawkes be Godric Gryffindor? Finwitch: Possibly he could at that... he&his friends named his phoenix-self as Fawkes (a bit like Prongs, Padfoot, Moony & Wormtail, wouldn't you say?) And of course, phoenix isn't affected by basilisk-stare, being that he has already died. (Different for a ghost who turned back instad of going on...) On side note, I think Sirius could be back as a phoenix. Because he took his physical human body to the other side, and was an animagus before he died, he has the ability to turn into his human self at will - but only until the next time he burns. (But only very few people get to know that). Thus, Sirius could be Harry's new pet. Note, though, that he'd not be a wizard animagus named Sirius Orion Black, but a phoenix with the ability to take the form of man. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 09:45:24 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:45:24 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116687 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Finwitch: > > > > I think it's more of a case of 'depends on the people involved'. > > Using someone's surname only does not necessarily mean enmity or > even distance as such... > > > > > > 2)We might also look on *other* british books like those of Sherlock > > Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes and Watson address each > > other by last names all the time, and they ARE friends. > > ,snip> > > > Anyway, I'm positive that Aberforth Dumbledore calls him Albus or > > possibly some nickname - honest, two brothers referring to each > other by surname - the surname they both *share*? > > Carol responds: > I'm not sure why you think that I think Albus and Aberforth would call > each other by their shared last name. Finwitch: I don't. It would be silly... but at least ONE person would regularly call the old Headmaster by first name. Fred&George OTOH, might stage a conversation and call each other as Mr Weasley... or call Percy Weatherby (like Crouch) to tease him. Albus&Aberforth? No, think not. But I'm curious as to how their relationship is and what the not-so-sure-if-he-can-read Aberforth is sending Albus for christmas if Albus complains he only gets books for gifts? Or was Aberforth of a custom to give his brother *socks* but for some reason stopped doing so - possibly after being at odds with his brother? (And of course, Albus would desire that he and his brother were on good terms again, seeing himself holding a pair of socks in the mirror). Of course, that would raise the question as to WHY. Aberforth didn't want Harry to be raised at Dursleys? Didn't agree in trusting Snape, the nasty potionmaker- who might be after getting bezoars out of *his* goats? I *hope* Aberforth Dumbledore is going to be present in the next book... I think watching him and Albus talk would reveal much much more than Albus tells others. Even with Harry watching (because Aberforth holds firmly the belief that warned is armed). Besides, Albus did refer to his brother as Aberforth. Curiously enough, we have this tendency to refer Albus Dumbledore as surname, while the brother Aberforth is referred to by first name. And we know Albus way better. Curious, isn't it, how we refer to fictional characters? And um - if Aberforth were to be the new DADA teacher, how would the students refer to him? Or would they just start refering to old Albus Dumbledore as a Headmaster? I guess Snape *has* met Aberforth, so he isn't calling one brother Dumbledore - though he isn't calling him Albus either. I think he *might* indeed be related to Dumbledores - maybe his mother was daughter or granddaughter to one of them? Finwitch From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 10:26:26 2004 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:26:26 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" wrote: > Here's Kim now: > > Thanks for looking that up! Unfortunately I'd already looked at the > same passage a while back and didn't interpret it the same way you > have. I'd looked it up after seeing that the same scene in the movie > seemed to contradict what I'd thought was true about self- > transfiguration (in this case animagus ability), i.e. that a > witch/wizard didn't need a wand to turn her or himself into an > animal. What I read in that passage is that Peter had had the wand > in hand for just long enough to start the process of "rat > transformation" before Harry's "Expelliarmus!" knocked the wand out > of his hand. I realize it doesn't say that explicitly, but I also > don't think there would have been a bang and burst of light for a > self-transfiguration spell anyway, so that part is naturally missing > from what's written. And the "Too late" implies (to me anyway) that > Harry had been too late in expelling Lupin's wand away from Peter and > so Peter'd been able to transform himself back into Scabbers right > before. Of course, you could argue that I was trying to make sense > out of the movie portrayal of that scene, so unconsciously > was "seeing what I wanted to see" in the book passage. But I > honestly don't want to see anything that's not there or doesn't make > sense (if any of this stuff really makes sense... ;-)). What I do > see is that transfiguration, on the one hand, is something that has > to be taught in a class using wands (isn't that how Peter and the > other "marauders" learned transfiguration in the first place? Why do > you need a wand for the "small stuff" if you don't need it to > transform yourself?), but on the other hand, it appears at times as > an innate ability that doesn't require a wand. So what I'm saying is > that there seem to be contradictions in JKR's writing about it. > After all, if it does require a wand, then cats and rats wouldn't be > able to turn themselves back into people, would they? But clearly > they can so they don't need a wand then. But I also think that JKR > had a lot of input into scene interpretation in the Azkaban movie and > isn't likely to have let them stick in the part where Pettigrew wands > himself if she thought it was flat-out wrong. But I could be wrong > about that too. Nevertheless I'm standing my ground til I see more > solid evidence, and have no problem with agreeing to disagree! > cunning spirit here: On the other hand, Sirius is able to transform himself into his dog form while in Azkaban. Does this mean that wizarding folk are allowed to keep their wands while incarcerated? I find that a little hard to swallow. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 29 11:33:22 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:33:22 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116689 Dungrollin responded: > I think that McGonagall and DD have a pretty good idea of how unfair > Snape is. > However, what I suspect that DD and MM aren't aware of, is the > venomous malice with which Snape treats Harry when there aren't > any adult witnesses. They're both aware that Snape can be unfair, > but since they don't see the full extent of his unpleasantness, > they assume that it can't be doing that much harm. Kids often take > a teacher's attitude personally, so they may assume that Harry > hates Snape disproportionately to how much Snape hates Harry, thus > laugh it off. Potter'll grow out of it. It won't do any > lasting damage. > > If they were fully aware of how nasty he can be, I think they'd > disapprove somewhat. > > Dungrollin Carol responds: As an earlier thread (or probably about a dozen such threads) points out, we see Snape from Harry's POV. When the narrator says something like "Snape didn't just dislike Harry. He hated him," we are seeing Harry's interpretation of Snape's words and expressions. We do know from Snape himself that he regards Harry as arrogant and a rule breaker and he has more than once suspected him (not always falsely) of lying. But we don't know Snape's *thoughts.* Neither Harry himself nor the narrator who reports from his limited and sometimes distorted point of view really *knows* anything about any other character. It's all observation and perception and sometimes guesswork and assumption. Now Dungrollin: I wasn't actually talking about Snape's thoughts or motivations, or, indeed whether he really hates Harry, I was talking about his behaviour in situations where DD and MM aren't witnesses. Yes, of course we see Snape through Harry's eyes, but unless you're suggesting that he hallucinated Snape evanesco-ing a merely not-outstanding potion, or insulting Harry's dead father in order to get him angry enough to let something slip (PoA) or trying to humiliate a first year in his first lesson because he hasn't learned the set books off by heart, you certainly can't call him even-handed when it comes to Harry. What his motivations are for such behaviour ? you're right, we have no idea. What I was trying to say is that Snape is clearly partisan in front of the other teachers ? the Quidditch match he referees for example ? but he's at his nastiest when there are no witnesses. Carol again: In fact, what we're seeing is how much Harry hates Snape, and on occasion, how angry Snape is at Harry, but never that Snape actually hates Harry. He repeatedly attempts to keep Harry out of trouble and on more than one occasion, has tried to save his life. That's hard to reconcile with genuine hatred. Dungrollin replies: I agree that it can be argued that Snape doesn't hate Harry (though I don't actually think that's true). But saving someone's life being incompatible with hating them? I beg to differ. If I were in a situation where I was in a position to save someone's life, no matter how much I despised that person, I would do what I could. Particularly if I knew that that person was the best chance of defeating LV. (I have no experience of what we could call `genuinely evil people' like LV ? so although I'd probably not go out of my way to save *his* life, I couldn't tell you how or where I'd draw the line between people I'd save and people I wouldn't; suffice to say that I've never met anyone in my life that I'd allow to die, though I'll freely admit to hating some of them.) Carol again: Where we apparently agree is that if Dumbledore or McGonagall thought Snape was doing lasting harm to the students, they would voice their disapproval. Clearly, in the harsh world of the WW for which Hogwarts is preparing these students, Snape's unfairness and occasional ridicule are teaching a lesson even more valuable than the potions and antidotes they are learning to make: how to cope with unpleasant reality when they are adults. Those who make life too easy for their children (like the Dursleys) or their students (Snape with the Slytherins?) are, IMHO, doing them no favor in the WW or the real world. Dungrollin again: Yes, we do agree there, but I'll come back to my original point, which was that if DD or MM had been present in any of the situations I mentioned above ? e.g. when Snape evanesco-ed Harry's potion, I think they would have said `Steady on! That's not cricket!' (Quidditch somehow doesn't seem to have the right connotations for that phrase...) Dungrollin From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 11:41:22 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:41:22 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116690 > Alla: > > Oh, Susan, thank you for testing it on your daughter. :o) Believe it > or not, I think that it matters A LOT. As I said many times, I do > believe that books are oriented on younger audience in many ways (of > course, I want to believe that JKR also does not forget about us, > adults), therefore intuitive reaction of the younger generation is > often correct in many ways. > > As I said I can see Potioncat point, but I also think that this > action is so very IC for Snape that for me the number one > possibility is what your daughter said: > > "Well, duh - Snape'- I LOVE that line. > > Thannks again for posting it. Potioncat: This conversation is running on at least 3 subject lines...so it's hard to decide where reply. On one, Carol has suggested we all agree to disagree, which at this point is the best bet. We all seem to have a problem letting go, although we've all pretty much agreed it probably isn't important in the overall scheme of things. But, as my fingers are being pulled away...a few points. It's been said it is obvious Snape broke it. Oddly enough, I never read it that way. In fact it wasn't until it was brought up on this site a long time ago that I even realized that was how most readers saw it. And until I re-read it for the chapter discussion, I didn't really dispute it. I still wonder why JKR wrote it like this because in the past where it was Obviously!Snape (hexing broomstick) (refereeing to throw game) (poisoning Lupin) it turned out to be something else happening altogether. OK, so to the best of my ability this will be my last post on this topic...and I must state firmly....Mark Evans did it! Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 11:51:21 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:51:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledores and Snape was Re: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116691 >Finwitch wrote: > I guess Snape *has* met Aberforth, so he isn't calling one brother > Dumbledore - though he isn't calling him Albus either. I think he > *might* indeed be related to Dumbledores - maybe his mother was > daughter or granddaughter to one of them? > Potioncat: Sorry, I got lost at this point. Could you explain? From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 12:17:29 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:17:29 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116692 I'm starting a new thread to get this topic away from Snape, and to see if we can keep a discussion going about Minerva. Let's look at Hogwarts. We have a incredibly sarcastic, even some say, sadistic Potions Master. And quite a few think that person and the Deputy get along just fine. We neither know, nor agree on, whether she knows just how mean he is. For one year we had the goofy Lockhart as DADA. I don't know about you, but I thought he was a little creepy. Yet Harry was assigned detention with Lockhart for at least 4 hours, alone late at night. It was at Lockhart's request, but it was the Deputy who assigned it for an illegal use of a magic car. What was she thinking? She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. So, what do we think of this stern-but-fair teacher? Potioncat From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 12:49:36 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:49:36 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116693 kelsey wrote: " And I guess that's why I can't see Harry lying, cheating, stealing, using unforgivable curses, putting bullets in the head of evildoers and sleeping soundly." Del replies : Hum. While I agree that Harry has a very good core, I also think that he's shown he can do some of those things without too much remorse. Lying : he does it pretty often. In OoP, he lied to his friends about why he stopped the Occlumency lessons, for example, and he lied about practicing it. In CoS, he lied right in the face of DD about having nothing troubling him, while at the same time thinking of half a dozen things really troubling him. In GoF, he lied to his friends and to Hagrid about having figured out the Egg clue. He might sometimes feel a bit remorseful about it at the moment he does it, but it usually doesn't prevent him from sleeping soundly. Cheating : he copies Hermione's homework. In my book, that's cheating. And he has no remorse about it. Stealing : I can't remember him stealing, but I do remember that he helped and supported Hermione when she stole the ingredients for the Polyjuice potion from Snape's office. He had no remorse about it. Using Unforgivable curses : he didn't manage it, he didn't have what it takes (thankfully !), but he had every *intention* to Crucio Bellatrix. He also fantasized once about Crucioing Snape. And he still hasn't shown any remorse over either his fantasy or his attempt. Putting bullets in people's heads : I guess you mean using AK ;-) ? I agree on that one : I don't see him using the very thing that killed his mother and made him an orphan. Except maybe on LV, if he was somehow accidently taught how to do it. But after the fiasco of the Crucio, and considering what it takes morally to train into using the Ak, I don't see Harry willingly getting himself trained to AK anyone, not even LV. (But on the other hand, if he somehow convinced himself that this is the right track, then I don't see him having any remorse over it.) Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 29 13:25:50 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:25:50 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116696 Kelsey: > > Let me clarify my definition of a goody-two-shoes or 'good' in > > general (which may be different from someone else???s > > definition). 'Good' means that he???s pure of heart, on the side > > of good (i.e. opposed to evil), has the best of intentions for > > the greater good, or he???s for good morals and what???s right. Geoff: > I think your definition is where the problem lies. I don't know > whether you are a contributor from the US but, in UK terms, "goody > two shoes" is normally used as a derogatory term of description. It > is someone who is too "squeaky clean", too "nice" to be true, if > you get my drift. > > If I was told I was a "goody two shoes", I think I would be quite > irritated and annoyed. SSSusan: Same reaction I had as well, Geoff. "Goody two-shoes" is a derogatory term in the U.S. as well. If anyone would have had that particular label applied to them, it would have been Hermione or Percy--someone who's inclined to abide by rules just for rules' sake, NOT someone who's got a good heart and always seeks the altruistic action, for instance. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 29 13:48:33 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:48:33 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116697 Potioncat: > I'm starting a new thread to get this topic away from Snape, and to > see if we can keep a discussion going about Minerva. > > For one year we had the goofy Lockhart as DADA. I don't know about > you, but I thought he was a little creepy. Yet Harry was assigned > detention with Lockhart for at least 4 hours, alone late at night. > It was at Lockhart's request, but it was the Deputy who assigned it > for an illegal use of a magic car. What was she thinking? > > She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden > Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around > the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. > > So, what do we think of this stern-but-fair teacher? SSSusan: That she's one tough cookie...who expects her students to toe the line or experience a character-building consequence! I think she wants tough cookie students as well, *especially* from her Gryffindors whom she assumes to be brave anyway. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 29 14:11:10 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:11:10 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I can see Pippin's idea that Snape broke it with wandless magic coming to light.In fact I may find it likely. If Pippin reads this post, I just want to ask her to clarify. Do you think Snape performed it wandlessly intentionally or he just did it because he was so angry over Pensieve accident?< > Pippin: Oh, definitely intentional. Snape wouldn't last long as a spy if he could be provoked into doing wandless magic accidentally. I don't think he was feeling anger at the time as much as the urge to pounce. Harry was just too good a target, as in: "Potter, if you think it's safe to abuse my confidence and then turn your back on me, you are mistaken." If you think about it, Harry sticking his head into a pensieve while in Snape's office was awfully dumb, even if it had been his own thoughts in there. AFAWK, while his mind was lost in thought, his body was still in the office, totally vulnerable. *Anybody* could have walked in -- Filch, Umbridge, even Lucius. In that case, Harry would have suffered a lot more than being thrown onto the floor and having a jar smash behind him. Pippin who thinks most wizards must know better than to stick their heads in someone else's pensieve From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 14:30:03 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:30:03 -0000 Subject: wandless magic was Re: - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116701 > Pippin: > > Oh, definitely intentional. Snape wouldn't last long as a spy if he > could be provoked into doing wandless magic accidentally. I > don't think he was feeling anger at the time as much as the urge > to pounce. Harry was just too good a target, as in: > "Potter, if you think it's safe to abuse my confidence and then turn your back on me, you are mistaken." Potioncat: (Who hopes this isn't breaking a vow.) I think this is an interesting point of view. Sort of moving from did Snape do it? to why did he really do it? And we have seen Snape use wandless magic before, so it wouldn't be out of character. Pippin: > If you think about it, Harry sticking his head into a pensieve while > in Snape's office was awfully dumb, even if it had been his own > thoughts in there. AFAWK, while his mind was lost in thought, his > body was still in the office, totally vulnerable. *Anybody* could > have walked in -- Filch, Umbridge, even Lucius. In that case, > Harry would have suffered a lot more than being thrown onto the > floor and having a jar smash behind him. Potioncat: A very good point. I still wonder at DD for not being sterner with Harry the very first time something like this happened. Too bad it wasn't McGonagall with her "character building consequences"* who caught him. (*quoting description from SSSusan in a totally different post.) > Pippin > who thinks most wizards must know better than to stick their > heads in someone else's pensieve Potioncat: Who suddenly remembers being a child and using a collandar as a knight's helmet. (Sorry, a collandar is always what I picture when I see the word Pensieve although of course, it wouldn't work at all.) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 29 14:52:43 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:52:43 -0000 Subject: How much do the DE kids know? (was Crabbe as potential job applicant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116702 > > Dungrollin previously: > > This has got me thinking about how much the DE kids at Hogwarts > > are told by their parents. Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle and Nott were > > all at the graveyard, all mentioned by name by Voldy, all in the > > inner circle, and all have kids at Hogwarts in Harry's year. > > Did they tell their kids all about it? > > > > Could some of Draco's anger at the end of OotP be that Daddy > > being chucked in the slammer was the first time he actually > > knew for *sure* that LV was back? > > > Juli: > I'm pretty sure Lucius told Draco LV was back. In the train back > to London at the end of GoF Malfoy says something like this "Now > that the Dark Lord is back the Mudbloods will be the first to die, > or the second since Diggory was the first" then Fred, George, Ron, > Harry all cast spells on them (Malfoy, Goyle and Crabbe). > > I don't know for sure how much the kids are told but they seem to > know the headlines. If I were Lucius I wouldn't tell Draco too > much since he gloats in front of Harry quite frequently and I > don't think it's in the DE interest if Harry knows what they are > doing. > > Just a thought. Dungrollin again: But Draco wouldn't have seen his father between the graveyard debacle and being on the train at the end of GoF, he was at Hogwarts the whole time. And given the whispering that starts between Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle at the end of year feast when DD says that Cedric was killed by Voldemort, I'd say it's a fair bet that Lucius didn't owl Draco the morning after the last task with 'Guess what I did last night... Go on! You'll *never* guess...' On the train, the only information we're sure that Malfoy Crabbe and Goyle have is from DD. I just wonder how much their fathers filled them in on the truth when they got home for the summer. It's just that, if Draco were sure that LV was back, wouldn't he be taunting Harry about it as much as possible? Either Draco and co. learned a lot of self-restraint (and Draco earned his father's confidence in a way that he hadn't before CoS), and kept *very* quiet about what they knew throughout their fifth year, or Lucius wasn't telling. Oh - while I'm at it, another thing... Assuming DoubleAgent!Snape - couldn't a snide comment (which I'm sure Draco wouldn't be able to resist) to someone about 'that idiot Potter having *remedial potions* alone with Snape in the evenings' cause a bit of concern in certain circles? Dungrollin - who is sick and tired of a certain statistical program crashing just before she saves. From hpfgu_elves at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 29 15:08:05 2004 From: hpfgu_elves at yahoo.co.uk (hpfgu_elves) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:08:05 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Off-topic Posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116703 Greetings from Hexquarters! Just a quick reminder that off-topic posts are not permitted on this list. We require that posts to the main list make a canon point and discuss the works or words of JK Rowling. We have an entire HPFGU-OTChatter list for off-topic posts. It's 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 For further information, check out our posting guidelines at www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin/ We realise that the upcoming US elections are on the minds of many of our list members. Please take any off-topic discussions over to OTC and do keep in mind that the rules of politeness also apply there (as discussions on politics can sometimes get heated). Thanks! The List Administration Team From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 15:19:35 2004 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:19:35 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116704 > Potioncat: > She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden > Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around > the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. > I don't remember, did MM know Hagrid was going to split them up? I always blamed Hagrid for that one. I wouldn't have a problem sending four kids off at night into the Forbidden Forest *with Hagrid*. From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 15:26:08 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:26:08 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages and Accidental/Wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116705 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > LisaMarie wrote: > > > > Magic and languages. This makes me wonder: Are there language > barriers in the magical world? Are the spells universal (read: > accessible to users of any language), or are they language-specific? > An example may help me illustrate my question. I'll use Bill Weasley. > > Christopher> > Carol responds: > I think Christopher (along with Geoff in his response) has pretty much > covered the "language of magic" as a lingua franca of sorts from early > Christian times, or even pre-Christian early Roman times, to the > present. But the Egyptian curses that Bill is breaking predate both > Christianity and the Romans. They would have to be recorded in > heiroglyphic form, if recorded at all, and the spoken language would > most likely have been Coptic or some earlier form of Egyptian. Which > brings us back to Lisa Marie's question about Bill: Can he break the > curses using the Latin/Aramaic hypbrid language used in the modern > spells? Or would he have to know the countercurses in the original > languages? Obviously we can't answer the question definitively, but > what does anyone think and why? > LisaMarie returns: Carol- Christopher and I took our discussion off-list, but one of the conclusions we came to is that there *must* be some underlying magic force or power (or at least we think so), and that the "magic words," in whatever language, only help the user to tap into that power, instead of the words themselves producing some magical effect. Of course, we don't have conclusive canon on this subject (AFAIK), so we could be totally off, but there you go. :) I also think that the instances of "accidental" or "wandless" magic could add to this idea of an underlying force, since they nearly always relate to a wizard under extreme stress/danger/emotion or to a wizard who is really powerful. (Forgive me for not using actual references to the locatons of my examples, but my books are at home and I'm in my classroom. Sorry.) Harry is our best example of "accidental" magic, and the list is extensive: growing his hair back; getting on the school roof; making the glass disappear at the zoo; blowing up Aunt Marge. All of these were magical acts, and, AFAWK, Harry did all of these things accidentally, at times of extreme emotion or need. Indeed, the first three events occured before Harry even knew he was a wizard! So, needless to say, there were no words or spells spoken, but the magic occured, just the same. (JKR also gives us the example of Neville, distressed by being dropped out of a window, performes or possesses magic that saves him from injury. I expect that most wizarding children show these tendencies, displaying the fact that they possess magical powers without their using spells.) The wandless magic is, to me, an intriguing part of this investigation. (As I mentioned earlier, I am 20 miles away from my books, and, being a Muggle, am unable to Summon them to me, so memory will have to serve.) I remember two examples of wandless magic, both coming from PoA. The first occurs during the Shreiking Shack scene, when Snape conjures ropes (to tie Lupin?) and then, using his non-wand hand, /clicks his fingers/ and controls the ropes, without his wand. Now, I believe that Snape is a powerful wizard and find it easy to believe that he is powerful enough to perform some magic without his wand. (I wonder if this has anything to do with his "foolish wand- waving" comment in Harry's first year Potions class. Hmmmm.) The second occurance of wandless magic is also in PoA, but much earlier and by a much more obscure character, and consequently is much more interesting to me. In the chapter when Harry goes to the Leaky Cauldron (shoddy reference, sorry), the inn-keeper, Tom, /clicks his fingers/ to make a fire in Harry's room. Hagrid and Hermione both also conjure fires (in PS/SS), but use wands to do so. What's with all this /finger clicking/?!? Of course, these examples /prove/ nothing, but I think they go a long way to contribute to the idea that magic is a force, whether within the wizard or existing as an outside force (probably both, I think), and not just the result of some carefully spoken and employed words or phrases. Have fun "Unfogging" this post!! LisaMarie, hoping that everyone hasn't fallen asleep and/or sworn to stop reading her posts! From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 16:03:45 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:03:45 -0000 Subject: "Pensieve": was "wandless magic" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116706 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Who suddenly remembers being a child and using a collandar as a > knight's helmet. (Sorry, a collandar is always what I picture when > I see the word Pensieve although of course, it wouldn't work at all.) LisaMarie muses: I wondered if I was the only one who thought of the Pensieve looking a lot like the dish I use to strain my spagetti! Seriously, the etymology of Pensieve has always interested me. First, it looks like "pensive," meaning "deep in thought." Then, you can also see the "sieve" part, bringing to mind the kitchen implement: a basin full of small holes. So, we combine the two and have the "Pensieve," a basin to hold thoughts that one wishes to guard, to delay, or ?to consider objectively? ... Interesting. From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 13:25:23 2004 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:25:23 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116707 potioncat wrote: > > For one year we had the goofy Lockhart as DADA. I don't know about > you, but I thought he was a little creepy. Yet Harry was assigned > detention with Lockhart for at least 4 hours, alone late at night. > It was at Lockhart's request, but it was the Deputy who assigned it > for an illegal use of a magic car. What was she thinking? > Tammy replies: I think she thought that Harry and Ron didn't really mean any harm, nor did they do any harm (after all, the muggles were Obliviated, and the tree is perfectly fine and Ron's right, it did do more damage to them anyhow). And I also think that MM knows that Lockhart, while borish and irritating, is harmless. I also suspect that she knows what Harry thinks of Lockhart and that having to spend 4 hours with Lockhart was indeed a hellish punishment. MM has her own little sadistic streak I think, deep down in :P potioncat wrote: > She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden > Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around > the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. Tammy replies: I think that she, like Dumbledore, trusts Hagrid completely. She knows they are perfectly safe in Hagrid's company. Beyond that I suspect that Dumbledore may have planted this detention in her head, Dumbledore probably wanted Harry to know a few of the things that were revealed in the forest (but then again, I believe in the idea of Dumbledore leading Harry into all of these dangers to prepare him to face Voldemort) > > So, what do we think of this stern-but-fair teacher? > Tammy replies: personally, I think MM rocks. Nothing gets by her, she'll make a very fitting Headmistress someday. Like Dumbledore, there is little that goes on in the castle that she doesn't know about. -Tammy From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Fri Oct 29 16:24:47 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:24:47 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116708 > Juli(e) adds: > > I don't think the Occlumency incident affected DD's trust in Snape. DD > was disappointed that Snape couldn't overcome his animosity toward > James and approach Harry as a separate person in his own right. Had > Snape done so, he might have recognized Harry's disappointment in > James' behavior, rather than simply assuming Harry would react just > like James. And the Occlumency lessons might have been salvaged > despite Harry's misplaced curiosity. > > Still, there was no betrayal of trust in Snape's failure. It was just > human failure, which DD should have foreseen as a possible > outcome. (I won't say probable, only because DD couldn't have > foreseen Harry's violation of Snape's privacy, which changed the > dynamics of the situation.) And while DD's told Harry before that > he completely trusts Snape, pressing the point wouldn't achieve > much while Harry is emotionally distraught over Sirius's death. > catkind wrote: I think that the way DD trusts people is one of his greatest strengths. He trusts Sirius again after the Prank; he trusts Hagrid when noone else does. He chooses to trust Snape despite his dubious history, and Snape has become a strong weapon on DD's side. Admittedly, Snape has failed his trust with the Occlumency, and is hopefully feeling properly guilty about is - I sincerely doubt DD will stop trusting him because of it, and suspect it will only make him more loyal. kmc adds: The failure of the Occlumency is due to a trust issue but Harry is the guilty party here not Snape? Harry knows what the Pensive is used for and knows that Snape is putting memories in it that he does not want Harry to see. When Snape is called away from his office, Snape trusts Harry not to invade his privacy. Harry betrayed that trust. JKR has only shown us one of the memories that Snape put in the Pensive. What if it had been something different than a childhood memory of Snape's? What if Snape had put memories of what the order is doing to combat Voldemort in the Pensive? Snape knows that Harry has not been practicing. Snape is actually quite friendly to Harry during the lessons. He does not use the knowledge gained through the lessons when he is ridiculing Harry during potions. Snape even gives Harry some instruction on what to do to learn Occlumency. The skills are similar to fighting off the Impervius Curse, emotions get in the way, emptying the mind helps. Snape also tells Harry that he is wasting time and energy "yelling". Occlumency is training the mind. You cannot demonstrate it just like you cannot demonstrate relaxation techniques. But IMO they are similar, I use relaxation techniques to control my Asthma but I cannot teach my sister to do them. She cannot block thinking about her to-do list just like Harry cannot block his resentment of going to Snape's office for these lessons. In addition to Harry, I think Sirius planted the seed for the failure. Sirius plants the seed of mistrust in the kitchen at Grimmauld Place. If Sirius had taken a positive stance on the lessons, such as, telling Harry that Professor Snape needs to be really good at Occlumency because of his work for the Order... but that what's makes the books so good is that JKR has created believable characters and realistic storyline. It allows us to discuss the results of choices because we can discuss the what-ifs. kmc From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 16:27:48 2004 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:27:48 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116710 Potioncat: > I'm starting a new thread to get this topic away from Snape, and to > see if we can keep a discussion going about Minerva. LisaMarie Well done! I love McGonagall; she's really a great character, and I hope we'll find out some more about her in books 6 & 7. Potioncat: > For one year we had the goofy Lockhart as DADA. I don't know about > you, but I thought he was a little creepy. Yet Harry was assigned > detention with Lockhart for at least 4 hours, alone late at night. > It was at Lockhart's request, but it was the Deputy who assigned it > for an illegal use of a magic car. What was she thinking? LisaMarie: Well, while we don't *know* what she was thinking, I would like to venture a guess: I believe she was thinking that Lockhart was an idiot. I'ts been a while since I read CoS, but I seem to remember that she directed quite a few barbs at him, and not the playful, friendly kind. I got the impression that she (and not only she) didn't think much of Lockhart, but I never got the impression that she thought he was "creepy." I don't think that she saw Harry's 4 hours with Lockhart as a danger; merely a deprivation of free time, a just punishment for his actions. Potioncat: > She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden > Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around > the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. LisaMarie: On this one, I think she trusted Hagrid (maybe not as implicitly as DD did) to take care of the children. Maybe she thought the Forbidden Forest late at night would scare away their desires to wander the grounds?! Potioncat: > So, what do we think of this stern-but-fair teacher? LisaMarie: I think she's awesome. (I'd say she's "brilliant," but I'm an American; we're not allowed to say things that sound that cool. :) Really, the more JKR expands MM's character and role, the more I love her. I especially loved her appearance at Grimmauld Place in her Muggle best! She's a great HoH (IMO), and an excellent person to watch over the Trio. After all, they get miles of leway from DD and bitter disdain from Snape; SOMEONE has to treat them like everybody else, right? :) From moochy4ro at hotmail.com Fri Oct 29 12:15:48 2004 From: moochy4ro at hotmail.com (Lucy) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:15:48 -0000 Subject: House elf ages (WasRe: Funny questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116711 Tonks: > I don't think that Winky's mother and grandmother are still alive... A house-elf serves their whole life, so her mom and grandy are gone. She just uses the word *is* incorrectly. What she really means is *what would they say if they knew*... sort of like the expression we use *they would turn over in their grave if they knew*. > How long do you think house elves live? just a random question. Kreacher is old but how old? and how much longer is he going to go on living? Dobby has been with the Malfoys for a while. is winky still quite young? Lucy From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 16:36:50 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:36:50 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages and Accidental/Wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116712 LisaMarie wrote: I remember two examples of wandless magic, both coming from PoA. The first occurs during the Shreiking Shack scene, when Snape conjures ropes (to tie Lupin?) and then, using his non-wand hand, /clicks his fingers/ and controls the ropes, without his wand. snip > The second occurance of wandless magic is also in PoA, but much earlier and by a much more obscure character, and consequently is much more interesting to me. In the chapter when Harry goes to the Leaky Cauldron (shoddy reference, sorry), the inn-keeper, Tom, /clicks his fingers/ to make a fire in Harry's room. snip Potioncat: There is also at least two in SS/PS. Quirrell hexes Harry's broom and Snape counter-hexes it. And from the way it's happening, I assume no one else (characters) understands what is going on. From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Fri Oct 29 16:46:43 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:46:43 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116713 > Dungrollin again: > Yes, we do agree there, but I'll come back to my original point, > which was that if DD or MM had been present in any of the > situations I mentioned above ? e.g. when Snape evanesco-ed > Harry's potion, I think they would have said `Steady on! > That's not cricket!' (Quidditch somehow doesn't seem to > have the right connotations for that phrase...) > kmc writes: Snape did not set the tone for their relationship Harry did. Harry assumes that his scar burns on the first night at Hogwarts because Snape is staring at him. In Harry's first potions class, Harry replies with his "ask Hermione" statement. Harry doesn't even consider any other person of trying to steal the stone except Snape. Harry snubs Draco on the train when they meet. Draco is a Slytherin and has a DE father. Harry takes potions with the Slytherins so natural Snape is going to be tougher on Harry than Draco. Even though he evanesco-ed the potion, does that mean he really gave Harry a zero or just told the class that Harry got a zero? I know Harry thinks Dumbledore made Snape change his the potion grade but again that is Harry's viewpoint. IMO Harry's potion grade is truely the mark that Snape assigns. During the second term, Snape knows Harry is the OWLS matter not the potion class grade. DD has known since Harry's first year that he and Voldemort have a mental link and eventually Harry will have to learn Occlumency from Snape. Could the very public "zeros" Harry receives in class be a set up for the "remedial potions" cover story? kmc From karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com Fri Oct 29 17:04:11 2004 From: karen.e.mcconnell at lmco.com (kmcbears1) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:04:11 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's & the Dark Mark (was: DE kids) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116714 How much do Narcissa and Draco know about Lucius activities? Did Draco every meet Voldemort when he was a baby? Have Narcissa and Bellatrix spent some quality time catching up on things? Does Narcissa have a dark mark like her sister? The mark is back so unless Lucius wear's long sleeved night shirts like Snape I am sure Narcissa has seen it. Question is has Draco? I really like the thought behind the Malfoy & Nott rejected scene on JKR's web site. Unlike the OotP families, the DE children seem to know each other before Hogwarts. (Draco introduces Crabbe & Goyle on the 1st train ride. He also knows Ron's last name.) What did the DEs do during the years of peace? Attend parties at the Malfoy's. For that matter, do the wives socialize with each other. Did any of the dead DEs have childern and what happened to them? While I am looking forward to the next 2 books, I am really hoping JKR writes that 8th book so we get to see all the background material left out of the series. - kmc From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 17:04:22 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:04:22 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116715 > Del replies : > Hum. While I agree that Harry has a very good core, I also think that > he's shown he can do some of those things without too much remorse. snip. > Stealing : I can't remember him stealing, but I do remember that he > helped and supported Hermione when she stole the ingredients for the > Polyjuice potion from Snape's office. He had no remorse about it. Alla: I don't think he should feel any remorse about it(or at least not much) That is the case of good intentions excusing formal breaking the rules, IMO. They were trying to catch the real Heir of Slytherin. If for that, they stole ingredients from Snape's office, wich I doubt that Snape would have given them,even if they asked nicely, it is very excusable in my book. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 29 17:04:33 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:04:33 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages and Accidental/Wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116716 > Potioncat: > There is also at least two in SS/PS. > Quirrell hexes Harry's broom and Snape counter-hexes it. And from the way it's happening, I assume no one else (characters) understands what is going on.< Quirrell uses wandless magic to bind Harry in ch 17 PS/SS: == Quirrell snapped his fingers. Ropes sprang out of thin air and wrapped themselves tightly around Harry. == Much more interesting from a conspiracy theorist's point of view, he then uses wandless magic to try to kill Harry: == Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face-- == I used to think that was a Flint...but Sirius's death put a whole new complexion on it. Speaking of complexions... the skin-blistering which stops Quirrell is also wandless. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 17:07:49 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:07:49 -0000 Subject: Who did it? Was:Re: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116718 Potioncat: snip. > OK, so to the best of my ability this will be my last post on this > topic...and I must state firmly....Mark Evans did it! Alla: I disagree. I think Snape twins did it. :) They came to the lesson under invisibility cloak and decided to get his father in trouble again. :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 17:14:57 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:14:57 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116719 >>> kmc writes: Snape did not set the tone for their relationship Harry did. Harry assumes that his scar burns on the first night at Hogwarts because Snape is staring at him. In Harry's first potions class, Harry replies with his "ask Hermione" statement. Harry doesn't even consider any other person of trying to steal the stone except Snape. Potioncat: As one of the staunchest of Snape's supporters, I must say, I disagree. (Quick, someone pick Alla and SSSusan off the floor) Although Harry's flinching at the dinner, and his cheek in the first class may have confirmed Snape's opinion of him. >>>kmc: Even though he evanesco-ed the potion, does that mean he really gave Harry a zero or just told the class that Harry got a zero? I know Harry thinks Dumbledore made Snape change his the potion grade but again that is Harry's viewpoint. Potioncat: I do not think DD made Snape change the marks either. I still wonder if McGonagall smiles at Harry's discomfort at having Snape for a teacher, or at Severus' discomfort at having Potter for a student. >>>kmc: Could the very public "zeros" Harry receives in class be a set up for the "remedial potions" cover story? Potioncat: At least one of the zeroes came after the remedial lessons were terminated. I do think Snape knows exactly how Harry and everyone else is doing in Potions. He expects Neville to pass OWLs (at least that is my interpretation of his speech.) He appears to give Hermione the appropriate grades, since she out scores Draco. Although we don't know if Draco's marks are inflated at all. And at the end of year one,both Ron and Harry make good marks in all their classes. Of course, my definition of "good grades" and my teenagers' definitions of "good grades" don't come close to the same thing! From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 17:19:20 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:19:20 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116721 -- > Alla: > > I don't think he should feel any remorse about it(or at least not > much) That is the case of good intentions excusing formal breaking > the rules, IMO. > > They were trying to catch the real Heir of Slytherin. If for that, > they stole ingredients from Snape's office, wich I doubt that Snape > would have given them,even if they asked nicely, it is very excusable > in my book. Potioncat: I agree. Stealing the supplies was a very appropriate, Slytherin thing to do and nothing to feel remorse for. However, had what's his name (Crabbe or Goyle) been injured when the firecracker exploded, that would be a different story. Potioncat, who needs to go back and read the earlier posts in this thread. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 18:19:31 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:19:31 -0000 Subject: Time-Travel Again? (Of course we can change the past) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116724 "Richard Jones" wrote: > It is clear from the POA that under JKR's theory we can change > history. True, time-traveling Harry and Hermione didn't change > history in the POA ? they just participated in events twice and so > the events came out differently than if they had not time-traveled > and participated in them only once. But we are not limited to just > that ? Hermione tells Harry that McGonagall told her that "loads of > [time-traveling wizards and witches] ended up killing their past or > future selves by mistake" (p. 399). That is definitely changing > history: the "earlier" wizards have been eliminated from history by > time-travel events. How can you go back in time and kill your > former self without changing the past? Finwitch: Not former self! The former self that doesn't *know* is the one killing the future self. (honest, why would ANYONE attempt to slay oneself, and even so much as go to the past for it?) Kim again: -- JKR sets > the rules, and that has to be our starting point for thinking about > time-travel. > > Also notice that in the POA time-traveling Harry wanted to run out > of the forest when he and time-traveling Hermione were hiding there > to get the Invisibility Cloak (p. 405) and to get Wormtail (p. > 408). Hermione had to grab and stop him. She only expressed > concern about being seen, but the fact remains that Harry would have > changed the history that got them to that point if he had done what > he wanted to do. Finwitch: JKR sets the rules, of course - still, as we go with Harry2 - we do nothing but witness the exact same events as with Harry1, only from different perspective. It's the interpretation that changes. No, you see - it's NOT about predetermination or choices able to change history. You DON'T predetermine something that has happened. If you go back in time, that self was there when you lived it the first time. You just didn't know it until you went back. All the what if Harry didn't go to "see his dad" - which actually was he himself - he *did* go. He went, because he made the choice to go, yes. We make the choices, yes. We make them based on who we are, what we know and how we interpret our circumstances. You see, the choices Harry made - go or not - were free because Harry didn't *know* he would make them beforehand, only as he made them. But, as things were, Harry's CHOICES did not change - only his interpretation. And even if someone goes back in order to change history, well - I suppose then someone else would go and change it back to the way it was... and so it didn't *really* change at all.. It's a matter of PoV. Harry under Dementor-attack manages a misty Patronus to hold off the Dementors long enough that Harry on the other side of the lake realises what was *really* going on to cast the corporeal Patronus that chases the Dementors off. Harry under Dementor attack - hearing about his parents dying - interprets Harry across the lake as being his father. Harry who IS there, knows better and casts the Patronus. What you need to do, is taking PoV outside Harrys. Set the observer view as that of the Giant Squid in the lake or the Sun above them all, just to see the whole thing without trying to follow one Harry after another. And, as I've said before, it's about acceptance. They *could* have made different choices. The trick is to accept that they did NOT make those what-if choices and stop asking what-ifs about things that never happened. Finwitch From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Oct 29 18:23:48 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:23:48 -0000 Subject: Magic/Languages and Accidental/Wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > LisaMarie wrote: > > I remember two examples of wandless magic, both coming from PoA. > The first occurs during the Shreiking Shack scene, when Snape > conjures ropes (to tie Lupin?) and then, using his non-wand > hand, /clicks his fingers/ and controls the ropes, without his > wand. > snip > > The second occurance of wandless magic is also in PoA, but much > earlier and by a much more obscure character, and consequently is > much more interesting to me. In the chapter when Harry goes to the > Leaky Cauldron (shoddy reference, sorry), the inn-keeper, > Tom, /clicks his fingers/ to make a fire in Harry's room. > snip > > Potioncat: > There is also at least two in SS/PS. > Quirrell hexes Harry's broom and Snape counter-hexes it. And from > the way it's happening, I assume no one else (characters) > understands what is going on. Renee: A third example from PoA: Lupin conjuring up 'a handful of flames' in his palm after the lights in the Hogwarts express have gone out. He doesn't pull his wand until later, when he drives the Dementor away, so this looks like wandless magic, too. From patnkatng at cox.net Fri Oct 29 19:45:04 2004 From: patnkatng at cox.net (Katrina) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:45:04 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116726 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > > Becki, Hester, Susan > The physical act is not when fertilization takes place. It is usually later. I will let your imaginations take over the when of the actual fertilization. So is the 40 weeks from the physical act or the fertilization? > > John Katrina: Actually, you calculate 40 weeks from the first day of the last menstrual period. Conception is supposed to take place approximately 14 days after that date. (So, for calculation purposes, one is 2 weeks along at the point of conception.) The actual duration of a 40-week pregnancy is 38 weeks. Getting back on topic, I don't think Harry's conception date ever crossed Voldemort's mind. I was under the impression that the time between the Fidelius Charm and Wormtail's treachery was very short. I think the date was most likely the "first opportune moment." BTW, where does it say, exactly, that the attack took place on Halloween? I can't seem to find it. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 29 21:52:57 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:52:57 -0000 Subject: How much do the DE kids know? (was Crabbe as potential job applicant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116729 Dungrollin: > Oh - while I'm at it, another thing... Assuming DoubleAgent!Snape - couldn't a snide comment (which I'm sure Draco wouldn't be able to resist) to someone about 'that idiot Potter having *remedial potions* alone with Snape in the evenings' cause a bit of concern in certain circles?< Pippin: If you want to give yourself a headache, just try to figure out which secrets Dumbledore is keeping from Voldemort, as opposed to which ones he is *pretending* to keep from Voldemort. The occlumency lessons are bound to be in the second category, since the Dark Lord would know if he was being blocked. I imagine Voldie had his own reasons for wanting the lessons to take place. " You are to rid your mind of all emotion every night before sleep--empty it, make it blank and calm, you understand? [...] And be warned, Potter...*I shall know * if you have not practiced..." (emphasis mine) Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Oct 29 22:08:46 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:08:46 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katrina" wrote: Katrina: > Getting back on topic, I don't think Harry's conception date ever > crossed Voldemort's mind. I was under the impression that the time > between the Fidelius Charm and Wormtail's treachery was very short. > I think the date was most likely the "first opportune moment." > > BTW, where does it say, exactly, that the attack took place on > Halloween? I can't seem to find it. Geoff: Let the canon roar.... '"Now, yer mum an' dad were as good a witch an' wizard as I ever knew. Head Boy an' Girl at Hogwarts in their day! Suppose the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em on his side before.... probably knew they were too close ter Dumbledore ter wany anythin' ter do with the Dark Side. Maybe he thought he could persuade 'em... maybe he just wanted 'em outta the way. 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 ter yer house an' - an' -" Hagrid suddenly pulled out a very dirty spotted handkerchief and blew his nose with a noise like a foghorn. "Sorry," he said. "But it's that sad - knew yer mum an' dad, an' nicer people yeh couldn't find - anyway - You-Know-Who killed 'em...."' (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.45 UK edition) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 29 22:50:02 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:50:02 -0000 Subject: How much do the DE kids know? (was Crabbe as potential job applicant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116731 Dungrollin, previously: > Oh - while I'm at it, another thing... Assuming DoubleAgent!Snape - couldn't a snide comment (which I'm sure Draco wouldn't be able to resist) to someone about 'that idiot Potter having *remedial potions* alone with Snape in the evenings' cause a bit of concern in certain circles?< Pippin replied: If you want to give yourself a headache, just try to figure out which secrets Dumbledore is keeping from Voldemort, as opposed to which ones he is *pretending* to keep from Voldemort. The occlumency lessons are bound to be in the second category, since the Dark Lord would know if he was being blocked. I imagine Voldie had his own reasons for wanting the lessons to take place. " You are to rid your mind of all emotion every night before sleep--empty it, make it blank and calm, you understand? [...] And be warned, Potter...*I shall know * if you have not practiced..." (emphasis mine) Dungrollin again: Hang on hang on hang on... "I shall know if you have *not* practiced..." (change of emphasis mine) That doesn't mean he should automatically know when Harry is blocking him. "Shutting down the thoughts and feelings that contradict the lie..." (or something like that) doesn't mean sticking up a big pink neon flag saying `I'm not telling you the whole story'. That would rather defeat the object of the exercise, wouldn't it? Point me to the canon that suggests a Legilimens can *tell* he's (or she's) trying to read the mind of an Occlumens. Or perhaps this is yet another conspiracy theory I'm currently unaware of... Am I in need of elucidation, or enlightenment? Dungrollin From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 29 23:09:05 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:09:05 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116732 > > Dungrollin, previously: > > Yes, we do agree there, but I'll come back to my original point, > > which was that if DD or MM had been present in any of the > > situations I mentioned above ? e.g. when Snape evanesco-ed > > Harry's potion, I think they would have said `Steady on! > > That's not cricket!' (Quidditch somehow doesn't seem to > > have the right connotations for that phrase...) kmc responded: > Snape did not set the tone for their relationship Harry did. > Harry assumes that his scar burns on the first night at Hogwarts > because Snape is staring at him. In Harry's first potions class, > Harry replies with his "ask Hermione" statement. Harry doesn't > even consider any other person of trying to steal the stone except > Snape. > > Harry snubs Draco on the train when they meet. Draco is a > Slytherin > and has a DE father. Harry takes potions with the Slytherins so > natural Snape is going to be tougher on Harry than Draco. Even > though he evanesco-ed the potion, does that mean he really gave > Harry a zero or just told the class that Harry got a zero? I know > Harry thinks Dumbledore made Snape change his the potion grade but > again that is Harry's viewpoint. > > IMO Harry's potion grade is truely the mark that Snape assigns. > During the second term, Snape knows Harry is the OWLS matter not > the potion class grade. DD has known since Harry's first year > that he and Voldemort have a mental link and eventually Harry will > have to learn Occlumency from Snape. Dungrollin: Sorry, but that was not the point I was trying to make - I've read enough discussion about this subject already, to know that I don't want to get caught up in it... The original question was what McGonagall thought or didn't think about Snape's fairness. Whose fault the state of the relationship between Harry and Snape is, was not the issue I was attempting to address. IMO McGonagall and Dumbledore know that Snape can be a bit partisan, but they don't see the full extent of his unfairness - that only manifests itself when the adults whose opinions matter to Snape are not present. I was suggesting that *had* McGonagall been present in the first potions lesson of OotP, (when Snape vanished the contents of Harry's cauldron, while allowing others who had made far worse mistakes to take samples up for marking,) *she* would have disapproved. Dungrollin From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Oct 29 23:23:43 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:23:43 EDT Subject: Wizarding World Elections?? Message-ID: <27.65347ffa.2eb42aff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116733 Since we've been on the topic of the elections I had a few questions. Has anyone noticed if the WW votes on anything? Is the MoM elected or appointed?? Any thoughts?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meidbh at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 23:26:05 2004 From: meidbh at yahoo.com (meidbh) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:26:05 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116734 Potioncat: "For one year we had the goofy Lockhart as DADA. I don't know about you, but I thought he was a little creepy. Yet Harry was assigned detention with Lockhart for at least 4 hours, alone late at night. It was at Lockhart's request, but it was the Deputy who assigned it for an illegal use of a magic car. What was she thinking?" LisaMarie: "I never got the impression that she thought he was "creepy." I don't think that she saw Harry's 4 hours with Lockhart as a danger; merely a deprivation of free time, a just punishment for his actions." Meidbh: I'm with Lisa Marie on this one. Lockhart was pretty transparent - immensely egotistical people often are. I'd have hoped that a no- nonsense sort like MM would have had Lockart on the first train out of there if she suspected he posed any danger to the students. Meidbh (who would rather a detention with the excruciating Lockhart any day over one with Umbridge - ouch!) From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Oct 29 23:33:06 2004 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:33:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizarding World Elections?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116735 In a message dated 10/29/2004 4:28:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, chnc1024 at AOL.COM writes: Since we've been on the topic of the elections I had a few questions. Has anyone noticed if the WW votes on anything? Is the MoM elected or appointed?? Any thoughts?? Sorry I forgot to sign this! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 23:56:11 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:56:11 -0000 Subject: Wizarding World Elections?? ..Ref.. a vote. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > In a message dated 10/29/2004 4:28:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, > chnc1024 at A... writes: > > Since we've been on the topic of the elections I had a few > questions. Has anyone noticed if the WW votes on anything? > Is the MoM elected or appointed?? Any thoughts?? > Sorry I forgot to sign this! > Chancie bboyminn: I believe there is a mention in 'Quidditch Through The Ages' of some one saying 'so-and-so wouldn't get my vote, if I had one that is'. Not a direct quote but close enough. My impression is that most, if not all, Ministry officials are appointed, but I think the general concensus and opinion of the population is polled or at least considered in making the appointment of the top officials. Populare opinion may not be an official vote, but it does represent a vote of confidence or no confidence, and it's difficult for a leader to lead without the confidence and indeed consent of the people. We really don't have much to go on, but I get the sense of a world that is ruled by committees. As a reference point, there is an old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. We see that the high court (Wizengamot sp?) is just a committee. In the pensieve scenes, Harry hears the court vote on the verdict and that implies a jury, but when we see Harry's own trial, we see that the vote is taken by a panel of judges. Also, defendants don't seem to have an advocate or lawyer to guard their rights and insure a fair trial. Indeed if Dumbledore hadn't shown up to speak on Harry's behalf, he would have likely been 'railroaded' in a second. There is a mention of a (I believe it's called) Wizard's Charter of Rights, but there doesn't seem to be anyone there to insure the Charter of Rights is enforced. In theory, this trial by a panel of judges seems like a good idea. The judges are experienced and knowledgable in the court procedure, and are there to insure that the accured gets a fair trial. But it's a bit of a conflict of interest when the people prosecuting you are also the people responsible for making sure you get a fair trial. And as we can see from Harry's case, the seemingly well intentioned courts have a very high potential for corruption and abuse. Just a few thoughts. steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 29 23:59:45 2004 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:59:45 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116737 >>> Dungrollin: > >snip> IMO McGonagall and Dumbledore know that Snape can be a bit partisan, but they don't see the full extent of his unfairness - that only manifests itself when the adults whose opinions matter to Snape are not present. I was suggesting that *had* McGonagall been present in the first potions lesson of OotP, (when Snape vanished the contents of Harry's cauldron, while allowing others who had made far worse mistakes to take samples up for marking,) *she* would have disapproved. Potioncat: I agree with you in theory. It's really hard to understand how either DD or McGonagall would approve of or even accept Snape if they really, really knew what he was like. Unless perhaps, they knew something more. Now, perhaps if they knew something about Snape that made them more accepting "under the circumstances" and "It's hard on the students, but they'll survive, Let's support Severus in this..." So either JKR believes that even in good schools, teachers can get away with bad behavior, or she knows DD and MM know something we don't. As for the example you give, it was mean. No arguing that. But we don't know that his potion was any better than the others...just that theirs came out differently. And to be honest, I could see McG telling someone not to bother turning the teapot with the ears in for marking. (Although it isn't in canon and it's complerely opinion.) But I think what confuses it for me, is that we do respect DD and McG and if they respect Snape...there must be something there. Potioncat, who hasn't argued both sides in the same post for a long time. From eeyore6771 at comcast.net Sat Oct 30 00:25:10 2004 From: eeyore6771 at comcast.net (Pat) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:25:10 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > > kmc adds: > The failure of the Occlumency is due to a trust issue but Harry is > the guilty party here not Snape? > > Harry knows what the Pensive is used for and knows that Snape is > putting memories in it that he does not want Harry to see. > When Snape is called away from his office, Snape trusts Harry not to > invade his privacy. Harry betrayed that trust. > > JKR has only shown us one of the memories that Snape put in the > Pensive. What if it had been something different than a childhood > memory of Snape's? What if Snape had put memories of what the order > is doing to combat Voldemort in the Pensive? Snape knows that Harry > has not been practicing. Snape is actually quite friendly to Harry > during the lessons. He does not use the knowledge gained through the > lessons when he is ridiculing Harry during potions. Snape even gives > Harry some instruction on what to do to learn Occlumency. [snipping] > In addition to Harry, I think Sirius planted the seed for the > failure. Sirius plants the seed of mistrust in the kitchen at > Grimmauld Place. If Sirius had taken a positive stance on the > lessons, such as, telling Harry that Professor Snape needs to be > really good at Occlumency because of his work for the Order... but > that what's makes the books so good is that JKR has created > believable characters and realistic storyline. It allows us to > discuss the results of choices because we can discuss the what-ifs. > > kmc Pat now: kmc, I wouldn't exactly call Snape friendly toward Harry during the Occlumency lessons, but you are right that he at least is trying to help Harry learn. And you make a good point that he doesn't use what he has learned of Harry's childhood against him in class. One can only hope that he really was touched by that on some level, just as Harry was when he snooped into Snape's memories--and yes, Harry was the one to break that trust. Though I have to wonder if Snape really trusted him to not peek or if he was just so distracted that he forgot that he was leaving his memories where Harry could see them. And I also agree that Sirius could have handled the whole thing better, thereby setting Harry up for success rather than failure. But our dear Sirius was just as full of resentment and hatred as Snape. They are alike in more ways than either would care to acknowledge. It's interesting that Harry is still blaming Snape for things going so wrong at the MoM, even after DD points out to him that Snape couldn't respond to his cryptic message because of Umbridge. Harry needs to get through his grief over Sirius before he can ever see anything positive in Snape--and I'm afraid that's going to be a while. Pat From ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 00:29:31 2004 From: ginnysthe1 at yahoo.com (ginnysthe1) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:29:31 -0000 Subject: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116739 Imamommy wrote: >Ok, for the sake of argument, we seem to see a lot of animagi transforming without wands. Firstly, when transforming back from animal form they can't use one. Secondly, McGonagal doesn't seem to use one. Thirdly, I can't ever remember a reference to Sirius using a wand to transform; how would he ever have transformed in Azkaban?< >I guess we have interpreted the text differently. I do think wands would be necessary to *become* an animagus, but not to use that power once you were one.< >So, until I have further evidence, I stand my ground.< Kim repsonds: I was standing on a lot shakier ground than you when I wrote that post and should have re-read the entire chapter, and even a couple before that, before I opened my keyboard mouth! My pitiful excuse is that I didn't have the book with me at the time. Now that I do, here's more proof that you're right: Ch. 18, Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, p. 354: Lupin says: "... took the best part of 3 years [for James, Sirius, and Peter] to work out how to do it... Animagus transformation can go horribly wrong, one reason the Ministry keeps a close watch on those attempting to do it ... Finally in our fifth year, they managed it. They could each turn into a different animal *at will.*" (emphasis mine) So I agree that canon does say that a wand isn't necessary for animagi to transform. It's canon via Lupin, but there's no reason to think he was being inaccurate. And there are other examples of wandless transformation as well, as you say. Actually I always thought that *not* needing a wand did make more sense, especially for one of the reasons that you pointed out (i.e. how would a rat, cat, etc. use a wand to change back into human form?), but it was just that the scene in the book (bolstered by the movie scene) implied to me that Peter had used a wand to transform himself. What still bothers me about the book version is that it's not an innate ability (not with those 3 animagi anyway) and yet it also doesn't require a wand or a potion. The movie scene also contradicts the book in another key aspect, but I guess that's a discussion for the movie list, which so far I've avoided joining. My head is spinning enough as it is ;-) Cheers, Kim From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 00:43:14 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:43:14 -0000 Subject: How much do the DE kids know? (was Crabbe as potential job applicant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116740 > Pippin replied: > > If you want to give yourself a headache, just try to figure out which secrets Dumbledore is keeping from Voldemort, as opposed to which ones he is *pretending* to keep from Voldemort. The occlumency lessons are bound to be in the second category, since the Dark Lord would know if he was being blocked. I imagine Voldie had his own reasons for wanting the lessons to take place. > > " You are to rid your mind of all emotion every night before sleep--empty it, make it blank and calm, you understand? [...] And be warned, Potter...*I shall know * if you have not practiced..." > (emphasis mine) > > > Dungrollin again: > > Hang on hang on hang on... > "I shall know if you have *not* practiced..." > (change of emphasis mine) > > That doesn't mean he should automatically know when Harry is blocking him. "Shutting down the thoughts and feelings that contradict the lie..." (or something like that) doesn't mean sticking up a big pink neon flag saying `I'm not telling you the whole story'. That would rather defeat the object of the exercise, wouldn't it?< Pippin again: Snape is not trying to bring Harry to the level of skill Snape has, which enables him to selectively block. His task is much simpler, "He wishes me to teach you how to close your mind to the Dark Lord." Harry is instructed to empty his mind of *all* emotions, not just those he doesn't want the Dark Lord to perceive. There is no attampt during the lessons to teach Harry to be selective -- Snape just tells him to block any way he can. Dungrollin: > Point me to the canon that suggests a Legilimens can *tell* he's (or she's) trying to read the mind of an Occlumens. > > Or perhaps this is yet another conspiracy theory I'm currently > unaware of... Am I in need of elucidation, or enlightenment? Pippin: No, at least I don't think so...my thought was that surely Voldemort will notice, just as Snape will, if it becomes more difficult to access Harry's mind. Pippin From patnkatng at cox.net Sat Oct 30 01:38:46 2004 From: patnkatng at cox.net (Katrina) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:38:46 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116742 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > > Let the canon roar.... > '"Now, yer mum an' dad were as good a witch an' wizard as I ever > knew. Head Boy an' Girl at Hogwarts in their day! Suppose the myst'ry > is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em on his side before.... > probably knew they were too close ter Dumbledore ter wany anythin' > ter do with the Dark Side. > Maybe he thought he could persuade 'em... maybe he just wanted 'em > outta the way. 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 ter yer house an' - an' -" > Hagrid suddenly pulled out a very dirty spotted handkerchief and blew > his nose with a noise like a foghorn. > "Sorry," he said. "But it's that sad - knew yer mum an' dad, an' > nicer people yeh couldn't find - anyway - > You-Know-Who killed 'em...."' > > (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.45 UK edition) Thanks Geoff, I was looking in the wrong chapter. I knew it was somewhere nearby. Katrina From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 30 02:13:37 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:13:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress References: Message-ID: <00f101c4be26$1151ba60$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 116744 > > Potioncat: > > She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden > > Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around > > the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. Feklar-- I think this episode always tainted MM to me. It wasn't just extreme, it was possibly sadistic and definitely reckless endangerment. The Forbidden Forest is forbidden for a reason--on its best day, it's full of dangerous creatures that are probably even beyond most seventh years' ability to handle. At the time in question, MM knew there was something killing powerful magical creatures in the forest and sent them in right at the time the killings were most likely to occur. Yeah, Hagrid was there, but even if they were all together, can you reasonably expect one man, even a half-giant, to protect four panicked kids? For all they knew it could have been a pack of rabid hippogryffs, could he shoot them all before one of the kids was hurt? Above and beyond that, who sends a bunch of eleven year olds out to see unicorns slaughtered? That's pretty sadistic, imo. When I first read the book and was following it as more of a fairy tale, this read to me as a fairy-tale-ization of the classic boarding school punishment story--instead of being beaten they were sent to the forbidden forest. But now the tone has changed, so we're left with what was clearly a reckless and irresponsible act. Feklar From apeiron at comcast.net Fri Oct 29 17:21:26 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:21:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic/Languages and Accidental/Wandless magic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041029172126.GD11839@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116745 On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 13:04:33 EDT, Pippin scribbled these curious markings: > == > Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by > instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face-- > == > Speaking of complexions... the skin-blistering which stops > Quirrell is also wandless. If I'm not mistaken, this same sort of pain-upon-touch also affects Harry at the end of GoF, when Voldemort briefly touches Harry's temple / cheek / scar (I don't remember which) with his finger. The fact that Quirrel was Quirrel!Voldemort at that time must have something to do with it. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From apeiron at comcast.net Sat Oct 30 02:01:31 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:01:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding World Elections?? In-Reply-To: <27.65347ffa.2eb42aff@aol.com> References: <27.65347ffa.2eb42aff@aol.com> Message-ID: <20041030020130.GB3137@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116746 On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 19:23:43 EDT, Chancie scribbled these curious markings: > > Since we've been on the topic of the elections I had a few > questions. Has anyone noticed if the WW votes on anything? > Is the MoM elected or appointed?? Any thoughts?? Ugh, anything to draw attention away from *that* off-topic thread. :) Perhaps we can get people away from that particular thread by making a lot of interesting posts in this one. :) As stated elsewhere, it does appear that at least the judicial system uses a collaborative voting system. There's also some discussion in the beginning of _Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them_ (yes, this time I'm sure that I'm citing the right book) of committees designed to establish the social status of different magical beings in the Wizarding World. None of these committees succeeded for various reasons -- but that's besides the point, IMO. The fact is that the Wizarding World does seem to be committee-oriented. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 02:25:40 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:25:40 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's & the Dark Mark (was: DE kids) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kmcbears1" wrote: > > How much do Narcissa and Draco know about Lucius activities? Did > Draco every meet Voldemort when he was a baby? Have Narcissa and > Bellatrix spent some quality time catching up on things? Does > Narcissa have a dark mark like her sister? > I Think Draco knows his father's a DE and he's proud of that. Since Narcissa and Bellatrix are related (cousins?) I guess they could spend time together specially since the rest of the family (Tonks, Sirius) is into the "good" side. I imagine their conversations: Who tortured who, who's a spy in the OoP... That would be kinda funny to listen. As for Narcissa having a dark mark, my bet is she doesn't, although she apparently supports the DEs, she's not one. > The mark is back so unless Lucius wear's long sleeved night shirts > like Snape I am sure Narcissa has seen it. Question is has Draco? > YEP, he's probably seen his daddy's mark > I really like the thought behind the Malfoy & Nott rejected scene on > JKR's web site. Unlike the OotP families, the DE children seem to > know each other before Hogwarts. (Draco introduces Crabbe & Goyle on > the 1st train ride. He also knows Ron's last name.) > Since Goyle, Crabbe, Lucius, Nott, Avery are all in the inner circle, they must at least be friends. I can't imagine them having pic-nics but maybe when their fathers were together discusing whatever evil they were up to the kids could be playing together. > What did the DEs do during the years of peace? Attend parties at the > Malfoy's. For that matter, do the wives socialize with each other. > Did any of the dead DEs have childern and what happened to them? > During the time LV was vapor in Albania, the DE that got away from Askaban by saying they were under imperius, kept their normal lifes, they got jobs, family and everything. I think they were pretending that they as the rest of the WW were happy that LV was finally gone. > While I am looking forward to the next 2 books, I am really hoping > JKR writes that 8th book so we get to see all the background material > left out of the series. > > - kmc I would like an 8th book also, but it's unlikely. JKR has said that after the 7th book she probably won't write anymore about Harry Potter, nor any prequels Juli From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 02:37:19 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:37:19 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: <00f101c4be26$1151ba60$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116748 Potioncat: > > > She also assigned 4 first-year students to go into the Forbidden > > > Forest in the middle of the night as detention for wandering around > > > the castle at night. Sort of fits the crime, but seems extreme. Feklar: > (Edited) > At the time in question, MM knew there was something killing > powerful magical creatures in the forest and sent them in right at the time > the killings were most likely to occur. Yeah, Hagrid was there, but even if > they were all together, can you reasonably expect one man, even a > half-giant, to protect four panicked kids? Above and beyond that, who sends a bunch of eleven year olds > out to see unicorns slaughtered? That's pretty sadistic, imo. Maybe it was Dumbledore's idea. I stick to my idea that he seems to know what's going to happen and he needed to give Harry some clues that LV was gathering strengh to get back. The question is, if the knew LV was in Quirell's turban why didn't he stopped him? Ever since the first time I read PS this has been on my mind. Right at the end when Ron and Hermione are about to send him an owl asking for help, he arrives and knows Harry's gone looking for the bad guy. And why else would he had explained Harry how the mirror of Erised worked? He *knew* Harry would need it to fulfill his task of saving the stone. Maybe it was all part of his training to finally defeat LV Juli From emhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 30 00:12:09 2004 From: emhutch at sbcglobal.net (Elizabeth Morgan) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:12:09 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116749 I always thought that it simply came down to upbringing. Pure-bloods like Snape and Malfoy=nothing. Muggle-born (or someone with a muggle obsessed parent *coughMrWeasleycough*)like Harry and Hermione= clothes on underneath. From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 16:21:44 2004 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:21:44 -0000 Subject: "Pensieve": was "wandless magic" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116750 LisaMarie wrote: > > Seriously, the etymology of Pensieve has always interested me. First, it looks > like "pensive," meaning "deep in thought." Then, you can also see the "sieve" > part, bringing to mind the kitchen implement: a basin full of small holes. So, > we combine the two and have the "Pensieve," a basin to hold thoughts that > one wishes to guard, to delay, or ?to consider objectively? ... Interesting. A sieve isn't just a collander, it's also a sifter (think baking cakes here:) So it's a device so you can sift through your thoughts. Sandy From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 30 06:02:32 2004 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:02:32 -0000 Subject: Animagus properties, Thestral guts (was Re: Is Harry a Metamorphmagus?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" wrote: > > So I agree that canon does say that a wand isn't necessary for > animagi to transform. It's canon via Lupin, but there's no reason to > think he was being inaccurate. And there are other examples of > wandless transformation as well, as you say. Actually I always > thought that *not* needing a wand did make more sense, especially for > one of the reasons that you pointed out (i.e. how would a rat, cat, > etc. use a wand to change back into human form?), but it was just > that the scene in the book (bolstered by the movie scene) implied to > me that Peter had used a wand to transform himself. What still > bothers me about the book version is that it's not an innate ability > (not with those 3 animagi anyway) and yet it also doesn't require a > wand or a potion. > imamommy: I don't quite know what it's like; maybe like gaining fluency in a foreign language, so that eventually the person can read, comprehend, speak and even think (and dream) in that language? But different. It seems to me that there is definitely a point where one *becomes* an animagus, but I wonder what must be done to get to that point. On a side note, do you think a person's animagus animal must always correspond with there patronus animal? James is the only person I remember knowing this about, but I can't think of any contradictions to this theory. Off this topic completely, if Thestrals are fleshless, do they have guts and, if so, what holds them in? If not, how do they digest the meat that they eat? imamommy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 06:28:19 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:28:19 -0000 Subject: Lupin after the war (Was:The new headmaster) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116752 Alla wrote: > > I think that McGonagall is > likely enough to survive the war, but despite Lupin's obvious desire > to be liked , I think he will be fine Headmaster, if he manages to > overcome it. > > I am fine with McGonagall becoming a headmistress, but I want a > radical change in WW after the war and I think Lupin represents one Carol responds: I think it's overly optimistic to expect virtually the whole WW to completely overcome its fear of werewolves, especially as they do present a very real danger, but a good first step would be a redefinition. Unlike giants, which really are nonhuman (and not very amenable to reason, apparently), and unlike centaurs, which really are half-human (whatever their origins), werewolves are fully human--except for a short time each month, perhaps as short as twenty-four hours, when they're fully beast. They are not born through any union of human and wolf; they are created when one afflicted human bites another. (JKR has said that the werewolf cubs under Hagrid's bed were a lie on Tom Riddle's part; the only werewolf cub is a werewolf child during the full moon.) An understanding of their special position would be a first step in enabling them to find jobs in which they could be supervised cared for during their dangerous phase. Eventually the WW as a whole would learn that werewolves are not always dangerous and should not be viewed as untrustworthy because of an affliction they can't help having. But I don't think such an understanding will come quickly, and I don't think Lupin would ever be allowed near children after having endangered three students. In fact, I hope that his conscience would not allow him to teach. It would be interesting, however, to see some sort of truce between him and Snape, with Snape providing Lupin with wolfbane potion again as an acknowledgment that Lupin (unlike Sirius) never intended to kill him. For that matter, wolfbane potion might be Snape's road to fame and glory, not to mention riches--making wolfbane potion available to all the werewolves in Britain, three galleons a flask. What Lupin would do to earn the money I don't know. But I'm not sure that either of them will survive, particularly Lupin, for whom it's difficult to see any kind of happy future even with a monthly supply of potion. His friends are all dead, he can't in good conscience marry, he'll have to *earn* the respect and trust of the WW if the opportunity arises--it won't just be handed to him. I keep thinking of Wormtail's silver hand and Trelawney's comment that Lupin is unwilling to let her see his future in her crystal ball. If Harry is going to lose someone he cares about who isn't one of his very closest friends, Lupin seems like a likely candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if he dies in Book 6. Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 06:47:14 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:47:14 -0000 Subject: Animagus properties, Thestral guts + Skin & Meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, imamommy at s... wrote: > imamommy: > > .. it's like; maybe like gaining fluency in a foreign language, so > that eventually the ... even think (and dream) in that language? ... > It seems to me that there is definitely a point where one *becomes* > an animagus, but I wonder what must be done to get to that point. > bboyminn: Once again, I speculate... We know that learning to be an Animagus is a difficult and dangerous task. I think you start by having some one else cast a special charm on you to find out what your animgus form is. They force an Animagus transofrmation then bring you back to human form. That way you can know beforehand, and if your form is a May Fly with a lifespan of 24 hours, or a slug or a snail, you can decide to stop the process right then. Next, you practice by casting a different special Animagus transformation charm on yourself. Not just a standard human to animal transformation, but a special human to animagus form transformtion. You practice this special spell with the help of others. Obviously once you transform, you can't cast the spell to transform back to a human, so at this stage it a team effort. You transform yourself with this spell until you get so good you don't need to use the incantation or a wand. Unfortunately, that only get's you halfway, you still need to continue the tranformation practice until you are so well versed and so well practiced that you reach the level where you can 'at will' transform back into a human. I think learning to transform into your animagus form is much easier and learned much sooner than learning to transform back. That would be one very obvious danger of trying this process without an experienced specialist in transformations to assist you. You would be (pardon the French) screwed if you change into an animal and couldn't get back, and no one else knew about it. You'd be stuck forever. So, a great deal of training in a step-wise process at the hands of a specialist in transformations until you are able to perform the spells 'at will' without wand or incantation. > imamommy continues: > > On a side note, do you think a person's animagus animal must always > correspond with there patronus animal? James is the only person I > remember knowing this about, but I can't think of any contradictions > to this theory. bboyminn: I think Patonus and animagus forms are typically NOT the same animal. A Partonus is your protector; example, Harry is protected by is Father; James the stag. But Harry's animagus form, which we will probably never know, could be a phoenix or Gryphon or lion or something symbolizing the protector of /others/, or courage and selflessness. The animagus reflects the person; the Patronus reflect what the person feels protected by. In both case, there is some affinity or kinship with the animal form, but for each, it's a different affinity or kinship. > imamommy: > > Off this topic completely, if Thestrals are fleshless, do they have > guts and, if so, what holds them in? If not, how do they digest the > meat that they eat? > > imamommy bboyminn: OK, there is flesh and there is flesh, the two not necessarily being the same. When the book says the Thestrals have no flesh, that mean no MEAT, not no skin. They do have skin, they have black shiny coats, but those black shiny coats and manes hang over their bony skeletal meatless bodies. The Thestrals do eat, so one could surely speculate that they have /guts/. So skin and guts = yes. Meat = no (or very little). Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 08:01:53 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:01:53 -0000 Subject: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116754 Geoff wrote: > It is very unusual for a woman in this situation to use only the > surname which makes Professor McGonagall's use of "Dumbledore" so > very strange - and almost claiming superiority over him. The only > instance I can recall of this type of address was a female teaching > colleague and she used the surname-only structure when speaking of a > third party, i.e. when the man involved was not present. > > > Carol (earlier): Among [British] schoolboys and male colleagues (in private > > conversation), last names are the norm and first names indicate a > > close friendship, is that correct? Or do last names denote enmity > > ("Malfoy," for example) while anyone who's not an enemy (say Ernie > > MacMillan) would be called by his first name? > Geoff: > > Even today, though, I notice in the boys' club at our church, friends may use first names or nicknames in addressing each other - sometimes softening the surname by using "Jonesy" for "Jones" - and might use surnames only for folk they know as acquaintances but do not count as close friends. I think with girls, there is more of the first > name/nickname pattern than surname. > > But again, among adults nowadays in a work envirnoment, referring to > a person to their face just by their surname would be considered > brusque or rude. > > The usage is of course flexible. If you were to compare forms of > address in, say, a poor rundown area with an office, you might well > get different patterns. > > Hope this makes sense. Carol again: What I'm really trying to get at is the British schoolboy tradition. In "David Copperfield," for example, the boys call each other Copperfield and Traddles and Steerforth. This usage reflects real life in early nineteenth-century England. Percy Shelley and his friend Thomas Jefferson Hogg called each other Shelley and Hogg and continued to do so for the rest of their lives. (Shelley's other friends included Thomas Love Peacock, always called Peacock, and Thomas Medwin, always called Medwin. Even Mary Shelley, Shelley's second wife, called the men, including her husband, by their last names, because that's how they had been introduced to her. Similarly, men of the upper classes (gentry and aristocracy) in Jane Austen's novels, for example the good friends Darcy and Bingley, call each other by their last names. (In contrast, Elizabeth Bennet's parents call each other "Mr. Bennet" and "Mrs. Bennet," as if they were neighbors rather than a married couple.) Today, possibly, this custom would seem strange, even in Muggle Britain. Certainly in America, schoolboys and schoolgirls alike use first names for their classmates and adults generally use first names for their colleagues at work. (If someone were to address me by my last name alone, I would be appalled at their rudeness, but then I'm American and female. But I'm wondering if maybe the WW, which tends to be conservative, follows an older tradition, at least in the pureblood families. Draco Malfoy seems to take being called by his last name for granted. I don't know of any male students that he addresses by their first names, even his friends Crabbe and Goyle. His father does the same thing in the MoM, as I noted earlier, with the exception of Rabastan and Rodolphus Lestrange. Snape may have been brought up in this same tradition, in which case calling Lupin by his surname may not be as rude and distancing as it seems. I can think of only one instance in which he calls another adult by his first name, and that person, surprisingly, is Igor Karkaroff. McGonagall, like Mary Shelley, seems to be a woman who has somehow fallen into this conservative male tradition, at least with regard to Dumbledore. Certainly she isn't using the surname to appear rude. I think she feels that "Albus" is too intimate, and maybe "Professor Dumbledore" is too formal for the circumstances. As for "my dear Professor," which is what Dumbledore calls her, isn't that also a male usage? Do British women address each other as "my dear Minerva" or "my dear Molly"? Carol, who despite appearances was not alive during the nineteenth century From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 09:38:26 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:38:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledores and Snape was Re: forms of address In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116755 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > >Finwitch wrote: > > I guess Snape *has* met Aberforth, so he isn't calling one brother > > Dumbledore - though he isn't calling him Albus either. I think he > > *might* indeed be related to Dumbledores - maybe his mother was > > daughter or granddaughter to one of them? > > > Potioncat: > Sorry, I got lost at this point. Could you explain? Finwitch Well, if you had known *two* Dumbledores from early on, I doubt you'd call either by last name. Snape never calls Albus Dumbledore so - it's always *headmaster* so far as Harry knows. I speculate that if Severus Snape&Dumbledores were somehow related (a somewhat *distant* relation, though, and matrilinear somehow as they don't share last name) that would explain that he knows so many Dumbledores that well, he just wouldn't be using last name only. It'd be like not recognising him a person, just a member of a certain family. He's NOT calling him by first name nor by relation-term because Harry's there. And because he himself is a professor, that won't really do either, and 'professor Dumbledore' would be a bit too formal of a relative. So he's stuck with that 'headmaster'. I doubt he's just too new in the staff... not after 10+ years! And since *no one* but Snape has trouble with that 'Dumbledore' - these other Dumbledores came known to him in place other than school - possibly trough his mother. Even a step-relation would do. Just so that Snape has some relative by the last name Dumbledore. Here's something else - what if Albus Dumbledore is Severus Snape's step-father? (And that's partly why JKR never tells us if the staff is *married* or not!) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 09:50:53 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:50:53 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116756 Potioncat: > But I think what confuses it for me, is that we do respect DD and > McG and if they respect Snape...there must be something there. Finwitch: You know, a thought has recently occured to me: Snape's mother divorced that abusive man. And later, she married Albus Dumbledore, but kept her maiden name. What if Severus Snape's mother is Minerva McGonagall (she's certainly old enough, at 70). Would certainly explain few things... Finwitch From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 30 10:28:13 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:28:13 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Morgan" wrote: > > I always thought that it simply came down to upbringing. Pure- bloods > like Snape and Malfoy=nothing. Muggle-born (or someone with a muggle > obsessed parent *coughMrWeasleycough*)like Harry and Hermione= clothes > on underneath. Geoff: Knowing that JKR currently lives in Scotland, I wonder whether there is a tip of the hat here to "pure-blood" Scots folk as opposed to those who have been tainted by the Sassenachs (=English)? A true Scotsman should wear nothing under his kilt. Obviously, Archie (in GOF) also believed in the same Spartan approach to life - in addition to giving Hermione a strong fit of the giggles. :-) Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 12:56:19 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:56:19 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116758 I, Del, wrote : "Stealing : I can't remember him stealing, but I do remember that he helped and supported Hermione when she stole the ingredients for the Polyjuice potion from Snape's office. He had no remorse about it." Alla replied : "I don't think he should feel any remorse about it(or at least not much) That is the case of good intentions excusing formal breaking the rules, IMO. They were trying to catch the real Heir of Slytherin. If for that, they stole ingredients from Snape's office, wich I doubt that Snape would have given them,even if they asked nicely, it is very excusable in my book." Del replies : Stealing is not only against the school rules, but also against the law. This was no mere "formal breaking of the rules". I know they had good intentions, but this in itself does not excuse the theft. Moreover, if good intentions are all that matter, then I don't see what the big fuss is with Harry having to kill or be killed. Harry has a good intention in wanting to rid the world of LV and preserving his own life, so why should the idea of killing LV bother Harry ? As for Snape, he wouldn't have given them the ingredients even if they had asked nicely, because those were ingredients second-year students were not supposed to manipulate or even have, which is why they had to steal them to start with. I know that the Trio was working for the good, but that is not a cover-all excuse. Similarly, the fact that they were fighting LV and trying to catch his Death-Eaters was not a good cover-all excuse to allow the Aurors to use the Unforgivable Curses, as all the good guys acknowledged. Del From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 13:04:41 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:04:41 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform In-Reply-To: <3F204BEA.000001.66387@monica> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" wrote: > .-- Ray > > Although this is actually movie contamination, I suspect that the Hogwarts > robe is worn as a cloak over the actual uniform of shirt, tie, jacket, and > trousers for a boy/skirt for a girl > > > Me - > > but this is contradicted both by the flashback pensieve scene in OoP and the > shopping list they get at the start of PS. > > The school uniform consists of robes and nothing else. I suspect muggleborns > are more likely to wear stuff underneath. plus it's a large castle in > Scotland - castles are drafty. > > K I always pictured them like they are on the covers of the American hardcovers, with Muggle jeans and sneakers and sweaters underneath robes. I believe that the reason they chose to do uniform like outfits in the films was to make the kids look less like they were wearing lame Halloween costumes. Meri From saitaina at frontiernet.net Sat Oct 30 13:08:55 2004 From: saitaina at frontiernet.net (Saitaina) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:08:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Uniform References: Message-ID: <009b01c4be81$9cbce420$01fea8c0@domain.invalid> No: HPFGUIDX 116760 Meri wrote: But it IS a private (private...public...er...which one's the British version?) boarding school. Most of these have uniforms...at least the private day schools I attended did. I could see them wearing muggle clothes under their robes during the "off hours" but not during the school day. And while I prefer to think of them lounging around the common room in their normal wear (jumpers, trousers, what have you) and throwing on their robes only when heading into the school proper (sort of like you would with a job uniform, such as when I wore a lab jacket. I didn't wear it unless outside the back rooms), Harry mentions in GoF that he's seen the Weasley children wear muggle clothing during the holidays, indicating they don't wear them during the in session portion of the school year. Saitaina **** I've planned my dream wedding since I was five. I have it all planned, invitations, cake, heck I even know what flatware to use. I'm twenty-three now, and I'm watching those dreams go up in flames. All because I'm a lesbian, a second class citizen. 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." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 13:45:07 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:45:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin after the war (Was:The new headmaster) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116761 > Alla wrote: > > > > I think that McGonagall is likely enough to survive the war, but despite Lupin's obvious desire to be liked , I think he will be fine Headmaster, if he manages to overcome it. > > > > I am fine with McGonagall becoming a headmistress, but I want a radical change in WW after the war and I think Lupin represents one<< > > Carol responds: > I think it's overly optimistic to expect virtually the whole WW to completely overcome its fear of werewolves, especially as they do present a very real danger, but a good first step would be a redefinition. Unlike giants, which really are nonhuman (and not very amenable to reason, apparently), and unlike centaurs, which really are half-human (whatever their origins), werewolves are fully human--except for a short time each month, perhaps as short as twenty-four hours, when they're fully beast. They are not born through any union of human and wolf; they are created when one afflicted human bites another. (JKR has said that the werewolf cubs under Hagrid's bed were a lie on Tom Riddle's part; the only werewolf cub is a werewolf child during the full moon.) < Pippin: A small canon correction: Lupin says that if Snape had found him in the shack he'd have met "a fully grown werewolf" PoA ch 18. I think Lupin is emphasizing here that werewolf cubs are completely mythical. Even though Lupin was fifteen or sixteen and not a full grown human, he turned into a full grown wolf -- or have I missed something? Carol continued: An understanding of their special position would be a first step in enabling them to find jobs in which they could be supervised cared for during their dangerous phase. Eventually the WW as a whole would learn that werewolves are not always dangerous and should not be viewed as untrustworthy because of an affliction they can't help having. But I don't think such an understanding will come quickly, and I don't think Lupin would ever be allowed near children after having endangered three students. In fact, I hope that his conscience would not allow him to teach. > > It would be interesting, however, to see some sort of truce between him and Snape, with Snape providing Lupin with wolfbane potion again as an acknowledgment that Lupin (unlike Sirius) never intended to kill him. < Pippin: LOL! I look forward with equal pleasure to the moment when Snape realizes that *Sirius* never intended to kill him -- which may ultimately bring about some kind of truce with Harry. Carol: >For that matter, wolfbane potion might be Snape's road to fame and glory, not to mention riches--making wolfbane potion available to all the werewolves in Britain, three galleons a flask. What Lupin would do to earn the money I don't know. < Pippin: Not a problem...his EverSoEvil!soul will have been sucked out by dementors after he summons them once too many times. (foreshadowed PoA ch 12) But don't worry, his awful demise won't take place till Book Seven. Fortunately there are other werewolves in the WW who could benefit from Snape's expertise. I think you (and Alla) may be thinking too small. There will be a *massive* realignment of power at the end of VWII, foreshadowed by the weak and shaken Fudge being led by the statues of the Goblin and House Elf at the end of OOP, comparable to the drastic changes to the British Empire at the end of WWII. Non-humans will at last be fully represented in the WW government. This weakening of human power generally will be a plus for werewolves, since only humans need to be afraid of them. In a Hogwarts where the majority of students would not be endangered by a werewolf, perhaps a werewolf will one day teach. I'm betting on Luna -- she's certainly eccentric enough, and if she's not a werewolf I'll eat my ESE!Lupin treatise. * Pippin *not finished yet, but, as always, those who are unfamiliar with the theory can read the original ESE!Lupin post at 39362 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 13:53:42 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:53:42 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116762 > Del replies : > Stealing is not only against the school rules, but also against the > law. This was no mere "formal breaking of the rules". Alla: I can analogise it a bit with DA army. I can only cheer them up for such "breaking of the law" Del: > I know they had good intentions, but this in itself does not excuse > the theft. Moreover, if good intentions are all that matter, then I > don't see what the big fuss is with Harry having to kill or be killed. > Harry has a good intention in wanting to rid the world of LV and > preserving his own life, so why should the idea of killing LV bother > Harry ? Alla: Yes, if Harry is the kid who often breaks the rules, lies, cheats and steals without any good purpose, that is the good question. Why the idea of killing his worst enemy should bother him that much? I'd say becuase he is not that bad in the first place and does not want to kill even his worst enemy. From ejblack at rogers.com Sat Oct 30 13:53:59 2004 From: ejblack at rogers.com (jcb54me) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:53:59 -0000 Subject: Animagus properties, Thestral guts + Skin & Meat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116763 > The Thestrals do eat, so one could surely speculate that they have > /guts/. So skin and guts = yes. Meat = no (or very little). > > Just a few thoughts. > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) Actually, may they not just drink blood? They lick the blood from Harry's robe, Hagrid lures them with bloody meat. Jeanette From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 14:26:40 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:26:40 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116764 > Alla: > > > Yes, if Harry is the kid who often breaks the rules, lies, cheats and steals without any good purpose, that is the good question. Why the idea of killing his worst enemy should bother him that much? > > > I'd say becuase he is not that bad in the first place and does not want to kill even his worst enemy.< But stealing from your worst enemy is okay? Well, maybe so, but I doubt Snape views it that way, or Rowling for that matter. . In fact, I think this throws some light on the infamous tooth remark. Harry's firecracker in CoS splashed Swelling Solution over half the class. Harry got paid back by the snake, but I think in Snape's long, long memory for injuries, Hermione finally got what was coming to her. Pippin From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 30 14:29:23 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:29:23 -0000 Subject: Animagus properties, Thestral guts + Skin & Meat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116765 Imamommy wrote: If Thestrals are fleshless, do they have guts and, if so, what holds them in? A bit OT but you get the same problem with Death in the Discworld series. Death (much loved and not a bit scary) is portrayed as a skeleton but is nevertheless partial to a good curry. The problem has been frequently raised on Discworld boards without getting any real answer. I think Steve probably comes nearest on this board. Sylvia (who is fascinated by Imamommy's sig. So am I, as it goes) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 14:31:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:31:40 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116766 Hi, guys! This question is inspired by recent Dirty Harry/Clean Harry thread. As you probably know, I love Harry dearly. :) Part of why I love him for is that while he does his fair share of everyday transgressions , on the grand scale of things he is a good child or good teenager. Like in "never leaving side of light" good :) But of course he is not perfect on the grand scale of things either. So, my question is - for what in his life Harry should REALLY feel sorry for? Please think BIG.:) Forget for a moment about everyday breaking of the rules, especially if that was due to the reason of fighting Voldie. I know that if we put all those things together, we can draw a portrait of a teen, who should be in the juvenile detention center or similar place like that. But I doubt that such portrait will be very accurate. :) Think about something, which cannot be justified by any ethical reasons (OK, well, I can probably justify any deed of Harry's , but I know not everybody does that :)). Personally on the top of my head I can only think about three things - Harry not seeing Hermione side of things earlier in PoA (actually, I think he already felt sorry for it), Harry looking into Snape's Pensieve and of course Harry trying to cast Crucio ( I don't think that was unjustifiable and the fact that he could not cast it speaks all the best for him, but in any event unforgivable is unforgivable and he needs to learn how to restrain himself even in the time of greatest pain). Again, on the top of my head I cannot come up with any other transgressions of Harry which are not usual for growing up boy or teenager, but I am ready to be convinced otherwise. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 14:35:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:35:20 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116767 Pippin: > But stealing from your worst enemy is okay? Well, maybe so, but > I doubt Snape views it that way, or Rowling for that matter. . In > fact, I think this throws some light on the infamous tooth remark. > Harry's firecracker in CoS splashed Swelling Solution over half > the class. Harry got paid back by the snake, but I think in Snape's > long, long memory for injuries, Hermione finally got what was > coming to her. > Alla: Oh, no, no, Pippin, of course it is not OK under ordinary circumstances, but I submit that circumstances were far from ordinary there. :) I always respected you, but after this post my respect increased many times. I love how you like Snape, without having any illusions about his behaviour as to kids. It is entirely possible that Snape's remark about Hermione's teeth was payback for what happened two years ago. Can I just question Snape's emotional maturity for doing that? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 14:55:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:55:11 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: <00f101c4be26$1151ba60$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "feklar" wrote: > When I first read the book and was following it as more of a fairy tale, this read to me as a fairy-tale-ization of the classic boarding schoolpunishment story--instead of being beaten they were sent to the forbidden forest. But now the tone has changed, so we're left with what was clearly a reckless and irresponsible act.< The cruel punishments of fairy tales were not extreme in the context of their time, just unusual. Being made to dance in redhot shoes until you die -- is that really worse than being hanged, drawn and quartered? Or burned at the stake? Beating was once thought to be so necessary to the well-being of children that princes had to have whipping boys to take their punishments for them. The wizarding world thinks that punishments need to be cruel to be effective, just as people in our world once did. McGonagall is a product of this school of thought just as Snape is, although unlike Snape she doesn't get a kick out of being cruel. OTOH, McGonagall's punishments are in general more severe than Snape's. He's never taken 150 points for a single infraction, and while his detentions are often disgusting they've never been dangerous. I think, though, that the terror of the forest was mostly psychological, and that the children were being watched and guarded far more closely than they knew all the time they were in there. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 15:08:34 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:08:34 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116769 I, Del, wrote : "Stealing is not only against the school rules, but also against the law. This was no mere "formal breaking of the rules"." Alla replied : "I can analogise it a bit with DA army. I can only cheer them up for such "breaking of the law"" Del replied : Except that the DA Army was not against the law, it was only against an Educational Decree. The law concerns everyone in every aspect of their lives, while the Educational Decrees concerned only some kids in their quality of students, and some adults in their quality of teachers. It was a bit a matter of absolute vs. relative. The kids who joined the DA had to choose between their duty as students and their patriotic and moral duty. They put their patriotic and moral duty above being good students, which is a good thing. But when the Trio stole from Snape's office, they went against both the law and the school rules, and followed only their own self-serving morality. I'm not saying it's a horrible thing to do per se, especially at the age of 12, I'm just saying we can't ignore it. Alla wrote : "Yes, if Harry is the kid who often breaks the rules, lies, cheats and steals without any good purpose, that is the good question. Why the idea of killing his worst enemy should bother him that much? I'd say becuase he is not that bad in the first place and does not want to kill even his worst enemy." Del replies : First of all, don't make me say what I didn't say. I never said that Harry didn't have good purpose to do what he did. He always had some good reason behind what he did, even if that reason was good only in his own eyes. Moreover, I didn't say in my previous posts that Harry is a bad boy. I *did* say things like : "I agree that Harry has a very good core", and "I know that the Trio was working for the good". This might not sound like enough praise for you, but you cannot deny I wrote them. Second : I used that example only to counter *your* argument that intention excuses the act. It's OK to steal if you do it for a good reason ? Then why wouldn't it be OK to kill LV for a good reason ? After all, LV *deserves* to die. If he could be caught and judged, he would most probably be condemned to the Dementor's Kiss, which for many is even worse than death itself. So if Harry killed LV, he would be considered a hero, not a murderer. He would not be condemned by *any* law or rule or whatever. But you see, Harry realises that there's a limit to the excuse that "it is for the good". He can justify many things he did this way, but he gets stumped by the matter of killing. Stealing, lying, cheating, even torturing (attempting Crucio) under stress is OK. But not killing. He realises that there's something bigger than law, something bigger than being on the good side itself. He realises morality is important. What I *am* saying, is that I disagree with his day-to-day morality, and that the fact that his personal morality allows him to lie, cheat or steal without remorse, indicates that he's not a pure angel. He's got his own dark side (and I readily admit that this dark side is very much kept in check by his good one), like everyone else in HP. In fact, the question is rather to know if some people have any good side at all... Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 15:21:43 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:21:43 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116770 > Del replied : snip. But when the Trio > stole from Snape's office, they went against both the law and the > school rules, and followed only their own self-serving morality. I'm > not saying it's a horrible thing to do per se, especially at the age > of 12, I'm just saying we can't ignore it. Alla: And I am saying we can ignore it in that particular instance. Del: > Moreover, I didn't say in my previous posts that Harry is a bad boy. I > *did* say things like : "I agree that Harry has a very good core", and > "I know that the Trio was working for the good". This might not sound > like enough praise for you, but you cannot deny I wrote them. Alla: I did not deny you wrote them as GENERAL statements . When you described the instances of Harry lying, cheating and stealing in the previous post, you did NOT say that he had a good reason to do what he did (lie, cheat and steal) I countered that he did have such reasons. Del: So if Harry killed LV, he would > be considered a hero, not a murderer. He would not be condemned by > *any* law or rule or whatever. Alla: Because stealing is less serious offence moralwise than taking the life of another. And you know what? I agree. Harry should NOT feel much remorse about killing LV . Especially since it would be killing in self-defense if JKR decides to do conventional way, which I doubt. The fact that he does makes him better person than many would be in his place, IMO. Del: > What I *am* saying, is that I disagree with his day-to-day morality, > and that the fact that his personal morality allows him to lie, cheat > or steal without remorse, indicates that he's not a pure angel. He's > got his own dark side (and I readily admit that this dark side is very > much kept in check by his good one), like everyone else in HP. In > fact, the question is rather to know if some people have any good side > at all... > Alla: No, he is not a pure angel, far from it. I just think that his dark side is weaker than in many other characters. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 16:38:22 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:38:22 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116771 Alla wrote : "I did not deny you wrote them as GENERAL statements . When you described the instances of Harry lying, cheating and stealing in the previous post, you did NOT say that he had a good reason to do what he did (lie, cheat and steal) I countered that he did have such reasons." Del replies : I didn't because it was kind of implied. Most people don't do such things if they don't have a good reason. Now, whether that good reason is indeed good or not, is another matter. Like, for example, were any of Harry's reasons for not telling Ron and Hermione why he stopped having Occlumency lessons really good ? Doesn't look like it to me. Looks more like he was trying to cover the mess he'd created. Alla wrote : " Harry should NOT feel much remorse about killing LV . Especially since it would be killing in self-defense if JKR decides to do conventional way, which I doubt." Del replies : I agree. Harry has already been repeatedly attacked by LV. Killing LV would automatically be an act of self-defence now, unless LV publicly announced that he doesn't intend to kill Harry anymore and he surrendered to the authorities to be tried, which he won't. Alla wrote : "The fact that he does makes him better person than many would be in his place, IMO." Del replies : This is balanced in my mind by his very definite attempt at Crucioing Bellatrix. And I do think that many kids his age would have the same hesitations as he does where murder is concerned. Alla wrote : " No, he is not a pure angel, far from it. I just think that his dark side is weaker than in many other characters." Del replies : I don't know. Look at many of the kids : Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Luna, and some others. They don't seem to have a strong dark side either. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 16:58:15 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:58:15 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116772 Alla wrote : "But of course he is not perfect on the grand scale of things either. So, my question is - for what in his life Harry should REALLY feel sorry for? Please think BIG.:) (snip) "Personally on the top of my head I can only think about three things - Harry not seeing Hermione side of things earlier in PoA (actually, I think he already felt sorry for it), Harry looking into Snape's Pensieve and of course Harry trying to cast Crucio ( I don't think that was unjustifiable and the fact that he could not cast it speaks all the best for him, but in any event unforgivable is unforgivable and he needs to learn how to restrain himself even in the time of greatest pain)." Del replies : I kinda agree with you. My top 3, not necessarily in that order : - The attempt at casting Crucio on Bella. This was just plainly wrong, and Harry must realise it. He must realise that there are things he cannot allow himself to do, no matter the circumstances, without being at risk of turning evil himself. Well, in fact he's already realised that, since he cannot consider killing LV. But he must also IMO realise that things like Crucio are just as bad. - Going into Snape's Pensieve. This was both wrong and stupid. Wrong because this time Harry knew what a Pensieve was, so he knew that entering one is violating one's privacy. And stupid because he knew that he didn't know how to get out of it. - The way he treated his friends way too often in OoP. I can accept the way he treated Hermione in PoA, because he didn't know her very well, and he hadn't learned yet that she would never try to hurt him intentionally unless it was for his own protection. But in OoP, the way he uses Ron and Hermione as verbal punching-bags, no matter how often he realises that they were right to start with (impossibility to reveal anything of interest in coded letters, creating the DA...), just gets on my nerves. In particular, the way he shouted at Hermione in the end, when she suggested that his dream was a trap, is not acceptable by my standards. It's not so much what he said or did, it's the disrespect he showed for her (and Ron's) undying support and loyalty. But this one is really personal to me, I understand that. Del From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 30 16:59:09 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:59:09 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > kelsey wrote: > " And I guess that's why I can't see Harry lying, cheating, stealing, > using unforgivable curses, putting bullets in the head of evildoers > and sleeping soundly." Del: > Hum. While I agree that Harry has a very good core, I also think that > he's shown he can do some of those things without too much remorse. > > Lying : he does it pretty often. In OoP, he lied to his friends about > why he stopped the Occlumency lessons, for example, and he lied about > practicing it. In CoS, he lied right in the face of DD about having > nothing troubling him, while at the same time thinking of half a dozen > things really troubling him. In GoF, he lied to his friends and to > Hagrid about having figured out the Egg clue. He might sometimes feel > a bit remorseful about it at the moment he does it, but it usually > doesn't prevent him from sleeping soundly. > > Cheating : he copies Hermione's homework. In my book, that's cheating. > And he has no remorse about it. > > Stealing : I can't remember him stealing, but I do remember that he > helped and supported Hermione when she stole the ingredients for the > Polyjuice potion from Snape's office. He had no remorse about it. > > Using Unforgivable curses : he didn't manage it, he didn't have what > it takes (thankfully !), but he had every *intention* to Crucio > Bellatrix. He also fantasized once about Crucioing Snape. And he still > hasn't shown any remorse over either his fantasy or his attempt. > > Putting bullets in people's heads : I guess you mean using AK ;-) ? I > agree on that one : I don't see him using the very thing that killed > his mother and made him an orphan. Except maybe on LV, if he was > somehow accidently taught how to do it. But after the fiasco of the > Crucio, and considering what it takes morally to train into using the > Ak, I don't see Harry willingly getting himself trained to AK anyone, > not even LV. (But on the other hand, if he somehow convinced himself > that this is the right track, then I don't see him having any remorse > over it.) Geoff: Hands up, those of you who, as teenagers, have lied, stolen, cheated, been selfish, let friends down, hated people enough to want to hurt them.... Hands up, those of you who, as adults, have lied, stolen, cheated, been selfish, let friends down, hated people enough to want to hurt them.... Any combination of the above permissible. I wonder how many of you didn't raise a hand - because you were perhaps unwilling to admit to such things. "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.." (John 8:7) Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 17:13:17 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:13:17 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116774 Geoff wrote : "Hands up, those of you who, as teenagers, have lied, stolen, cheated, been selfish, let friends down, hated people enough to want to hurt them...." Del replies : Don't get all excited, Geoff. I wasn't making a case that Harry was a bad guy for doing those things. I was just countering Kelsey who wrote : " And I guess that's why I can't see Harry lying, cheating, stealing, using unforgivable curses, putting bullets in the head of evildoers and sleeping soundly." I was just saying that he did do many of those things, and that most of the time, it didn't prevent him from sleeping soundly. Don't read more in my post than there was. Del, who as a teenager probably did most of the things above, except maybe stealing, and who still does (or wants to do) way too many of them for her own liking. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 30 17:13:49 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:13:49 +0100 Subject: Black and white and read all over. Message-ID: <10CEFAF8-2A97-11D9-9BC3-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116775 I'm always a little surprised (and a touch disappointed) when occasionally posters put up messages saying things like "so-and-so went down in my estimation when they did this-or-that." Don't these fans relish the foibles, human weaknesses and lack of omniscience that turns characters from cardboard cut-outs into believable individuals? I do. The different reactions can be used to highlight a divide in the fan base, I think - though there are many other ways to identify various factions. It's a rough and ready guide to what the different readers get from the series. There are those that love the characters, see them as individuals with (perhaps) well defined almost stereotypical roles with clearly demarcated behavioural boundaries - and there are those that love the ideas, the plot, the needs of which may cast any character in an unexpected light. Not always mutually exclusive, of course - there'll always be over-lap, but most fans tend to favour one more than the other. Probably more than anything else it's the uncertainty, the "what did he mean by that?" the "can we take this at face value?" or "does this connect to a sub-plot?" that keeps me reading. I don't think that it's presumptuous of me to assert that there are many who would agree - after all it's this sort of mind-set that breeds theories, and the site's always been wish-bone deep in theories. Dunno about you, but the possibility that HP is a cut-and-dried "the goodies are immaculately good and the baddies are irredeemably bad, Harry will inevitably wipe the floor with Voldy and almost everyone will live happily ever after" sort of tale intended for the not very discerning 10 year old gives me the shudders. I prefer books where the personae have a bit of depth, and with the depth inevitably comes complexity - and I see a lot of complexity in HP. Hopefully this is both intentional and integral to the story. Complexity now should guarantee that the ending then is not predictable. Goody. But if it's not intentional and integral, if it's mere flummery and window-dressing then it would mean that I've misunderstood the author's intentions - it would mean that I've been wasting my time. But every time I pick up the books I'm reassured; some of the plot shenanigins cannot be what they seem, the characters must be deliberately written as ambiguous, fallible, suspect or working to a personal agenda that may not connect directly with the apotheosis of Harry - or even with the triumph of Voldemort. In other words, they're acting in much the same way as real people. And like real people they're not necessarily consistent, and the lack of consistency can mean little or much - it all depends if the perceived faults or errors are intended to show human fallibility or are clues to something else entirely. Being human myself (stop that muttering at the back, there) it'd be comforting if the characters showed the all too familiar traits of being forgetful or contrary that I see when I look in the mirror every morning. (Usually with the words of the inimitable Molesworth on my lips "...as I gaze at yore strange, un-natural beauty...") After all, who's going to be happy if the cast are as straight-forward and clear-cut in their attitudes and behaviour as those in Pilgrim's Progress? Very few, I think. But I sincerely doubt that the books have been penned just to make me or anyone else feel cosy. While minor episodes may well reflect the randomness of real life there's always a suspicion that there's another layer of meaning just below the surface. Justified or not, it's this almost unconscious suspicion that is the fons et origo of many of the posts we see. Others have a different approach. They're perfectly satisfied with the way that the characters have been written (so far, anyway) and see no reason for the (as they perceive it) wild imaginings of subversive anarchists apparently bent on turning a much-loved character into something different. The fact that throughout the books we have been presented with radical re-assessments of quite significant characters and there's absolutely no reason to assume that the process has ended two books short of the climax, doesn't cut much ice. Especially if it's one of their favourites under the knife being subjected to a little involuntary cosmetic surgery. More or less since the site started members have expressed sympathy, understanding or down-right partisanship for one character or another, usually mirrored by an antipathy, mistrust or outright loathing for others. Those they approve of are forgiven or excused almost any transgression; those they dislike are castigated or dismissed for the most petty of misdemeanors - even when it's not actually evident that the action under discussion actually *is* a misdemeanor. It leads to words being exchanged on site. It's great fun, this - dragging a character you don't like into a dark alley and giving him/her a damn good kicking. Doesn't affect the character at all of course, but with a bit of luck it may result in steam coming out of a few ears and some vigorous responses. Though it is a bit unexpected when it becomes evident that there're some out there who identify so closely with the character in question that they react as if it were they themselves that had been maligned. Just occasionally there's an exchange so passionate, so over the top that it makes me wonder.... we're all interested in HP, but to be that obsessive... how will that fan react if it doesn't work out the way they expect? Just suppose, to take an example, Jo writes Sirius as ESE and Snape as having behaved the way he has because it was in Harry's best interests, would it be happily accepted by all? A lot of fans have invested a lot of time defending or dismissing the him, her or it of the text. Long evenings spent poring over canon to refute or confirm opinions proposed by others. It's been going on for years on this site alone - and do you know what is absolutely amazing? If you browse through the back files there are very, very few of the "fan of" or "anti to" posters who change their opinion of a character unless they are absolutely forced to do so by new canon. (Yes, SSS, I know you've shifted a bit on Snapey, but you're an exception.) The habitual theorisers, irredeemable recidivists that they are, seem to have no problem changing their minds - twice weekly if necessary. This may seem a direct contradiction to what is written above, but it isn't really. Those who constantly pester the membership with new or recycled "look at it this way.." ideas have rarely invested much time in the admiration or beatification of DD, or Sirius or Harry. The characters are a means to an end - a theory. As such they need a certain flexibility of opinion; next week's idea may well conflict with last week's offerings. "Ah well, back to the drawing board," is a frequent, if solitary refrain. The theory is the thing - and any of the dramatis personae are fair game for a smash and grab character re-assessment, usually (almost invariably) in an effort to promote a new twist to the story. No point in making DD!ESE unless it has an effect on future events or revelations. Since what is being proposed is just that, a theory, it's rare to find theorisers taking up the cudgels and re-enacting Custer's Last Stand, going so far out on a limb that if Jo wanders along and saws it off.... "Oh, what a fall, my countrymen! There was a Caesar - whence comes another?" Pippin apart, that is. Serial theorisers are much more interested in the plot than the individuals depicted therein. A reasonable stance - one must assume that the characters are written to suit the needs of the story, not the other way round. Ferret out the plot-lines and the cast are revealed as the author's puppets. There ain't no free will in a book (unless your name's Fforde). So long as they're interesting as individuals I don't give a toss which of the cast lives or dies. It's a matter of supreme indifference to me - though as I've stated above, the books as a whole, the technical construction of plot and sub-plot, the gestalt, does matter. Some see the two concepts as inter-changeable, but I don't think so. The overall 'quality' of a book should not depend on the likeability or otherwise of those depicted - they're important, sure; but only in so far as their characterisation advances or enhances the story. If they become a substitute for the story then one might as well watch 'reality' TV. This way fluffiness lies... or a contrived resolution that doesn't match the tone or texture of the tale so far, which is more or less the same thing IMO. But so far we're doing OK. Quite often those enamoured of character protest - "But it's about Harry - aren't the books called Harry Potter and the Thingy of Whatsit? What else could they be about?" Well, there's the Thingy of Whatsit, right there in the title that you seem to have forgotten about. With no PS/SS, CoS, PoA, GoF or OoP to keep him occupied Harry would have a lot of spare time on his hands. It's called a plotline. None of which originate with Harry, all of which involve the deeds of others, all of which in some way pre-date his cognizance and the solving of which brings him and us closer to enlightenment. Harry merely reacts to events. He's a function of the plot, too. Another clockwork mouse wound up and released by JKR. And let's not forget, these single book plots are there to lead us to the greater plot, the one encompassing the whole series, the one that explains the what and why of the whole kit and caboodle. You won't suss that out by sighing over Sirius or frowning at Snape. It's conceivable you might by theorising, though. Or aren't you interested in that bit? Kneasy From McGregorMax at ec.rr.com Sat Oct 30 17:17:32 2004 From: McGregorMax at ec.rr.com (mcmaxslb) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:17:32 -0000 Subject: Chapter 29, Career Advice - Broken Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116776 I can't believe what I have read in this thread. Of course the greasy git broke it on purpose! You Snape lovers have gone to far this time. Snape is a complete and total asshole that takes out his petty schoolboy grudges on a child to the extent that he undermines the cause that he is fighting for! I hope that after Harry destroys Voldemort he give Snivellus the beat down he deserves! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 17:18:23 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:18:23 -0000 Subject: Emotion Maturity ?? was Re: Dirty Harry / 'Good' H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > > But stealing from your worst enemy is okay? Well, maybe so, but > > I doubt Snape views it that way, or Rowling for that matter. . In fact, I think this throws some light on the infamous tooth remark. Harry's firecracker in CoS splashed Swelling Solution over half the class. Harry got paid back by the snake, but I think in Snape's long, long memory for injuries, Hermione finally got what was coming to her.<< > > > > > > Alla: > > Oh, no, no, Pippin, of course it is not OK under ordinary > circumstances, but I submit that circumstances were far from > ordinary there. :) Pippin: Let's not forget that the Slytherins happened to be completely innocent in this case. The circumstances were ordinary, except in Hermione's imagination. Alla: > I always respected you, but after this post my respect increased many times. I love how you like Snape, without having any illusions about his behaviour as to kids. Pippin: Thank you :) Alla: > It is entirely possible that Snape's remark about Hermione's teeth was payback for what happened two years ago. > > Can I just question Snape's emotional maturity for doing that? Pippin: Emotional maturity? Snape? Maybe in fifty years or so --as far as vampires go he's probably still a teenager But seriously, if Harry needs a male role model to achieve emotional maturity, he's severely out of luck. Who's he got? Only Lupin "seems" to be mature according to JKR. I can only hope Harry models himself on what Lupin seems to be, and not what he turns out to be. But I think JKR may not approve of taking real people as role models, even for kids--idols always turn out to have feet of clay. Pippin From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 30 17:23:24 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:23:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress References: Message-ID: <005901c4bea5$29bd2740$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 116778 > Feklar: > > (Edited) > > At the time in question, MM knew there was something killing > > powerful magical creatures in the forest and sent them in right at > the time > > the killings were most likely to occur. Yeah, Hagrid was there, > but even if > > they were all together, can you reasonably expect one man, even a > > half-giant, to protect four panicked kids? Above and beyond that, > who sends a bunch of eleven year olds > > out to see unicorns slaughtered? That's pretty sadistic, imo. > jinbtr-- > Maybe it was Dumbledore's idea. I stick to my idea that he seems to > know what's going to happen and he needed to give Harry some clues > that LV was gathering strengh to get back. The question is, if the > knew LV was in Quirell's turban why didn't he stopped him? Ever since feklar-- Yes, this has occurred to me too, though in my head I file that under the DD as manipulative bastard conspiracy theory file. Plotwise, JKR clearly wanted to introduce LV at this point, but doing so via a detention from MM just reads like a very ham-handed way of doing so to me. The whole time, I was thinking, "what the hell?" about MM instead of LV and the unicorns. Feklar From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 17:25:36 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:25:36 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116779 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Del: In particular, the way he shouted at Hermione > in the end, when she suggested that his dream was a trap, is not > acceptable by my standards. It's not so much what he said or did, it's > the disrespect he showed for her (and Ron's) undying support and > loyalty. But this one is really personal to me, I understand that. Finwitch: I disagree, considering that 1) the dream- much alike the dreams which were REAL, dreams that saved the life of Arthur Weasley, for instance - showed Sirius being tortured. Taking into account what happened to Neville's parents, well... 2) Hermione had disregarded her OWN idea, into which she had persuaded Harry - the DA club - just because Sirius supports it! Nah - I think that if Harry hadn't run to Sirius' rescue, despite of what Hermione said - even if it was a trap - that would have been terribly WRONG of him. And Harry *did* listen, enough to call 12 Grimmauld Place. And mind you, Harry had reason to doubt that when it comes to Sirius, Hermione loses her head. I agree on the crucio part - why's he casting the very thing he wanted to save Sirius from? and of his earlier life - well, in PoA, attacking Malfoy under invisibility cloak. (and he DID regret it, as I recall.) Fight openly and fairly, fine enough if you really must, but sneakily when you're invisible? It just wasn't honourable. Finwitch From feklar at verizon.net Sat Oct 30 17:41:31 2004 From: feklar at verizon.net (feklar) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:41:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress References: Message-ID: <006101c4bea7$b1ba02b0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> No: HPFGUIDX 116780 > > When I first read the book and was following it as more of a > fairy tale, this read to me as a fairy-tale-ization of the classic > boarding schoolpunishment story--instead of being beaten they > were sent to the forbidden forest. But now the tone has > changed, so we're left with what was clearly a reckless and > irresponsible act.< > pippin-- > The cruel punishments of fairy tales were not extreme in the > context of their time, just unusual. Being made to dance in redhot > shoes until you die -- is that really worse than being hanged, > drawn and quartered? Or burned at the stake? Beating was once > thought to be so necessary to the well-being of children that > princes had to have whipping boys to take their punishments for > them. feklar-- yes, but in the later books, it's made clear that they now disapprove of punishments that harm or endanger the students--MM herself stops Moody from beating Draco as a ferret. Hence, my comment about the changed tone. To me, sending kids into the FF (let alone at night, when you know there's a killer wandering around) is at least on the same level as Moody's ferretting and Umbridge's blood quill. Potentially, it was worse as one of the kids could have been killed. The fact that MM is a good guy and likable shouldn't change that fact. pippin-- > I think, though, that the terror of the forest was mostly > psychological, and that the children were being watched and > guarded far more closely than they knew all the time they were in > there. feklar-- I prefer not to assume too much into cannon. In any case, I would like to think psychological torture would be frowned upon as well. Ultimately, as I said in another post, the whole event strikes me as a ham-handed plot device. I can't help but think there are easier and more graceful ways to get Harry out into the FF. Feklar From snapesangel2002 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 30 12:08:20 2004 From: snapesangel2002 at yahoo.co.uk (laura) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:08:20 -0000 Subject: Wondering.... about Snape & McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116781 > Finwitch: > > You know, a thought has recently occured to me: > Snape's mother divorced that abusive man. And later, she married > Albus Dumbledore, but kept her maiden name. > > What if Severus Snape's mother is Minerva McGonagall (she's certainly > old enough, at 70). Would certainly explain few things... > > Finwitch Interesting.....you never know with JKR, and we know she's deliberately concealing information about Professor's spouses. However, in the Pensieve scene with Snape and his parents, McGonagall would be in her early forties, and surely Harry would have recognised her? And I'm sure the Marauders would know if MM was SS's mother. Without the books to hand I can't go over their interactions, but what sort of things would it explain? As for DD, I'm betting he was married to a muggle. Laura* From kdmpf at hotmail.com Sat Oct 30 14:37:34 2004 From: kdmpf at hotmail.com (KarenDetroit) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:37:34 -0000 Subject: Modern Sensibilities vs. Potterverse: The 4th Unforgivable Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116782 Greetings from Michigan! I have been enjoying several of the interesting discussions here, and this is my first impulse to contribute. I have noticed frequent criticisms of JKRowling's characters and their actions vis-a-vis the students in their care, with frequent criticisms decrying sadism, shocking lack of concern for the students' safety, etc., and this of course implies criticism of the author, too. Leaving aside for the moment that this is a work of fiction, and the author is from another culture (Great Britain), I must protest the provincialism of holding other cultures to whatever pychobabble is currently passing for mores in the US. "Modern" US parenting practices are anything but time-tested, don't constitute "best practices" as any business or science understands the term, and should be taken with a grain of salt in normal (US) circumstances; in a foreign culture, living in a state of undeclared war, such practices and standards would be comic, to say the least, and most are likely guaranteed to inflict severe damage on the people involved if applied. Consider Hermione's S.P.E.W. campaign as a lesson in not assuming too much. Some have mentioned the fact that Harry Potter's point of view is limited, and often uninformed due to the facts that (1) he is an immigrant to the Wizarding World, (2) he is immature and inexperienced in general , and (3) he is a rather unobservant child. All are valid points that acknowledge that Harry is often ill- informed and not terribly good at reporting fully or understanding fully what is going on around him. This is perfectly natural, and shows the author's familiarity of dealing with the young, as well as providing lots of plot and character development. There is the added possibility that he has been misinformed by deceitful or ignorant informants. Harry's emotions are not good sources of factual information about anything except Harry's state of mind. No doubt the author will attempt to fill in the multiplicity of information gaps to satisfy our curiosity by the end of the story, and it is fun to analyze what clues she leaves us. May I plead that the rush for judgment be suspended? Make it the 4th Unforgivable! "kdmpf" From cat_kind at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 16:21:16 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:21:16 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116783 > kmc adds: > The failure of the Occlumency is due to a trust issue but Harry is > the guilty party here not Snape? catkind: I had this down as Snape betraying DD's trust in him, not because he failed to get the unwilling Harry to learn, but because he stopped trying. So it's not a betrayal of trust that he threw Harry out of his office in a temper, but it is that he didn't hoik him back in the next week. He has not done his best to do the extremely important task DD set him. I'm undecided as to whether Harry has let down anyone's trust in him. If so, whose? catkind From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 16:22:56 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:22:56 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116784 Del: >I know they had good intentions, but >this in itself does not excuse the theft Committing a very small crime in order to stop a vastly greater evil is not only justified it is smart. If Harry had not stolen the potions ingredients from Snape because he thought stealing was wrong in my book he would forever be branded as a terminally boring Goody Two Shoes. Nobody wants to read about the further adventures of Mr. Dudley Do-right. In future books I hope to see Harry do something REALLY controversial, not just saying something rude to a friend or being late returning a library book. I want to see Harry spill some (bad guys) blood and not feel particularly guilty about it. Remember, Harry is now in a war. A war where good people don't sometimes have to do very bad things is impossible; and sometimes those good people even start to enjoy the killing. I think that's one of the things that makes war so horrible. Eggplant From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 18:00:35 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:00:35 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116785 Finwitch wrote : "1) the dream- much alike the dreams which were REAL, dreams that saved the life of Arthur Weasley, for instance - showed Sirius being tortured. Taking into account what happened to Neville's parents, well..." Del replies : I immediately realised that the dream was fake, as soon as I read it. It was so obvious to me that I couldn't figure out why Harry was giving it any consideration, and I kept expecting him to realise that it was a fake. There were just too many inconsistencies and impossibilities. Apparently, Hermione saw that too. If Harry had *truly* listened to Hermione, she could have explained all of that to him, and he would not have just run into the MoM without a plan or a backup like he did. Finwitch wrote : "2) Hermione had disregarded her OWN idea, into which she had persuaded Harry - the DA club - just because Sirius supports it!" Del replies : You put the finger on something important there. 1. Harry values Sirius over Hermione. She's been there for him for 5 years, she's helped him faithfully, she's given him tons of sound advice, she's never deserted him. But because she happens to mistrust Sirius (with some good reason too), all of those things don't matter anymore when it comes to Sirius. She's just biased, she just doesn't like Sirius. Except that in this case, it was never about Sirius in Hermione's mind, but about LV. 2. Harry has no *good* reason to think that Hermione loses her head when it comes to Sirius. She *correctly* analysed Sirius's unconscious desire to re-live the adventures of his school days through Harry, no matter what the risk for Harry could be. This is precisely why Hermione got so worried when Sirius supported the DA idea : because Sirius doesn't care about Harry's safety as much as Hermione does. Hermione doesn't lose her head when it comes to Sirius : Harry does. Finwitch wrote : " Nah - I think that if Harry hadn't run to Sirius' rescue, despite of what Hermione said - even if it was a trap - that would have been terribly WRONG of him." Del replies : I would personally use the word "smart", but that's just a personal opinion. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 18:12:58 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:12:58 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116786 This might have been discussed before, but I'll readily admit that I don't read most Worst Memory threads, because they always go back to discussing the same old themes. My question is : why is the scene described in Snape's Worst Memory so long ? In GoF, when Harry visits DD's Pensieve, he goes through a series of short scenes which are always straight to the point : the trials of different people. But Snape's WM is different. It starts *way* before what seems to be the actual event of importance starts. If what matters is the fight between Snape, Sirius and James, what's the need for that long time between the beginning of the memory and the fight ? Is it just for *our* information, us the readers ? Is it because Snape isn't familiar with how a Pensieve works, so he doesn't know how to cut exactly where it matters, and he ended up leaving a lot of unnecessary material around the real matter of his memory ? Or is it because there's something extremely relevant that happened in that time but that Harry didn't get to see because he wasn't watching Snape too closely ? And again, for all we know, maybe the fight was not even the real important point of the memory. Anybody has any idea ? Del From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 18:15:08 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:15:08 -0000 Subject: McGonagall as Deputy Headmistress In-Reply-To: <006101c4bea7$b1ba02b0$2f01a8c0@feklaruumg829a> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116787 . > > feklar-- > > yes, but in the later books, it's made clear that they now disapprove of punishments that harm or endanger the students--MM herself stops Moody from beating Draco as a ferret. < Pippin: Physical cruelty, yes. What we would call mental cruelty, I don't think so. We don't see any evidence of anyone interfering with Trelawny's morbid predictions, or McGonagall's verbal tirades. She can be as blistering as Snape. And Snape himself never earns more than a "That will do" from Dumbledore, even when he's foaming at the mouth. > pippin-- > > > I think, though, that the terror of the forest was mostly psychological, and that the children were being watched and guarded far more closely than they knew all the time they were in there.<< > > > feklar-- > > I prefer not to assume too much into cannon. --They walked through the dense, dark trees. Harry kept looking nervously over his shoulder. He had the nasty feeling they were being watched.--PS/SS ch 13 --Harry had the feeling he had had before in the forest, one of being watched by unseen eyes... -- OOP ch 33 Pippin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 18:16:26 2004 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:16:26 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: snip > Del : > You put the finger on something important there. > 1. Harry values Sirius over Hermione. She's been there for him for 5 > years, she's helped him faithfully, she's given him tons of sound > advice, she's never deserted him. But because she happens to mistrust > Sirius (with some good reason too), all of those things don't matter > anymore when it comes to Sirius. She's just biased, she just doesn't > like Sirius. Except that in this case, it was never about Sirius in > Hermione's mind, but about LV. Meri now: I don't think that Harry values Sirius over Hermione, their relationships are just different. Hermione is like Ron, his friend, his peer and his equal in many ways. To Harry, rightly or wrongly, Sirius is an adult, a parental figure and someone with more experience (like he admits to himself almost ashemedly in the begining of GoF). Sirius is also one of the only remaining links that Harry has with his mum and dad, and, again rightly or wrongly, had begun to see him, as DD puts it, as a mixture of father, older brother and such. Hermione is always good for advice, yes, but when the one man that Harry has ever loved as a father is in danger, rational advice isn't something that's going to help him, especially in the state of mind that he was in in Order. Also, I think Sirius cares very much for Harry's safety. Just witness how worried and upset he was during the whole Triwizard Tournament. But again you must take into account Sirius' state of mind in Order. He left Harry at the end of GoF to help the resistance movement, but against his wishes he was confined in his house and made to feel useless, something that a personality like his is bound to hate. Encouraging a little rebellion in Harry is, once again right or wrong, firmly in character. While I agree that Hermione was right to look at Sirius' motives with a bit of sketpicism, she was wrong to bring up the "saving people thing" and she was wrong to try and convince Harry that he was dreaming when there was no evidence that he was. After all his last vision had been dead right. Meri From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 18:05:02 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:05:02 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116789 "delwynmarch" wrote: > I can only think about three things > [Harry should feel sorry about] - > Harry not seeing Hermione side of > things earlier in PoA That is one of the few times in any of the books where Hermione was dead wrong; her cat was trying to kill Ron's beloved pet and she didn't seem to give a damn. > Harry looking into Snape's Pensieve Good for Harry! Snape was not fighting fair. Snape was an adult and a skilled professor of magic and yet he took the precaution of removing his most embarrassing memories before they started to probe each others minds. Snape did not give Harry, who was just a school boy, the same opportunity and that seems cowardly to me. It's like the heavyweight boxing champion of the world putting on protective padding before fighting a little boy while the kid gets nothing. And Harry is supposed to apologize after Snape delighted in humiliating Harry by bringing up the memory of a dog chasing him up a tree? Not a chance. > and of course Harry trying to cast Crucio That may have been the wrong thing to do, I'm not sure, but I am sure I'm delighted Harry did it. I don't want Harry to be TOO good, it's saccharine, I want him to have an edge. Eggplant From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 18:27:33 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:27:33 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116790 meriaugust wrote: "While I agree that Hermione was right to look at Sirius' motives with a bit of sketpicism, she was wrong to bring up the "saving people thing" and she was wrong to try and convince Harry that he was dreaming when there was no evidence that he was. After all his last vision had been dead right. " Del replies : Wrong ?? I just don't get it. She was *right* all along !! LV DID use Harry's saving-people thing to lure him into the MoM, and Harry's dream WAS a fake (and there *was* evidence : as I said in my previous post, it was immediately obvious to me that this dream couldn't be true, I can explain why if you want). Del From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 30 18:39:35 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:39:35 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > > Harry looking into Snape's Pensieve > > Good for Harry! Snape was not fighting fair. Snape was an adult > and a skilled professor of magic and yet he took the precaution of > removing his most embarrassing memories before they started to probe > each others minds. Snape did not give Harry, who was just a school > boy, the same opportunity and that seems cowardly to me. It's like > the heavyweight boxing champion of the world putting on protective > padding before fighting a little boy while the kid gets nothing. And > Harry is supposed to apologize after Snape delighted in humiliating > Harry by bringing up the memory of a dog chasing him up a tree? Not > a chance. > Of course he did. Quite frankly I wonder where you're getting your ideas from. 1. It was not a *fight* any more than Harry producing his Patronus against Lupin's Boggarts was a fight. 2. Snape tells Harry (and us) that memories are not neatly filed for access and interpretation. What you find is what you get. 3. Snape has been working against Voldy for longer than Harry has been alive. He's not going to trust his secrets to some teenage whiner who can't be trusted to keep his mouth or his mind shut. Kneasy From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 18:55:05 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:55:05 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: <10CEFAF8-2A97-11D9-9BC3-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116792 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith < > Quite often those enamoured of character protest - > "But it's about Harry - aren't the books called Harry Potter and > the Thingy of Whatsit? What else could they be about?" > Well, there's the Thingy of Whatsit, right there in the title that > you seem to have forgotten about. With no PS/SS, CoS, PoA, GoF or > OoP to keep him occupied Harry would have a lot of spare time on > his hands. It's called a plotline. None of which originate with > Harry, all of which involve the deeds of others, all of which in > some way pre-date his cognizance and the solving of which brings > him and us closer to enlightenment. Harry merely reacts to events. > He's a function of the plot, too. Another clockwork mouse wound up > and released by JKR. And let's not forget, these single book plots > are there to lead us to the greater plot, the one encompassing the > whole series, the one that explains the what and why of the whole > kit and caboodle. An interesting question, Kneasy. This reader is interested to see if the works match the stated authorial principle--that everything in the series began with Harry. She dreamed him up, and then came his parents, and then came Hogwarts. Of course, this means that things have inevitably been changed and reworked to connect with each other and all of that, but... I still maintain my sneaking suspicion that yes, it is all actually going to come back and down to him--and it's going to involve his actions, not merely Harry-as-spectator. I'd argue that all of the Thingy of Whatits are primarily important in and so much as they relate to Mr. Potter, not the other way around. The plotlines are designed to give Mr. Potter things to do, rather than Mr. Potter being merely another gear plugged in to make the machine go. Most all of the other characters--they are probably mainly considered for their plot relevance, but also for what they mean to the abovementioned eponymous hero. This greater plot, the Big Questions she chided us all for not asking more about (and seem rather impenetrable to guessing, in Rowling's presently obscure grand metaphysics)--I bet it's all going to come down to something about Harry and his actions in the end, too. Although I myself wouldn't mind some things with larger thematic or interpretive implications. Awfully fond of at least one of my analyses of the larger societal issues, I am. > You won't suss that out by sighing over Sirius or frowning at > Snape. It's conceivable you might by theorising, though. > Or aren't you interested in that bit? I speak only for myself, but some of us are *gasp* actually more interested in little things like analysis and interpretation than plot speculation--that is to say, it's really a matter of interest what it means and how it fits together, in addition to the (perhaps mere) question of what's going to happen. As such, it's interesting what the actions of a character might mean or be read as, rather than simply the actions that they take in the plot itself. There are perhaps hidden joys for the theorist to be found in interpretation, as well--when you have some idea what a character is about and what he represents, you can start to rank your guesses about future and past actions a little more intelligently. Of course future revelations force considerable reinterpretation. But we are not, all of a sudden, going to find out that Voldie is wonderful, or Draco is the actual hero of the whole thing, or that the 'So EWWWer It's In The SEWWWer' theory (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#eww, for the curious) is actually true. I hope she surprises us all. But I won't be surprised if there aren't big, huge, radical surprises. We've almost covered everything by now, haven't we? -Nora sings a love song (major key) to hermeneutics--the word that makes all the scientists of her acquaintance scatter and run From McGregorMax at ec.rr.com Sat Oct 30 19:04:03 2004 From: McGregorMax at ec.rr.com (mcmaxslb) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:04:03 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116793 I was surprised that in the books that the kids did not wear uniforms, after all Hogwarts is based of British Public schools and like similar schools in America they wear uniforms and one of the few things that the movies improve on the books is the uniforms. I read an interview with JKR and even she liked the uniforms. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 19:13:48 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:13:48 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform with Link In-Reply-To: <009b01c4be81$9cbce420$01fea8c0@domain.invalid> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116794 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Saitaina" wrote: > Meri wrote: > > the films was to make the kids look less like they were wearing lame > Halloween costumes. > > Santaina: > > But it IS a private (...) boarding school. Most of these have > uniforms...at least the private day schools I attended did. > > I could see them wearing muggle clothes under their robes during the > "off hours" but not during the school day. > > And while I prefer to think of them lounging around the common room > in their normal wear (jumpers, trousers, what have you) and throwing > on their robes only when heading into the school proper ...edited... > > Saitaina bboyminn: I think the books are implying that the student robes are closer to the robes we see McGonagall and Dumbledore wear in the movies, although perhaps not as fancy. A cruder version of them might be similar to a monks robe. But I don't see that as being very practical for modern kids (muggle or magic). So, for the sake of the movie, I think the more typical school uniforms with (for lack of a better term) academic robes were good choice. Here is a link that has been posted here many times before, but it's always worth a look especially for non-Brits who can't imagine school uniforms. "British Schoolboy Uniforms" http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/Bsu.html Take special note of the Blue Coat uniforms. Today there are many 'Blue Coat' schools in Britain, and I think all but the most traditional have switched to simple blue blazers. Also, note that the schools were brutally strict about making sure the students wore their uniforms completely and properly at all times. If you were seen outside of school without your hat on, it would be detention faster than you could say 'unfair'. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 19:39:13 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041030193913.14532.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116795 --- delwynmarch wrote: > > as I said in my previous > post, it was immediately obvious to me that this dream couldn't be > true, I can explain why if you want). > > Del I agree with Del. Hermione's comments were just too logical - it was the middle of the afternoon, there would be hundreds of MOM employees around, getting in would have been impossible - to be dismissed as easily as Harry did. Also while the vision of Arthur and the snake had been real, it was also clear that this vision was different. Harry insists that there had never been anyone in the DoM when he'd been there before and Hermione replies that he's never been there, he'd just dreamed about it before. And that's our clue that something is very off about this vision: if Harry's seeing the DoM as he's seen it in what he knows are visions from Voldemort's mind rather than as it must be during a normal working day, then something is badly wrong. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:06:59 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:06:59 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream In-Reply-To: <20041030193913.14532.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich < snip. Also while the vision of Arthur and the snake had been real, it was > also clear that this vision was different. Harry insists that there > had never been anyone in the DoM when he'd been there before and > Hermione replies that he's never been there, he'd just dreamed about > it before. And that's our clue that something is very off about this > vision: if Harry's seeing the DoM as he's seen it in what he knows > are visions from Voldemort's mind rather than as it must be during a > normal working day, then something is badly wrong. Alla: I don't understand, Magda. COuld you explain it, please? Are you saying that you also fugured that Sirius' dream was fake when you first read OOP? I know I did not. I cannot find any difference between dream about Arthur and Sirius and I am not sure how Harry could. How are Hermione's words that Harry never been there before are supposed to be a clue? Could you clarify, please? Thank you. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:14:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:14:29 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116797 Eggplant: > That is one of the few times in any of the books where Hermione was > dead wrong; her cat was trying to kill Ron's beloved pet and she > didn't seem to give a damn. Alla: Oh, she was wrong about that, no doubt about that for me. In fact someone recently said that Hermione was emotionally immature in PoA, Ron in GoF and Harry in OOP. I happen to agree with that. I am not letting her off the hook. She did not show any compassion to Ron, who clearly loved Scabbers. I was referring to Harry not talking to her after she told McGonagall about Firebolt. Alla earlier: > > Harry looking into Snape's Pensieve Eggplant: > Good for Harry! Snape was not fighting fair. Snape was an adult > and a skilled professor of magic and yet he took the precaution of > removing his most embarrassing memories before they started to probe > each others minds. Snape did not give Harry, who was just a school > boy, the same opportunity and that seems cowardly to me. It's like > the heavyweight boxing champion of the world putting on protective > padding before fighting a little boy while the kid gets nothing. And > Harry is supposed to apologize after Snape delighted in humiliating > Harry by bringing up the memory of a dog chasing him up a tree? Not > a chance. Alla: Ummm, if you ever read my posts about Occlumency you know that I definitely consider Snape and Dumbledore to be at fault for that disaster. I don't think Snape did a good job teaching Harry, I do think he was supposed to continue the lessons regardless, etc. BUT Harry violated his privacy (I can come up with many many justifications for it - including the fact that he only wanted to know about that stupid room in MOM, not about Snape's past - it is still WRONG in my book) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:18:10 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:18:10 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116798 > Del replies : >> - The way he treated his friends way too often in OoP. snip. It's not so much what he said or did, it's > the disrespect he showed for her (and Ron's) undying support and > loyalty. But this one is really personal to me, I understand that. > Alla: Not me, definitely not me. I find nothing unusual in Harry's behaviour in OOP. Especially because they all had their fair share of immature behaviour in the books. Both Ron and Hermione had a choice of not being there for Harry and accordingly not listening to him (undeservingly of course) venting his anger at him. I am glad they chose to be there and help him especially since all adults basically were not there for him in OOP. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:21:17 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:21:17 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116799 > Del replies : > I don't know. Look at many of the kids : Ron, Hermione, Neville, > Ginny, Luna, and some others. They don't seem to have a strong dark > side either. > Alla: Oh, are you saying that Harry is Darker than any of those kids? Definite disagreement on my part as to Ron and Hermione, since we know them quite well (Ron's abandoning Harry in GoF to me is basolutely the same or worse than Harry shouting at him in OOP, etc.) , others are second characters, therefore Rowling did not dive into them too deeply yet. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 30 20:34:30 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:34:30 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Del: > I was just saying that he did do many of those things, and that most > of the time, it didn't prevent him from sleeping soundly. > > Don't read more in my post than there was. Geoff: Now, Del, would I suggest a thing like that...... I was looking in my mirror and, seeing the reflection of a young lad with dark hair and an odd-shaped scar on his forehead, was considering my own misspent youth. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:47:26 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:47:26 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116801 > Del: > If Harry had > *truly* listened to Hermione, she could have explained all of that to > him, and he would not have just run into the MoM without a plan or a > backup like he did. > Neri: Just interjecting a bit of canon into the discussion, Harry did listen to Hermione in this case, as he almost always does. He was going to fly directly to the MoM, but instead accepted her idea to break first into Umbridge's office and find out if Sirius is in 12GP. After the breaking (IIRC) Hermione didn't object anymore to going to the MoM. From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:48:22 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:48:22 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116802 I think that I'd like to suggest something a little different here. Away from Sirius, Hermione, and Ron, I think that Harry should honestly feel sorry that he ever doubted Dumbledore. This is really where the problems came from. Harry ended up convinced that Dumbledore was somehow trying to do him harm or treat him like a baby. Now, Dumbledore may have to an extent been trying ro protect Harry. In fact, he admits as much when he talks to Harry later. However, throughout the last two books, Harry has become increasingly distrustful of people (which may or may not be justified and I don't want to argue that point right now). Certainly, as a child Harry had reason to not trust people, and I think that as a teenager it's easy to mistrust authority figures. But I think that Harry simply took some of Sirius' anger toward his (Sirius') situation and transferred it to Dumbledore. Dumbledore has protected Harry from the beginning, and Harry's distrust of that is what got him in trouble, IMHO. Dumbledore has never given Harry reason to not trust him and Harry not only decided to ignore that but then put himself and several of his friends in great danger before thinking about any of those circumstances. Cheers, Christy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:52:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:52:20 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116803 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Christy" wrote: snip. > Dumbledore has never given Harry reason to not trust him and Harry not > only decided to ignore that but then put himself and several of his > friends in great danger before thinking about any of those circumstances. > Alla: I disagree. Prior to OOP Harry never doubted Dumbledore (I can be wrong of course). In OOP Dumbledore abandoned Harry without much explanation, even if he had reasons for doing so. I don't believe that Harry should fee sorry for that at all. I also believe that in his last speech Dumbledore gave Harry MORE reasons to mistrust him by cheefully admitting (OK, not cheerfully, but stilladmitting) that he knew about his life at Dursleys and did nothing about it, even if again he had reasons for doing so. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 30 20:59:38 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:59:38 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform with Link - OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve/bboyminn: > Here is a link that has been posted here many times before, but it's > always worth a look especially for non-Brits who can't imagine school > uniforms. > > "British Schoolboy Uniforms" > http://www.archivist.f2s.com/bsu/Bsu.html > > Take special note of the Blue Coat uniforms. Today there are many > 'Blue Coat' schools in Britain, and I think all but the most > traditional have switched to simple blue blazers. > > Also, note that the schools were brutally strict about making sure the > students wore their uniforms completely and properly at all times. If > you were seen outside of school without your hat on, it would be > detention faster than you could say 'unfair'. Geoff: Perhaps a bit OT, but this message took me back a few years. When I was about 10, at a Junior school in Tooting (in south-west London), my Headmaster tried to encourage me to sit the entrance scholarship for Christ's Hospital. What put me off and led to disagreements at home which were finally resolved on my side, was the uniform. I was not going to wear that over my dead body!!! Then, at my grammar school, a cap was part of the uniform but by the Fifth Year, no kid wanting to keep his street cred would be seen wearing one. One day, a friend and I were walking along Battersea High Street when we met the Headmaster who greeted us with "Now, boys, if you had been wearing your caps, you could have raised them to me!" As he went on his way and we had immense difficulty smothering loud guffaws of laughter, my friend remarked "Ah, but we can do something that we couldn't do with caps on." "What's that?" asked I. "Touch our forelocks!" was the reply. I wonder what the secret wish of the average Hogwarts pupil is re uniform? Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 20:59:54 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:59:54 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > This might have been discussed before, but I'll readily admit that I > don't read most Worst Memory threads, because they always go back to > discussing the same old themes. > > My question is : why is the scene described in Snape's Worst Memory > so long ? > >...edited.... > > Is it just for *our* information, us the readers ? > > Is it because Snape isn't familiar with how a Pensieve works, so he > doesn't know how to cut exactly where it matters, and he ended up > leaving a lot of unnecessary material around the real matter of his > memory ? > > ...edited... > > And again, for all we know, maybe the fight was not even the real > important point of the memory. > > Anybody has any idea ? > > Del bboyminn: Think of a memory... now expand on that event. That shows you that an event memory can be variable. On different occassions when you remember a specific event, the size of that memory, the amount of information varies with how deeply you allow yourself to remember. So, I suspect memories are put into the Pensieve in the same way. The expanse of a particular memory depends on the detail to which a person want to remember it. Say you remember a time you went fishing. On one occassion, just the briefest flash of the memory may be enough to satisfy you, at other times, you may daydream about that event for hours. The point I am making is that memories are drawn from the brain based on the immediate intent of that person. When Dumbledore drew his memory of the Court scenes, his mind may have been on a specific court hearing. Whereas, alternately, he could have chosen to remember and withdraw the thoughts of the trial in it's entirety which would include many hearings. When Snape withdrew his memory of that specific event, it may have been critically important to his memory to include the 'I was just minding my own business' part. That's not so relavant to what Harry might see, but it's very relavant to Snape's emotions surrounding the event. Short version - I think the length of the Pensieve event is related to how, what, and how much the /drawer of memories/ related to the event; how much he chose to withdraw. Shortest version - the /drawer of memories/ choses whether he wants a snapeshot or a chronical. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:03:54 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:03:54 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116806 Alla wrote : " I find nothing unusual in Harry's behaviour in OOP. Especially because they all had their fair share of immature behaviour in the books." Del replies : I agree. But we weren't talking about unusual behaviour, were we ? We were talking about what we thought Harry should be sorry for. And if we had to do Hermione and Ron's lists too, some of their immature behaviour would probably make it to my list. But this is about Harry. Alla wrote : " Both Ron and Hermione had a choice of not being there for Harry and accordingly not listening to him (undeservingly of course) venting his anger at him." Del replies : Well yes, but : 1. They wouldn't be better friends if they did that. It's shameful in my book to repeatedly use your friends at punching-bags, but it's just as shameful to abandon a friend who's obviously going through a bad period just because he's not being too nice to you those days. 2. Harry needs them, they know it. He basically has nobody else but him. And all 3 of them have long ago informally committed to one another. 3. Can you imagine how Harry would react if they did that ? We have a glimpse of that at the beginning of the Christmas holidays, and it's not pretty. 4. Harry is quite often in a bad mood, or just an inch away from it. That makes it harder to avoid his temper... Alla wrote : "I am glad they chose to be there and help him " Del replies : So am I. I just wish Harry realised that they *chose* to be by his side and would treat them accordingly, instead of expecting more or something else. They do their best, but often he's just not satisfied. As you say, the adults are not doing their part, but this is not Ron and Hermione's fault. They are trying to compensate as best they can, but of course they can't do very much. And yet they are the only ones who suffer for Harry's frustration and misery throughout OoP. Only at the end does Harry finally let his anger blow up in the face of someone who is *really* responsible for part of his misery : DD. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:12:18 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:12:18 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116807 > Del replies : > I agree. But we weren't talking about unusual behaviour, were we ? We > were talking about what we thought Harry should be sorry for. And if > we had to do Hermione and Ron's lists too, some of their immature > behaviour would probably make it to my list. But this is about Harry. Alla: Actualy we WERE talking about unusual things. When I started the topic, I specifically asked for BIG things Harry should feel sorry for. I mean of course I cannot ( and will not dream about doing it) stop you or anybody from talking about everyday small things Harry should feel sorry for in your opinion, but I was not interested in that. I was not interested in things that teenagers usually screw up and teen angst and yelling is one of them, IMO. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 30 21:14:34 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:14:34 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > I still maintain my sneaking suspicion that yes, it is all actually > going to come back and down to him--and it's going to involve his > actions, not merely Harry-as-spectator. I'd argue that all of the > Thingy of Whatits are primarily important in and so much as they > relate to Mr. Potter, not the other way around. The plotlines are > designed to give Mr. Potter things to do, rather than Mr. Potter > being merely another gear plugged in to make the machine go. Most > all of the other characters--they are probably mainly considered for > their plot relevance, but also for what they mean to the > abovementioned eponymous hero. > Kneasy: Things to do....actions....yes. Though he may have some sort of fake 'choice' about what he does or tries to do, no way will he be in that position of his own volition. The clockwork mouse simile stands. He's forever ending up in fraught situations that are the result of misunderstandings, impetuosity and pig-headedness. Whatever happened to heroes who can actually think? It really is getting more than a little tiresome. Still, ever hopeful, we can pray that his luck eventually runs out and that provides he us with a modicum of amusement as he goes down for the last time. > Nora: > I speak only for myself, but some of us are *gasp* actually more > interested in little things like analysis and interpretation than > plot speculation--that is to say, it's really a matter of interest > what it means and how it fits together, in addition to the (perhaps > mere) question of what's going to happen. As such, it's interesting > what the actions of a character might mean or be read as, rather than > simply the actions that they take in the plot itself. There are > perhaps hidden joys for the theorist to be found in interpretation, > as well--when you have some idea what a character is about and what > he represents, you can start to rank your guesses about future and > past actions a little more intelligently. > Kneasy: Huh. And what are you going to do with these wonderful analyses and interpretations? Sit tight and then declaim on your insight when all is finally revealed? In this instance analyses and interpretations are tools to lever open the plot structure, not ends in and of themselves. Because quite frankly I think that many of the current interpretations are misleading or plain wrong. All the information is not yet in, things will change, surprises will be sprung. However, for sure JKR has cunningly slipped in clues and pointers (along with a barrel-load of red herrings) and they're not just intended for her own entertainment, that much she admits. She *expects* us to take up the challenge of perhaps beating her to the draw. She doesn't think we'll do it, but that just underlines the challange IMO. Sitting meekly waiting to be spoon-fed is not something I'm comfortable with. I don't mind being beaten, I don't mind being wrong, but doing nothing is not acceptable. It implies that one is happy not to think, that existing canon is the be-all and end-all of HP so close down and put your mind in neutral. Now if after analysis and interpretation we progress to extrapolation based on conclusions drawn and possibilities considered, then things can get very interesting. Not necessarily right, but certainly more fun than sitting twiddling our thumbs waiting for the next book to come along and tell us what to believe. > Nora: > Of course future revelations force considerable reinterpretation. > But we are not, all of a sudden, going to find out that Voldie is > wonderful, or Draco is the actual hero of the whole thing, or that > the 'So EWWWer It's In The SEWWWer' theory > (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#eww, for the > curious) is actually true. I hope she surprises us all. But I won't > be surprised if there aren't big, huge, radical surprises. We've > almost covered everything by now, haven't we? > Kneasy: We? What's this 'we'? The 'we' you're on about that has 'covered everything' is the 'we' that you're currently proposing is and has been wasting it's time. Sounds remarkably like that US Senator at the beginning of the last century who proposed closing down the U.S. Patent Office because everything useful had already been discovered. Talk about having limited expectations. And no, there are plenty of possibilities that have not yet hit the board, something I pointed out in post No. 101614 'Which way?' Too many fans wearing blinkers, I'm afraid - including I'm ashamed to say, yours truly. > -Nora sings a love song (major key) to hermeneutics--the word that > makes all the scientists of her acquaintance scatter and run Kneasy: All love songs belong in a minor key - they all end up with a loss, sooner or later. And if you're keen on hermeneutics then why are you arguing against theorising? It is after all concerned with - what? Theories of course. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:15:15 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:15:15 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116809 I, Del, wrote : " I don't know. Look at many of the kids : Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Luna, and some others. They don't seem to have a strong dark side either." Alla answered : " Oh, are you saying that Harry is Darker than any of those kids? " Del replies : No I'm not. I'm just saying that all those kids seem to be as innately good as Harry. Alla wrote : " Definite disagreement on my part as to Ron and Hermione, since we know them quite well (Ron's abandoning Harry in GoF to me is basolutely the same or worse than Harry shouting at him in OOP, etc.)" Del replies : Maybe. I personally couldn't compare the two, as they are very different instances. But I agree that they could be on a par. However, I fail to see how this makes Ron any darker than Harry ?? Alla wrote : "others are second characters, therefore Rowling did not dive into them too deeply yet." Del replies : Agreed. But what she does show us doesn't indicate any dark side in any of them (which is impossible in itself, I know). So saying that Harry's dark side is weaker than theirs is a bit of speculation IMO. Harry is a very good kid. I'm just saying he's not the only one. That's all. Del From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:16:58 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:16:58 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > Del: > > If Harry had > > *truly* listened to Hermione, she could have explained all of that > > to him, and he would not have just run into the MoM without a plan > > or a backup like he did. > > > Neri: > Just interjecting a bit of canon into the discussion, Harry did > listen to Hermione in this case, as he almost always does. He was > going to fly directly to the MoM, but instead accepted her idea to > break first into Umbridge's office and find out if Sirius is in > 12GP. After the breaking (IIRC) Hermione didn't object anymore to > going to the MoM. bboyminn: I think we need to give some thought to Harry's state of mind at that moment. He was in a panic; completely overcome by fear of what might happen to Sirius. And, given what he saw happen to Arthur Weasley, he had very reason to believe that what was happening to Sirius was real. None of us nor Harry can think very clearly when we are in a state of extreme emotional aggitation. But Harry does calm down ever so slightly when Hermione talks to him, and ultimately agrees to follow her advise. On the other hand, could we really expect Harry to do nothing? Could he really have lived with himself in either the Arthur or Sirius event if he had just rolled over and said 'it was just a dream', only to find out that Arthur and Sirius were really in danger at the time, and were now Dead? Believe me, the guilt of trying to save Sirius and failing would be nothing compared to the guilt of doing nothing and having Sirius die. Harry's simply not the type to shrug his shoulder and say 'it's not my problem' when he knows others are in danger. He does have a 'saving people thing', but that's not a bad thing. Although, admittedly, he does need to learn to temper it with a little forethought. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:17:44 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:17:44 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116811 Geoff wrote : " I was looking in my mirror and, seeing the reflection of a young lad with dark hair and an odd-shaped scar on his forehead, was considering my own misspent youth." Del replies : If you spent your youth in any way even remotely similar to Harry's way, I wouldn't call it misspent :-) Del From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Oct 30 21:19:41 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:19:41 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: <10CEFAF8-2A97-11D9-9BC3-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116812 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: >And > let's not forget, these single book plots are there to lead us to the > greater plot, the one encompassing the whole series, the one that > explains the what and why of the whole kit and caboodle. > > You won't suss that out by sighing over Sirius or frowning at Snape. > It's conceivable you might by theorising, though. > Or aren't you interested in that bit? > > Kneasy Well, what I'm mostly interested in are the things that will continue to provide food for thought and debate once I've read Book 7: Character, ethics, morals & principles, symbolism, narrative techniques, what kind of statement the author is making with her books, etc. Speculating about the plot is of minor interest to me. The various theories about future developments I've stumbled across while looking for analyses of what we've got so far, range from (mildly) interesting, plausible or at least amusing to boring, preposterous or annoying. The more complicated, elaborate and vulnerable to Occams Razor they are, the more likely it is they'll turn out to be wrong. The plot is a vessel; it's not what the Harry Potter books are about and after Book 7, it will be about as thrilling as yesterday's newspaper. But unless JKR is going to dissapoint her grownup readers quite badly, the other aspects will still be worth tackling. My 2 eurocents, Ren?e From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:21:50 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:21:50 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116813 Neri wrote : "Just interjecting a bit of canon into the discussion, Harry did listen to Hermione in this case, as he almost always does. He was going to fly directly to the MoM, but instead accepted her idea to break first into Umbridge's office and find out if Sirius is in 12GP. After the breaking (IIRC) Hermione didn't object anymore to going to the MoM." Del replies : The obvious reason is that she didn't want Harry flying in her face once again. A more puzzling reason might be that she couldn't think of a better idea, like going to 12GP or to the Burrow, or anywhere where they could find a member of the Order. I know that they had already warned Snape, but I must admit I was very surprised that Hermione didn't suggest going somewhere they could get strong (adult) reinforcement. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:23:25 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:23:25 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116814 >> Del replies : > Maybe. I personally couldn't compare the two, as they are very > different instances. But I agree that they could be on a par. However, > I fail to see how this makes Ron any darker than Harry ?? Alla: It does not make Ron Darker than Harry. It also does not make him BETTER than Harry. Again, the impression I got from your post was that you were saying that Harry is the ONLY one who has a Dark side, you know the WORST in the group. Del: >> Harry is a very good kid. I'm just saying he's not the only one. > That's all. > > Alla: Definitely, he is not the only one. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:34:50 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:34:50 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116815 Thanks Steve for the thoughtful answer (no pun intended). Steve wrote : "When Snape withdrew his memory of that specific event, it may have been critically important to his memory to include the 'I was just minding my own business' part. That's not so relavant to what Harry might see, but it's very relavant to Snape's emotions surrounding the event." Del replies : This in turn begs the question : *why* was it relevant ? The way I understand it, Snape took his memories away before starting the lessons, and then put them back at the end of the lesson. The only point seemed to be preventing Harry from seeing them, and Snape apparently wasn't leaving his memories in the Pensieve for further study. So why would it be important that the scene contains the "I was just minding my own business part", since this was not the part that Snape truly wanted to hide from Harry ? Unless of course : 1. He did leave some memories in the Pensieve for further study, and that memory happened to be one of those. Which makes me wonder what he was studying : was he trying to understand James and Sirius, or was he trying to reinforce his own hatred of them ? 2. He intended Harry to see that memory, in which case it's obviously critically important that Harry see the "minding my own business" part. Or maybe this memory was so loaded emotionally that he couldn't pinpoint the actual critical element, and couldn't help but put the whole package with it. So much for controlling his emotions. Hum, seems like your answer only sparked more questions in my mind, Steve :-) Sorry ! Del From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:34:38 2004 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (Nora Renka) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:34:38 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > Kneasy: > Huh. And what are you going to do with these wonderful analyses and > interpretations? Sit tight and then declaim on your insight when > all is finally revealed? In this instance analyses and > interpretations are tools to lever open the plot structure, not > ends in and of themselves. Here we must agree to disagree. I want the plot structure revealed so I have more information to work with on interpretation. You, it seems, do not care so much about that, as about the ultimate revelation of the plot. Non disputandum de gustibus. At least I will have something left to really think about when the series is over and lo, the mystery is gone. I'm sitting and working on what I have now, pondering the different possibilities that different revelations will make--because I can't analyze what I don't have, I can only analyze the meaning of a possibility. > Because quite frankly I think that many of the current > interpretations are misleading or plain wrong. All the information > is not yet in, things will change, surprises will be sprung. Here I agree completely. I know my own interpretations have significant holes, and I do think I try to label them as such and will readily admit to their weaknesses. > Sitting meekly waiting to be spoon-fed is not something I'm > comfortable with. I don't mind being beaten, I don't mind being > wrong, but doing nothing is not acceptable. It implies that one is > happy not to think, that existing canon is the be-all and end-all > of HP so close down and put your mind in neutral. Kneasy. It's not mindless to work through a text in other ways than just trying to figure out what's going to happen. Anyone doing interpretation knows very well that existing canon is not the end all. I can only speak for myself, again--but I am not deeply interested in speculation--or rather, that's not what I'm interested enough to take the trouble to write it out. It stays primarily to myself. But I am mildly annoyed by your implication that to not put the mechanics of the plot first is to become a spoon-fed reader. Unless you're a rabid deconstructionist, you have to rely upon your text, to some degree. And, for the moment, any interpreter must work with what he has. I happen to particularly enjoy trying to work through the meanings, implication, and structure of what we know so far, rather than wondering so much about the future events. This doesn't meant that I don't wonder and speculate at times, but again, that's not my main interest. > Kneasy: > All love songs belong in a minor key - they all end up with a loss, > sooner or later. > And if you're keen on hermeneutics then why are you arguing against > theorising? It is after all concerned with - what? Theories of > course. I'm not arguing against theorizing per se. I'm just saying that I find considerations of what things mean (hermeneutics) more interesting than speculations on the factual end of 'what's doing to happen' (pretty much everything in TBAY). Hermeneutics often has theory behind it (all hail Gadamer), but no, it overwhelmingly deals with actual existing texts--not with speculations about things that are not yet extant. It's one of the few nice things about it. -Nora notes that one of the most famous songs of loss is very, very firmly in the major mode From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Oct 30 21:36:51 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:36:51 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Alla: > "I am glad they chose to be there and help him " Del: > So am I. I just wish Harry realised that they *chose* to be by his > side and would treat them accordingly, instead of expecting more or > something else. They do their best, but often he's just not satisfied. > As you say, the adults are not doing their part, but this is not Ron > and Hermione's fault. They are trying to compensate as best they can, > but of course they can't do very much. And yet they are the only ones > who suffer for Harry's frustration and misery throughout OoP. Geoff: Yes, but isn't this the reaction of many people - not only teens - today? Example:the new washing machine goes wrong, so they finish up yelling down the telphone at the customer service receptionist because they're the only person they can reach and to whom they can express their annoyance and frustration. OK, they're sounding off at the wrong individual but their frustration leads them to /need/ a target. Harry's got to have a safety valve even if it is unfortunately his "customer service receptionist". Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:40:29 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:40:29 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116818 Alla wrote : "Actualy we WERE talking about unusual things. When I started the topic, I specifically asked for BIG things Harry should feel sorry for." Del replies : Ah, sorry, misunderstanding on the words. To me, unusual means something that Harry would not normally do, while big means something important Harry really screwed up. Screwing up his friendship with Ron and Hermione might not be so unusual (even though such a friendship is not exactly common IMO), but it sure is something big for me. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:43:13 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:43:13 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116819 > Del replies : > Ah, sorry, misunderstanding on the words. > > To me, unusual means something that Harry would not normally do, while > big means something important Harry really screwed up. Alla: Yes, that was definite language misundersatnding, which I often do too. Del: > Screwing up his friendship with Ron and Hermione might not be so > unusual (even though such a friendship is not exactly common IMO), but > it sure is something big for me. Alla: I think their friendship is stronger than that and survives Harry's screaming. > From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:46:23 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:46:23 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116820 Steve wrote : "Harry's simply not the type to shrug his shoulder and say 'it's not my problem' when he knows others are in danger. He does have a 'saving people thing', but that's not a bad thing. Although, admittedly, he does need to learn to temper it with a little forethought." Del replies : I admire Harry for always rushing to people's help. This is not what I have a problem with in this case. My problem is that he *believed* the dream was true when to me it was so obviously a fake. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done anything while knowing Sirius was in danger. I'm just saying that if Harry had forced himself to think straight (almost impossible, I know, which is *precisely* what LV was counting on), he would have realised that Sirius and LV *could not* be at the DoM, which in turn would have made him realise that rushing to the DoM was the *last* thing he should do. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:48:17 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:48:17 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116821 Alla wrote : " Again, the impression I got from your post was that you were saying that Harry is the ONLY one who has a Dark side, you know the WORST in the group." Del replies : When did I say that ?? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:55:15 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:55:15 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116822 Geoff wrote : "Yes, but isn't this the reaction of many people - not only teens - today? Example:the new washing machine goes wrong, so they finish up yelling down the telphone at the customer service receptionist because they're the only person they can reach and to whom they can express their annoyance and frustration. OK, they're sounding off at the wrong individual but their frustration leads them to /need/ a target. Harry's got to have a safety valve even if it is unfortunately his "customer service receptionist"." Del replies : I call people on their behaviour when they do that in RL, just as much as I disapprove of Harry doing it. And yes we all need safety valve. But *in my book* people should NEVER be used as safety valves. I try and apologise when I do it, and I expect the same from others. On the other hand, I have no problem with people getting angry at those who truly hurt them, like when Harry got mad at DD. Del From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Oct 30 21:56:22 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:56:22 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > Well, what I'm mostly interested in are the things that will > continue to provide food for thought and debate once I've read Book > 7: Character, ethics, morals & principles, symbolism, narrative > techniques, what kind of statement the author is making with her > books, etc. > > Speculating about the plot is of minor interest to me. The various > theories about future developments I've stumbled across while > looking for analyses of what we've got so far, range from (mildly) > interesting, plausible or at least amusing to boring, preposterous > or annoying. The more complicated, elaborate and vulnerable to > Occams Razor they are, the more likely it is they'll turn out to be > wrong. The plot is a vessel; it's not what the Harry Potter books > are about and after Book 7, it will be about as thrilling as > yesterday's newspaper. But unless JKR is going to dissapoint her > grownup readers quite badly, the other aspects will still be worth > tackling. > Dear, oh dear. Sounds as if there's someone else with fairly limited expectations. All depends on what you expect of plot, I suppose. If it's "Harry crunches Voldy, runs off with Ginny to farm Billywigs" then it would be pretty sterile, facile and any number of other -iles. Me, I'm hoping for more. I want it to go along a different path that will cause readers to think, discuss, argue long after the books have been published. But it can only reach that point if JKR guides the plot arc away from the trite and mundane. I've posted before that I'd be happy for Jo to come up with something entirely different - even to not come to a clear conclusion, to leave it all in the mind of the reader, for him/her to decide or determine what it was all about. Not really likely, I'll admit, but like you I think the series deserves more than a conventional fantasy conclusion. And when you consider it, that's the case with morals, ethics and such. To mean anything they must be personal - and they change with time and place. An imposed morality is no morality at all - morality is developed according to personality and experiences - it comes from within, it's part of one's belief system, philosophy, whatever. Behaviour can be enforced, morality is much, much more. And Jo has said that she hopes she's writing a story from which morals can be drawn - again a matter of readers personal interpretations, rather than a morality tale - here's the author's beliefs, take it or leave it. Kneasy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 21:59:46 2004 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:59:46 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116824 Alla wrote : " I think their friendship is stronger than that and survives Harry's screaming." Del replies : Uh, yes, of course. I shouldn't have used "screwing up" (words :-P). I guess I was thinking of something more along the lines of "abusing". Harry's anger put a temporary strain on his friendship with Ron and Hermione, but obviously it didn't destroy it. Del From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 30 23:14:33 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:14:33 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Thanks Steve for the thoughtful answer (no pun intended). > > Steve wrote : > "When Snape withdrew his memory of that specific event, it may have > been critically important to his memory to include the 'I was just > minding my own business' part. That's not so relavant to what Harry > might see, but it's very relavant to Snape's emotions surrounding > the event." > Del replies : > This in turn begs the question : *why* was it relevant ? ... Snape > took his memories away before starting the lessons, and then put > them back at the end.... The only point seemed to be preventing > Harry from seeing them, .... So why would it be important that the > scene contains the "I was just minding my own business part", ... ? > > Unless of course : > > 1. He did leave some memories in the Pensieve for further study, ... > > 2. He intended Harry to see that memory, ... > > Or maybe this memory was so loaded emotionally that he couldn't > pinpoint the actual critical element, and couldn't help but put the > whole package with it. So much for controlling his emotions. > > Hum, seems like your answer only sparked more questions ..., > Steve :-) Sorry ! > > Del bboyminn: The best part about you, Del, is that you never make it easy. I think we are dealing with two separate but related things. At the top is Snape's intellectual decision to hide that particular memory. Next is Snape's own SUBCONSCIOUS attachment to that memory. In his intellect, he wants to hide his humiliation from Harry, but subconsciously he can't detach himself from his emotions about being a 'victim'. In order to be a 'victim' he has to be innocent, minding his own business, and subjected to an /unprovoked/ attack. We could speculate that there were many other occassions when Snape was the attacker; when he attacked James without provocation. But subconsciously those instances, which by the way, he probably also hide in the pensieve, don't re-enforce his 'I didn't to anything to them' point of view. In addition, in the moment he selected that particular memory, his thoughts were probably also on Harry, and that re-enforced is subconsious emotional desire to make sure the /whole story/ was told. I think it's quite impossible for Snape to recall this event without the 'I'm innocent' part. So, it's intellect that drives the selection of that memory, but it is subconscious emotional attachment to the event that drives the size of memory. Of course, I speculate. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 30 23:22:30 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:22:30 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > This might have been discussed before, but I'll readily admit that I don't read most Worst Memory threads, because they always go back to discussing the same old themes. > > My question is : why is the scene described in Snape's Worst Memory so long ? > > > And again, for all we know, maybe the fight was not even the real important point of the memory. > > Anybody has any idea ? > Pippin: The whole dumbshow with taking the memories out and stashing them must be for mindlinked!Voldie's benefit. Voldemort must have confidence in DoubleAgent!Snape's ability to conceal his thoughts from Dumbledore, but Harry is a wild card -- the kid keeps coming up with powers strangely like Voldemort's own. And Voldemort, of course, believes that not even Snape can deceive *him* -- at least that's what I think is the foundation of Voldemort's unwarranted confidence in Snape. (Dumbledore's confidence in Snape is another matter -- I would guess Fawkes is involved in that.) Better not risk the Potter brat finding out where Snape's loyalties really lie. Voldemort and DoubleAgent!Snape concoct some story for Dumbledore to explain why Snape needs to put his memories in the pensieve. Dumbledore plays along -- if Voldemort won't permit Snape to teach Harry occlumency they'll be back where they started. All well and good, but Potter is a curious brat and may try to probe the pensieve himself. Fortunately memories seem to be accessed in chronological order, so besides whatever he's hiding, or pretending to hide, in the Pensieve, Snape adds an earlier memory: a long, juicy memory that is sure to intrigue Harry and keep him occupied should Snape be called away. Of course the fact that he set it up doesn't mean Snape can't be furious that Harry fell for it. Pippin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 30 23:24:09 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:24:09 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116827 Del wrote: My question is : why is the scene described in Snape's Worst Memory so long ? > > In GoF, when Harry visits DD's Pensieve, he goes through a series of short scenes which are always straight to the point : the trials of different people. > > But Snape's WM is different. It starts *way* before what seems to be the actual event of importance starts. If what matters is the fight between Snape, Sirius and James, what's the need for that long time between the beginning of the memory and the fight ? > > Is it just for *our* information, us the readers ? > > Is it because Snape isn't familiar with how a Pensieve works, so he > doesn't know how to cut exactly where it matters, and he ended up > leaving a lot of unnecessary material around the real matter of his > memory ? > > Or is it because there's something extremely relevant that happened in > that time but that Harry didn't get to see because he wasn't watching > Snape too closely ? > > And again, for all we know, maybe the fight was not even the real > important point of the memory. Hannah: Really good question Del! Probably the reason is just that JKR wanted us to get a nice long clip of the Marauders, and to 'ease us into' the scene (I think the long run up gave the eventual attack more impact than if we'd just seen from when it began). But that's a pretty boring answer, so I'll think of a better one. The length of memory must have got to do with how memories are removed before addition to the pensieve. I see it as something like this; Snape thinks about which memories he doesn't want Potter to see, and immediately the 'pantsing' comes to mind. Shuddering even at the memory of the humiliation, he places his wand against his head and thinks 'oh yes, it was after our DADA OWL.' So his brain accesses 'end of DADA OWL' and the memory is transferred from there on, presumably up until the end of the incident (or maybe of a *worse* incident that followed). Saying that, I like the idea that maybe we are missing something significant in that pensieve scene. It's just the sort of thing JKR would do; have us all focus on the 'pantsing' when in fact it was something Harry failed to notice earlier in the scene that was the really important bit (and it's true he's not the most observant person). Was it something as mundane as Snape, while reviewing the paper, realising he'd missed out a page of questions and thus failed the exam? Seems a bit unlikely though. Or maybe someone had gone over and whispered something to Snape, some sort of bad news, and Harry didn't notice because he had eyes only for James and Sirius. I guess we won't know till HBP... Hannah From BrwNeil at aol.com Sat Oct 30 23:27:54 2004 From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:27:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What sh... Message-ID: <1ac.2acdc330.2eb57d7a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116828 In a message dated 10/30/2004 5:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, delwynmarch at yahoo.com writes: I'm not saying he shouldn't have done anything while knowing Sirius was in danger. I'm just saying that if Harry had forced himself to think straight (almost impossible, I know, which is *precisely* what LV was counting on), he would have realised that Sirius and LV *could not* be at the DoM, which in turn would have made him realise that rushing to the DoM was the *last* thing he should do. Del I agree. Harry, not only has a saving thing, but a bull-headed thing. It was even pointed out to him that Severus and Voldemort were the two most wanted wizards in the world, how could they be in the ministry. Harry has to learn to listen to others and think. He can not continue to let his emotions make all his decissions. It all goes back to the conversation where Phineas says teenagers think they know everything and are always right. Harry thought he was right; he wouldn't listen to reason. The end result was the death of his godfather. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 31 00:05:17 2004 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:05:17 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116829 Alla wrote: > So, my question is - for what in his life Harry should REALLY feel > sorry for? > > Please think BIG.:) Harry not seeing Hermione side of things earlier in PoA > (actually, I think he already felt sorry for it), Harry looking into Snape's Pensieve and of course Harry trying to cast Crucio ( I don't think that was unjustifiable and the fact that he could not cast it speaks all the best for him, but in any event unforgivable is unforgivable and he needs to learn how to restrain himself even in the time of greatest pain). > > Again, on the top of my head I cannot come up with any other > transgressions of Harry which are not usual for growing up boy or > teenager, but I am ready to be convinced otherwise. Hannah: Like most posters so far on this thread, I think attempting the Cruciatius curse wasn't exactly his finest hour, nor was his treatment of his friends in OotP. Looking in the pensieve was so stupid that I don't really count it as a major transgression - I think he's a bit unbalanced at this point (the pretty lights remind him of his Evil-Overlord induced visions...) I'd like to add a couple of things which I don't think anyone has mentioned (forgive me if I have missed them, it's been a long day). 1. Harry sneaking off to Hogsmeade again and again during PoA. Just for once, Snape really is justified in being really angry with him, and Lupin too. OK, I suppose a lot of teenagers would have done the same. OTOH, this wasn't just ordinary rule breaking, and it wasn't for any higher purpose either. Lupin's 'trading their sacrifice for a bag of magic tricks' comment really hits home with Harry, and he feels awful because he knows it's true. I'm sure if he'd thought of that first he'd probably not have done it, but he still ought to feel a least a bit bad afterwards. 2. Harry never once thanking Snape for saving his life in PS. Not even a note. OK, Snape might not have appreciated it, but you'd think the boy would at least try. Snape worked very hard that year, as far as we (and Harry) can see, to protect Harry, unlike any of the rest of the staff. Thanking Snape would be difficult, but it would have been right. Harry should at least have felt he ought to. But he seems to have no guilt over having suspected Snape all year, and no compunction at all to say a simple thank you. If it were me, I'd have felt pretty damn guilty about the whole thing. They're not exactly the world's worst misdemeanors though. I'd agree with Alla that he's not a bad kid at all, and that even the above examples are partly attributable to his lousy upbringing, general teenagerishness, and a lack of guidance from adults. People commit far worse crimes than Harry while aged under 16, and they still get different treatment under law, because of their age. It seems to be accepted that teenagers, while more able to make decisions about morality and their own behaviour than younger children, are still going to make mistakes and shouldn't necessarily be damned for them. Hannah Fanfic at Schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Hannah_Marder/ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 00:08:41 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:08:41 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Steve wrote : > "Harry's simply not the type to shrug his shoulder .. when he knows > others are in danger. He does have a 'saving people thing', but > that's not a bad thing. Although, ..., he does need to learn > to temper it with ... forethought." > Del replies : > I admire Harry for always rushing to people's help. This is not what > I have a problem with in this case. > > My problem is that he *believed* the dream was true when to me it > was so obviously a fake. > bboyminn: Yes, I get it. You've done this before. Your point is not about the author or character's intent, but about your reaction /in the moment/ as you read that part. In that same light, as I first read it, while Harry was having the dream and just after, that lack of reasonable probability didn't occur to me. But when Hermione pointed it out, of course, I knew she was right; the two most wanted criminals in the wizard world strolling around the Ministry of Magic on a Friday(?) afternoon? Not likely. But when these things occur, for me as a reader, I'm so intent on 'what happens next' that I can't bring myself to pause and wonder. Hermione, in the moment, is not the least bit emotional, beyond some concern for Harry. She is reacting to Data; unverified information. Harry on the other hand is reacting on pure emotional panic. As a reader, I'm somewhat tracking Harry's emotions. JKR as an author has, or has attempted, to set the clues to make us feel as Harry feels. His only other incident of people appearing in his dreams was an incident in which Mr. Weasley nearly died. Yes, there actually were other dreams with people but the 'Arthur Incident' was recent and absolutely verified. Other dreams only had speculative verification. That incident only existed to serve two authoral purposes; one, to introduce the readers Neville's parents, and two, to set us and Harry up to believe that he is indeed having genuine clairvoyant or precognitive dreams. In his little Harry mind, if Arthur was really in trouble, then Sirius is at the same risk. In that moment, after Hermione expresses her doubt, I'm in the same boat as Harry going, 'but it can't be, but it must be, but it can't be, but it must be .... I've got to do something!' Harry's 'I've got to do something', is my, as a reader, equal need and determination for 'What happens next! What happens next!'. That immediate desire for /action/ prevents me, personally, from pausing to wonder. Harry's need for /action/, some action - any action, is what prevents him from pausing for logical analysis. While I can't say I thought the dream was fake, I'm sure we all knew in that moment, that there was something definitely dodgy about it. But what? Well, we won't know for sure until we /find out what happens next/. > Del: > > I'm not saying he shouldn't have done anything while knowing Sirius > was in danger. I'm just saying that if Harry had forced himself to > think straight (almost impossible, I know, which is *precisely* what > LV was counting on), he would have realised that Sirius and LV > *could not* be at the DoM, which in turn would have made him realise > that rushing to the DoM was the *last* thing he should do. > > Del bboyminn: Too right you are. In the second to the last paragraph above, I think we have the key. Harry seems to have to modes of operation; action and inaction. Indeed when Hermione is explaining things Harry is frustrated and resistant, but when Hermione suggests they try to contact Sirius, Harry accepts because Hermione has finally proposed a plan of /action/. Above all, in a crisis, Harry is going to act and re-act. In his normal daily non-crisis life, Harry is actually a pretty passive person. He hangs with is two closest friend to the exclusion of others, and tries to keep a low profile. Harry is a man of action indeed, but he has learned a very grave lesson, and that is action without forethought is dangerous and deadly business. Being a man of action, without positive confirmation that Sirius was OK, I don't think Harry could have NOT taken some action. But with some forethought, he might have been able to come up with a better action. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 00:38:51 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:38:51 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116831 > Hannah: snip. > I'd like to add a couple of things which I don't think anyone has > mentioned (forgive me if I have missed them, it's been a long day). > > 1. Harry sneaking off to Hogsmeade again and again during PoA. > Just for once, Snape really is justified in being really angry with > him, and Lupin too. OK, I suppose a lot of teenagers would have > done the same. OTOH, this wasn't just ordinary rule breaking, and > it wasn't for any higher purpose either. > 2. Harry never once thanking Snape for saving his life in PS. Not > even a note. snip. Alla: Hanna, I think your examples are wonderful and I don't think that anybody mentioned them yet. I absolutely agree witht he first one ina sense that although it is not an unusual behaviour for a teen, it was not done for any HIGHER purpose. So, yes, he should feel sorry for it and he does after Lupin's comment as you said. I would have agreed with the second one also, but for Harry being eleven. If he was at least fourteen, I would have been much less forgiving. Besides, JKR could not have Harry and Snape reconciliation in book 1, could she? :) I tend to think that it was mainly plot based reason not to have Harry apologise. Hanna: >People > commit far worse crimes than Harry while aged under 16, and they > still get different treatment under law, because of their age. It > seems to be accepted that teenagers, while more able to make > decisions about morality and their own behaviour than younger > children, are still going to make mistakes and shouldn't necessarily > be damned for them. > Alla: Oh, thank you. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 00:47:55 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041031004800.65828.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116832 >> Alla wrote : >> " Again, the impression I got from your post was that you were >> saying that Harry is the ONLY one who has a Dark side, you know >> the WORST in the group." > > Del replies : > When did I say that ?? > You didn't say that. I remember your posting quite well and that was certainly not the impression I got from reading it. Magda (who feels like she's butting into a private conversation) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 01:09:03 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041031010903.62431.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116833 >>Magda Grantwich: >>Also while the vision of Arthur and the snake had been real, it >>was also clear that this vision was different. Harry insists that >>there had never been anyone in the DoM when he'd been there before >>and Hermione replies that he's never been there, he'd just dreamed >>about it before. And that's our clue that something is very off >>about this vision: if Harry's seeing the DoM as he's seen it in >>what he knows are visions from Voldemort's mind rather than as it >>must be during a normal working day, then something is badly wrong. > > > Alla: > > I don't understand, Magda. COuld you explain it, please? Are you > saying that you also fugured that Sirius' dream was fake when you > first read OOP? I know I did not. I cannot find any difference > between dream about Arthur and Sirius and I am not sure how Harry > could. How are Hermione's words that Harry never been there before > are supposed to be a clue? Could you clarify, please? Thank you. I knew the Sirius-vision was fake when I read Hermione's practical, logical objections and Harry's inadequate and emotional responses. It was clear that this was not going to be the usual Harry-saves-the-day-with-backup-from-pals thing that was the climax of the other books. What was wrong with the Sirius-vision? 1. As Steve and others have pointed out, Voldemort and Sirius would not have been able to get that deeply into the physical MoM as to penetrate the DoM. It was not likely that they were there. 2. Harry had the Sirius-vision during the afternoon, that is, during a regular workday at the MoM. The DoM is special but there still would have been MoM employees there, again raising doubts about how Voldemort and Sirius could have got in. Yet Harry sees himself walking down the corridor, through the first and second doors, with no one else in sight. In other words, it looks the same as when he sees it in his dreams at night, which he knows are not real. Had the Sirius-vision been real, he would have had to avoid being seen by the MoM/DoM employees. Ergo, the Sirius-vision was not real from the get-go. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 01:09:50 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 21:09:50 EDT Subject: "I trust him". Message-ID: <89.1870dfd3.2eb5955e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116834 >kmc adds: >The failure of the Occlumency is due to a trust issue but Harry is >the guilty party here not Snape? catkind: I had this down as Snape betraying DD's trust in him, not because he failed to get the unwilling Harry to learn, but because he stopped trying. So it's not a betrayal of trust that he threw Harry out of his office in a temper, but it is that he didn't hoik him back in the next week. He has not done his best to do the extremely important task DD set him. I'm undecided as to whether Harry has let down anyone's trust in him. If so, whose? Agreed that Snape did not do his very best by abandoning the lessons, hence Dumbledore's disappointment when he told Harry he'd hoped Snape could overcome his feelings about James. In that sense Snape did "betray" Dumbledore's trust in him. As for Harry, one could certainly say he betrayed Snape's trust by sticking his head where it didn't belong. That's true even if Snape wasn't consciously "trusting" Harry not to delve into the pensieve, but simply didn't think to retrieve the memories before he left to deal with Montague. Harry's action is wrong, and he knows that very well, hence the justifications to himself. Beyond that, Harry also betrayed the trust of those who told him how important the Occlumency lessons were, and how critical it was that he take them seriously. That would include Lupin, Siruis, and Dumbledore. Further, he also betrayed Dumbledore's trust by violating Snape's privacy. Yet I consider "betrayal" a very strong word for everything that happened during the Occlumency lessons. True betrayal to me implies intent, and I don't think either Snape nor Harry intended the lessons to fail. Also that failure came about partly because of extenuating circumstances (Harry's violation of Snape's privacy, the lack of explanation about why the lessons were so important--which might have provided Harry sufficient motivation to apply himself--as well Harry's susceptibility to Voldemort's manipulations). I think it's because of those extenuating circumstances, some of which were unexpected, but some of which Dumbledore should have foreseen, that led Dumbledore to blame himself foremost, and to experience no diminishment of trust in either Snape or Harry. Which explains--in too many words, no doubt!--why he continues to trust Severus Snape. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christyj2323 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 01:18:47 2004 From: christyj2323 at yahoo.com (Christy) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:18:47 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116835 Alla Said: I disagree. Prior to OOP Harry never doubted Dumbledore (I can be > wrong of course). Maybe I used bad phrasing (or didn't explain well enough *g*), but it isn't doubt as much as trust. Harry doesn't really trust DD, and has no reason to not trust him. While I agree, after DD explains himself at the end of Order Harry has plenty of reasons to not trust him (and oddly enough, I think Harry trusts him MORE at that point than any other) previous to that Harry doesn't have a reason to not trust DD. Yet he still has mistrust. You can see it when Harry continually decides to not tell DD things (like his scar hurting, his dreams, his lack of occlumency lessons, etc.) that are important and he even recognizes that he should tell someone. But never does. And I think that his lack of trust in everyone is something he should feel sorry for. It's Harry's lack of trust, I think, that leads him into the situation at the Ministry of Magic which is a situation that could have easily been prevented. And I'm not saying that Harry holds all the blame. There are certainly other people who hold a large chunk of blame (Sirius, Snape, and DD among others). But if Harry had been a little more trusting a lot of problems would have been avoided (and we wouldn't have had a story, but that wasn't part of the questions was it? *g*) Cheers, Christy From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 03:18:37 2004 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:18:37 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Uniform with Link - OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116836 > Geoff wrote: > Perhaps a bit OT, but this message took me back a few years. > > When I was about 10, at a Junior school in Tooting (in south-west > London), my Headmaster tried to encourage me to sit the entrance > scholarship for Christ's Hospital. What put me off and led to > disagreements at home which were finally resolved on my side, was the > uniform. I was not going to wear that over my dead body!!! Gosh, and when I saw it my first thought was "I wonder where I can get one of those!" But I guess having to walk around in public in that thing *every day* would be very different from wearing it for cosplay. To drag this message back on topic Isn't it funny that we never see Harry or the other muggleborn boys complaining about wearing what is, essentially, a shapeless black dress? You'd think some of them would initially be reluctant. Alex From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 31 04:57:00 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:57:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Uniform Message-ID: <20041031.011555.7160.1.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116837 Elizabeth said: > > I always thought that it simply came down to upbringing. Pure- > bloods like Snape and Malfoy=nothing. Muggle-born (or someone with a > muggle obsessed parent *coughMrWeasleycough*)like Harry and Hermione= > clothes on underneath. I think it's fashion and the times. When the Marauders were in school, the WW was much more separated from the MW. Hence, traditional robes - no muggle trousers or skirt underneath. (I agree they must have had some clothes underneath, at least in the winter; snape was probably near-commando in the Worst Memory b/c it was springtime - too hot for trousers.) Since the last war, the MW and the WW have converged a bit more, so at some point, wearing an overrobe over Muggle or near-Muggle clothes came into style. Or, Hogwarts' dress codes have just relaxed. The Marauder gens always wore Muggle clothes out of school, but it wasn't until recently that DD (or, more likely, McG) decided to change the dress code regs. Aura, who likes goth/punk!Sirius in fic and fanart. ~*~ "You said I killed you - haunt me, then! The murdered do haunt their murderers, I believe. Be with me always - take any form - drive me mad! Only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!" --Wuthering Heights http://archive.skyehawke.com/authors.php?no=606 From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 31 04:54:55 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:54:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin after the war (Was:The new headmaster) Message-ID: <20041031.011555.7160.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116838 Carol said: > I think it's overly optimistic to expect virtually the whole WW to > completely overcome its fear of werewolves Like fighting any prejudice, redefinition could include teaching students that werewolves are just people with a condition, not dark creatures, etc etc. Ratcheting down their danger level in Fantastic Beasts and other textbooks would be nice, too. (Yes, I actually get annoyed that FB has werewolves at the same danger level of, I forget, something insanely dangerous. Only one night a month!) ,> perhaps as short as > twenty-four hours, when they're fully beast. 12 hours, max, in the dead of winter. They're only changed during the night. > They are not born throughany union of human and wolf What would it matter if they were born of a human and non-human? That's the whole point of Hagrid and that Beuxbatons woman - they're discriminated against b/c of their lineage. The WW needs to stop its obcession with pureblood. > (JKR has said that the werewolf cubs under Hagrid's > bed were a lie on Tom Riddle's part Side note, but, that's exactly the kind of rumor a pureblood bastard like TM would spread. > An understanding of their special > position would be a first step in enabling them to find jobs in > which they could be supervised cared for during their dangerous phase. They don't need to be supervised or cared for on the job. They're not going to wolf out suddenly just because they're angry or something. They just need a safe, nonpopulated place to run around in when they change. In the interest of public heath, the MoM would just need to set up some field somewhere for werewolves to apparate to at dusk. And the MoM could put up whatever wards to keep the changed wolves from getting out. Hell, they could play together and keep each other from hurting themselves. > and I don't think Lupin would ever be > allowed near children after having endangered three students. In the WW? Where kids fall of brooms and blow up cauldrons on a daily basis? The whole point of Lupin's character is that he's gentle and kind, except for one night a month. He's an excellent teacher and as long as he manages his condition (which he does, taking the wolfsbane and going to the shack), he's a hell of a lot safer than SOME (greasy git) professors. > It would be interesting, however, to see some sort of truce between > him and Snape, with Snape providing Lupin with wolfbane potion again > as an acknowledgment that Lupin (unlike Sirius) never intended to > kill him. I really really don't think Sirius intended to kill Snape. Making Sirius a 16-year-old murderer would be stretching his character to reaches that I don't think are reasonable. We don't know the circumstances of why the Prank happened. I think it makes the most sense that Snape suspected that there was something up with Remus, Snape tormented Sirius with the info, and Sirius -- being a 16 yr old kid with a bad temper and poor restraint -- said sometihng like "Yeah? If you think you know so much, check out the whomping willow tonite." Sirius probably didn't even expect Snape to get through -- the knot was a secret, and even if Snape did know about it, it was more likely he'd get conked before he tried to push it. Also, I think Snape knows that Remus, as a human, never wanted to kill Snape. Snape hates Remus because Snape hates half-humans. Snape may not be a DE, but I do think he holds pureblood values. > His friends are all dead We don't see Remus aside from the ten minutes per year he's talking to Harry. *Sirius* was lonely and berift, but Remus has had 16 years to build a life for himself. It's a difficult life, and probably a little lonely, but I think Remus has friends, dates occasionally, etc. Remus is introverted, too; I don't think he needs a huge social circle. > he can't in good conscience marry Why not?! Show of hands, who here would marry sweet, kind, smart and bookish, reasonably good-looking Remus? I would, in a second. His lycanthropy is not an issue - he can't pass it on to children (and even if he could, that can be worked around), and he has had decades to learn how to manage it responsibly and safely. Remus is not dangerous. Even on full moon nights, he takes wolfsbane (which helps him keep his human mind, so he won't just attack anyone) and goes somewhere safe to change. He's been a werewolf for 30 years and has never harmed anyone. He knows how to keep himself safe around others. > he'll have to *earn* the respect and trust of the > WW if the opportunity arises--it won't just be handed to him. As does anyone in life. Remus has something in his life that makes life difficult a couple days a month and makes people prejudiced against him. There are millions of people in that position; friend of mine was just saying that Remus is a metaphore for a plethora of people who are discriminated against because of race; religion; sexual orientation; having a disease like AIDS, MS, or schizophrenia; or any of the other host of problems that come up when life isn't perfect. You deal with it -- you surround yourself with people who love and support you, take whatever precautions are necesary in your professional life, and basically learn to do what you have to do in order to be who you are. Remus' situation or condition is not *who* he is - it's something he has to live with, but it doesn't have to take over his life. The MoM has an obigation to the people it governs to help people like Remus be able to live their lives. Aura ~*~ "You said I killed you - haunt me, then! The murdered do haunt their murderers, I believe. Be with me always - take any form - drive me mad! Only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!" --Wuthering Heights http://archive.skyehawke.com/authors.php?no=606 From kb1195 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 02:34:39 2004 From: kb1195 at hotmail.com (katevldz) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:34:39 -0000 Subject: why did Voldie attack the Potter on Halloween? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116839 Justine wrote: > What interests me most about Samhain is, of course, the Veil. > According to Celtic mythology, the Sidhe, or spirits, return to the > world of the living on Hallowe'en to visit with family or tribe, and > to celebrate for this one night. When it has ended, they leave > through the Veil once again. Now here's the kicker: if a being has > gone through the Veil before he's actually died, he can come back on > Hallowe'en and remain with the living. I'm probably getting my > hopes up, but as soon as I discovered this, I literally jumped for > joy, especially since Hallowe'en is such a crucial date in the > series. Kate: Justine, I have read that about Samhain and the connection with the Veil. As a huge Sirius fan, I hope beyond hope this has some impact in his story line. Like you said, Halloween is a crucial date in the series. My question is about where you say that if a being has gone through the veil before he's actually died, he can come back on Halloween and remain with the living. Can you tell me where you found that? I'd be interested to read more about it. I have a feeling we'll be seeing Sirius next Halloween! kate From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 03:00:33 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:00:33 -0000 Subject: Harry V Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116840 I just had a sad and morbid, but ? dramatically interesting thought while watching Kenneth Branagh's Henry V. What if Harry, as he attempts to lead in the final battle against LV, has to turn on one of his comrades in order to make it clear that he and his are the side of good and capable of being true to that which is good, no matter the personal cost. You know, something like Henry having to have Falstaff hanged to show that he will not tolerate looting as part of the campaign to conquer France. I could imagine a several such scenarios, some of them just as heart wrenching as the death of Falstaff ? which is one of the most difficult and dramatic moments in English Literature (IMO). So who would it be and why would it happen and what in canon makes this possible. Discuss. OK, I will start. A few potential Heart Breakers would be: One or both of the Weasley Twins: Some joke they pull goes too far, or has too little purpose or servers only the purpose of revenge. Harry leaves them to be taken by Dementors, or to some other disturbing end in order to make it clear that in their victory they shall not seek revenge -- but work to heal and unify the WW. Harry goes on to give some sort of tearful "we few, we happy few ." St. Crispin's Day Speech and so on. Dumbledore himself: This one really bites, but DD does something stupid does not tell Harry something that could have saved someone we love from a needless death or reveals some other way that he could have prevented things from becoming as bad as they do Harry must show that in the new WW truth will be unveiled and secrecy will not be the way of the righteous DD must be punished ? the punishment could be a natural outcome of his own action, but Harry, who could in some way intervene, must not in order to make his stand on secrecy clear. Harry goes on to give some sort of tearful "we few, we happy few "St. Crispin's Day Speech and so on Anyone want to tread this depressing road with me? --barmaid From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 04:44:42 2004 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:44:42 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream, 2-way mirror In-Reply-To: <20041031010903.62431.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116841 > Magda Grantwich: > I knew the Sirius-vision was fake when I read Hermione's practical, > logical objections and Harry's inadequate and emotional responses. > It was clear that this was not going to be the usual > Harry-saves-the-day-with-backup-from-pals thing that was the climax > of the other books. Juli now: When I first read OoP I almost cried when I learned that Sirius was been held prisioner by Voldemort. Not for a second did I thought it was fake. Even if Sirius and LV are the 2 most wanted wizards on the WW, I guess they could just apparate at the DoM, which is usually quite lonely (In Harry's visit he only saw Bode who by the time of the vision was dead). Harry at first did believe in Hermione, that's why he broke into Umbridge's office. Besides Hermione shouldn't have said that LV trusted Harry's saving people's thing, it was extremely rude. Harry doesn't walk around thinking who to save and how to be the hero, when someone he cares for is in danger he inmediately tries to help, it's just who he is. I've never thought of it as a bad quality, I think it's a great asset of him, always thinking of others before him. On another idea, WHY didn't he open Sirius' package (the 2 way mirror)?? JKR has said on her website that it's not the first time he forgets a gift, he forgot his knife during the 2nd task at the TWT, he may have forgotten before going in the lake, but the minute he got to Ron & co he remembered it. He only thinks about the gift long after Sirius is dead. What if he had thought about the gift BEFORE going into Umbridge's office? Could Sirius be alive then? Forgive me but I still can't deal with Sirius' death. Ever since Harry met him in PoA, he's love him, and they've always been there for each other. I still can't understand why he had to die. Maybe we'll learn why someday. Juli From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 31 06:26:53 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:26:53 -0000 Subject: Modern Sensibilities vs. Potterverse: The 4th Unforgivable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KarenDetroit" wrote: > > > I have noticed frequent criticisms of JKRowling's characters and > their actions vis-a-vis the students in their care, with frequent > criticisms decrying sadism, shocking lack of concern for the > students' safety, etc., and this of course implies criticism of the > author, too. > Yes, I suppose that it does. And many of the criticisms made are quite explicit in that they are criticizing JKR. Not really for her morals, as such, however. I think most of the criticisms are on the order of wishing she would think more carefully about what she says and implies. In other words, although she claims to have thought very carefully about the structure of her books, sometimes she seems rather oblivious of things that seem quite obvious to many of the readers. That doesn't make her a bad person or a stupid person or an unworthy person. It is simply a criticism of her as a professional writer. And that, although it may seem harsh at times, is a perfectly legitimate activity and is, in fact, part and parcel of the writing and publishing profession. > Leaving aside for the moment that this is a work of fiction, and the > author is from another culture (Great Britain), I must protest the > provincialism of holding other cultures to whatever pychobabble is > currently passing for mores in the US. Well, you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, please remember that it is only an opinion, and those that object to certain aspects of JKR's writing are just as entitled to express their opinions. What you see as "psychobabble" others see as truth buttressed by reliable testimony and their own experience. To dismiss it so casually is, I'm afraid, more an evidence of your own provincialism than that of the people you are castigating. "Modern" US parenting > practices are anything but time-tested, don't constitute "best > practices" as any business or science understands the term, and > should be taken with a grain of salt in normal (US) circumstances; See comment above. in > a foreign culture, living in a state of undeclared war, such > practices and standards would be comic, to say the least, and most > are likely guaranteed to inflict severe damage on the people involved > if applied. Consider Hermione's S.P.E.W. campaign as a lesson in not > assuming too much. You seem to think that damage imposed by inflicting such standards is self-evident. Once again, that is only a matter of opinion, and it is an opinion many other people disagree with. The practices and beliefs you decry would not have gained hold in the U.S. or anywhere else if many, many people did not find them worthwhile and valuable. Simply because they are not "time-tested" proves very little. To take your example of S.P.E.W., are you objecting to Hermione's anti- slavery stance? It is true that slavery is much more time-tested and, in the grand sweep of history, culturally sanctioned than anti- slavery. I hope you are not implying, therefore, that anti-slavery is therefore obviously a wrong-headed policy or opinion. Similarly sadistic teaching techniques are, as you imply, time-tested and, in the grand sweep of history, culturally sanctioned. Does that mean that it is automatically wrong-headed to feel that they are foolish and destructive? And simply because a given culture is not one's own, that in no way disqualifies you from offering criticism and opinions. After all, it was common in the days of Jim Crow for white southerners to tell northerners to govern their own states as they saw fit and keep the H**l out of southern business. Practices exist because they are approved of in a given culture. To rule out criticism coming from outside of a culture only serves to buttress whatever practices are in place, be they good, bad, or indifferent. > > Some have mentioned the fact that Harry Potter's point of view is > limited, and often uninformed due to the facts that (1) he is an > immigrant to the Wizarding World, (2) he is immature and > inexperienced in general , and (3) he is a rather unobservant child. > All are valid points that acknowledge that Harry is often ill- > informed and not terribly good at reporting fully or understanding > fully what is going on around him. This is perfectly natural, and > shows the author's familiarity of dealing with the young, as well as > providing lots of plot and character development. There is the added > possibility that he has been misinformed by deceitful or ignorant > informants. Harry's emotions are not good sources of factual > information about anything except Harry's state of mind. But we are not told just about Harry's emotions, are we? The fact that Umbridge used a quill that caused Harry to slice his own skin is not an emotion, it is the objective state of affairs. The words Snape utters are not determined by Harry's emotions, but by what comes out of Snape's mouth. The rampant presence of danger and bullying at Hogwarts is not determined by Harry's emotions. Rather such things are a description of objective states of affairs. The fact that Harry percieves little attempt by Dumbledore or others to restrain all this is not an emotion, it is an objective statement of Harry's perceptions. Granted Harry's perceptions are colored by emotions, as are everyones. But nevertheless that does not make them invalid as evidence, and indeed the only evidence presented for what goes on in this fictional world. > > No doubt the author will attempt to fill in the multiplicity of > information gaps to satisfy our curiosity by the end of the story, > and it is fun to analyze what clues she leaves us. May I plead that > the rush for judgment be suspended? Make it the 4th Unforgivable! > > "kdmpf" You may of course plead for such a policy, however I'm afraid that the plea will not meet with much positive response. JKR can write whatever she wants. That is the privilege of an author. We as readers may offer whatever criticisms we want. That is the privilege of a reader. There is nothing in the least unforgiveable, extraordinary, or objectionable about it. It is simply a natural, inevitable, and indispensible part of the interaction between an author and his/her readers as mediated by a particular piece of written material. Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 06:36:01 2004 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:36:01 EST Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape Message-ID: <1c3.202497e5.2eb5e1d1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116843 Pippin wrote in passing: > (Dumbledore's > confidence in Snape is another matter -- I would guess Fawkes > is involved in that.) This got me to thinking. Dumbledore must trust Snape so completely because of one of three reasons that I can see. 1. Because of something Snape *did*. For example, it was a potion concocted by Snape that saved baby Harry from the AK curse Voldemort threw at him. (Again, just an example, since I don't think this is the reason.) Or, using Pippin's theory above, Snape saved Fawkes. Or something else, but whatever he did proved his loyalty to Dumbledore. 2. Because of something Snape *is*. Snape is related to Dumbledore, Snape is related to Voldemort through some connection between Voldy's mother's family and the Snapes, Snape with his potions ability was able to concoct something that will help destroy Voldemort. Whether Snape's nature prompts DD to bring him back into the family fold, or allows him access into the confidence of Uncle Voldy, or gives him the unique ability to do something else (turn into a bat? ), it is that very nature which makes Dumbledore believe Snape's loyalty is secured. 3. Because of a betrayal by Voldemort so deep that there is no question where Snape's loyalty now lies. For example, Voldemort had Snape's wife/son/other family member killed, for reasons from questionable loyalty of said victim to "freeing" Snape from any distracting emotional entanglements. In this scenario Voldy would have to be blind to the possibility of Snape feeling resentment or grief, but Voldemort is blind to loyalty based on emotions like love. There are probably more, but these are the three that seem most likely to me. And if we only knew what it was Dumbledore had to ask of Snape at the end of GoF, we'd probably know which one (if any) was correct! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 31 07:23:00 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:23:00 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore trusts Snape In-Reply-To: <1c3.202497e5.2eb5e1d1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Pippin wrote in passing: > > > This got me to thinking. Dumbledore must trust Snape so > completely because of one of three reasons that I can see. > > 1. Because of something Snape *did*. > > 2. Because of something Snape *is*. > > 3. Because of a betrayal by Voldemort so deep that there > is no question where Snape's loyalty now lies. Actually, I think there is a fourth at least as likely as these, that is 4) Because of something Snape *wants.* I think it is very interesting and possibly meaningful that Dumbledore has never said "I like Severus Snape." He has never even said in canon, that I recall, "I respect Severus Snape." Rather it is always "I trust Severus Snape." Meaning that he believes he can rely on Snape to act in certain ways in certain situations. Now, from what we know of Snape perhaps the thing other than anger that best describes him is "willful." He seems to be a man of incredibly strong will. Given that, it would make sense if Dumbledore has knowledge of something Snape wants or desires, something he can only get if Voldemort is defeated. This would certainly be enough to inspire his trust. He knows that Snape will never depart from the path of getting whatever it is Snape desires, and therefore he trusts Snape in the struggle against Voldemort. I think it is suggestive that DD has never really upbraided Harry for his lack of respect toward Snape. Other than remonstrating with him gently over using Snape's correct title and other than gently asking Harry to use his own logic with regard to the situation in Umbridge's office in OOTP, DD has never told Harry he should avoid arguing with Snape, or that Snape is a man Harry should respect, or that Snape is more worthy than Harry knows, or that Snape has good qualities Harry hasn't seen or doesn't appreciate. In fact, Dumbledore has never even suggested that Harry should thank Snape for saving his life. The strong message he seems to be sending is that Snape really is as nasty and selfish as Harry perceives him to be. (And it is worth noting that even JKR herself talked about Snape's "latent" good qualities, rather than just his good qualities). Now, why trust a nasty, selfish man? Because you know something said nasty, selfish man strongly desires, and know how said nasty, selfish man must act to acquire it. Lupinlore From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 07:37:55 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:37:55 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream In-Reply-To: <20041030193913.14532.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116845 Magda: > I agree with Del. Hermione's comments were just too logical - it was > the middle of the afternoon, there would be hundreds of MOM employees > around, getting in would have been impossible - to be dismissed as > easily as Harry did. Finwitch: Well, you know - just because Hermione thinks it's impossible, doesn't mean it is. After all, with things like Invisibility Cloaks, Apparation, Polyjuice Potion, Unforgivables... Hermione was underestimating Voldemort and Harry's visions - which had so far been real. Curiously enough, as much as Hermione disregards Divination - (which is the closest study-able thing to visions) - it is only Trelawney's death-predictions that have not as yet, come true. (And of course, with death, it's just a matter of time, as wizards aren't immortal). And just because it's more LIKELY to be a trap - well, Trelawney's TRUE prophecy Harry witnessed (and Hermione didn't believe) wasn't likely - not even according to Trelawney herself. So um - when it comes to a warning vision, it would be wrong to disregard it for logic. And that was all Hermione had against it. Magda: > Also while the vision of Arthur and the snake had been real, it was > also clear that this vision was different. Harry insists that there > had never been anyone in the DoM when he'd been there before and > Hermione replies that he's never been there, he'd just dreamed about > it before. And that's our clue that something is very off about this > vision: if Harry's seeing the DoM as he's seen it in what he knows > are visions from Voldemort's mind rather than as it must be during a > normal working day, then something is badly wrong. Finwitch: Normal working day? Sure, but Harry *had* seen the corridor in DoM before, during the day he had trial (otherwise it'd just be some corridor he'd not recognise). He HAD seen DoM before, during a working day, and NO ONE was there then as far as he could see. And the SNAKE got there just fine to kill Arthur, which WAS a true vision. So apparently, Voldemort knows how to get in (and besides, Harry saw Lucius Malfoy, a DE, giving bribes when he was at the Ministry). Harry knows full well how corrupted the Ministry is - the Ministry that denied Voldemort ever came back. And besides, Voldemort WAS at the Ministry in the end, was he not? And um - what if Voldemort HAD captured Sirius and was torturing him in order to get Harry there - possibly polyjuiced as an auror or something..? Finwitch From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 31 07:54:00 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:54:00 -0000 Subject: Why has DD never suggested Harry thank Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116846 I have been wondering about this for a while. Snape has saved Harry's life, or tried to protect it, on at least three occassions we know of (SS/PS, PoA, OOTP). Yet Dumbledore has never once suggested to Harry that he should thank Snape for doing so. In fact, his explanation in SS/PS, that Snape was discharging a duty to Harry's father, pretty much guarantees that Harry won't see Snape is needing/deserving thanks. Now, this might lead into all sorts of alleys about DD's strange habits and attitudes, but I'm most concerned here with the subtle message he is sending Harry. He has never really taken Harry to task for not respecting Snape, other than gently reminding him from time to time to use Snape's title. Otherwise, he has mainly given Harry very flat accounts of Snape's actions and/or responsibilities. Is he not, then, essentially reinforcing Harry's belief that Snape is a selfish, hateful person who only does what is required/expected of him with regard to Harry? Certainly that is the message I would take away from Dumbledore in this situation. That Snape has acted to help me, but that he does it with ill-grace because he is somehow compelled/obligated and that I shouldn't feel particularly thankful or grateful toward him. We have argued back and forth about how Harry should regard Snape and why he should or should not have such a negative attitude toward the Potions Master. I would argue that his negative opinion has been tacitly confirmed by the person who, up until OOTP, he most trusts and respects at Hogwarts, namely Dumbledore. Now, why would Dumbledore do this? I can think of two main reasons off the top of my head, and they aren't mutually exclusive. Note that I am discounting the possibility of an evil or overtly manipulative Dumbledore: 1) Dumbledore tolerates Snape in part because he thinks that students should learn to deal with difficult people. However, the flip side of that is that he feels no obligation to shield Snape from the inevitable backlash and difficulties his attitudes engender. It is a fact of life that difficult, crabby, unfair people exist and the kids have to learn to deal with that. However, it is just as much a fact of life that difficult, crabby, unfair people inspire intense dislike and lack of respect, and Snape must find his own way to deal with THAT. Just as student complaints about Snape's behavior engender sympathy but no action from Dumbledore in most cases, Snape's complaints about the lack of respect and cooperation he recieves from some students are likely met with a kindly smile but no help (and I am sure he hears such complaints from Snape on a regular and tiresome basis). If part of this leads to students misunderstanding Snape and judging him too harshly, the sad fact is that Snape has brought it on his own head and Dumbledore hopes that someday his Potions Master will finally learn the lesson of how he is creating his own problems. To put it another way, Dumbledore never stops being the teacher. He is trying to teach Snape a lesson as much as he is trying to teach the students. 2) The message he is sending Harry is simply fact. Snape really is a selfish/hateful individual who opposes Voldemort for his own reasons and helps Harry only because he is obligated to do so. Dumbledore wishes it were not so, but he must face reality and understands that, although he trusts his Potions Master, Severus' actions are motivated largely be self-interest and percieved obligation, not higher morality. Therefore he sees little reason to whitewash the situation by suggesting that Harry pretend to a gratitude Harry does not feel and that Severus would not appreciate and perhaps does not deserve (the last depends of course on one's own personal beliefs about what is deserving of gratitude). Any other thoughts on this situation? Lupinlore From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 09:21:47 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:21:47 -0000 Subject: Dirty Harry / 'Good' Harry (WAS: The intended murder of Pettigrew and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > Del: > >I know they had good intentions, but > >this in itself does not excuse the theft Eggplant responded: > Committing a very small crime in order to stop a vastly greater evil > is not only justified it is smart. Finwitch: This is a standard question of ethical development. Make stealing as the only way one can save a life/lives (in real world, the hypotethical item of theft is usually medicine to otherwise lethal disease and cannot be purchased legally...). Of course, in fantasy, this sort of dilemmas can be addressed differently. It IS an ethical dilemma. Harry&co. do it in order to find information so they may help to stop it. Interestingly, they *don't* get what they were after, but instead, something else: Draco Malfoy knew nothing. They were wrong in assuming he knew something... So we get several ethical matters in this: 1) stealing (though we *Can't* say whether it was all that stolen or merely a forced purchase, since Harry wasn't THERE.) 2) Prevent killings. 3) Innocent until proven guilty. (as the *Belief* turned out to be false one, Draco could not help them further) This theme comes out often, and it's in PoA that it's highlighted, though it's there in ALL the books. Finwitch From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 31 13:21:46 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:21:46 -0000 Subject: Harry V Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116849 Although I would agree with Hogsheadbarmaid that the death of Falstaff is one of the most moving things in Shakespeare, the person who Henry orders to be executed for looting is actually Bardolph, another of his old muckers. What an interesting thread, though. I'm inclined to agree that one of the twins might be the one who goes too far and has to be sacrificed. Don't like it. Don't like it a bit! Sylvia (showing off, as usual, Kneasy) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Oct 31 13:31:04 2004 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:31:04 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116850 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > > > Well, what I'm mostly interested in are the things that will > > continue to provide food for thought and debate once I've read Book > > 7: Character, ethics, morals & principles, symbolism, narrative > > techniques, what kind of statement the author is making with her > > books. Speculating about the plot is of minor interest to me. > > The plot is a vessel; it's not what the Harry Potter books > > are about and after Book 7, it will be about as thrilling as > > yesterday's newspaper. But unless JKR is going to dissapoint her > > grownup readers quite badly, the other aspects will still be > > worth tackling. Kneasy: > Dear, oh dear. > Sounds as if there's someone else with fairly limited expectations. Renee: So if people are not particularly interested in speculating about the plot, their expectations must be limited? That's a non sequitur, if you ask me. I fully expect the last two books to be entertaining, enjoyable, exciting and bursting with surprises, with a big showdown at the end. That still doesn't mean I'm going to spend a lot of time speculating about all the possible twists and turns. I do have a few minor ideas - it's impossible not to get any while reading - and I've picked up a few additional ones from forums and lists like this one. I'm eager to read on. But saying that I can't wait to find out if any of those ideas are correct would be exaggerating. To my mind, spotting medieval symbolism, or discovering how characters' past sins tend to catch up with them, or subtracting Harry's bias from the text and see what's left - to name a few examples - is more exiting than trying to figure out what will happen next knowing that most of it isn't going to happen anyway. I read The Lord of the Rings more than 30 years ago, and today I still love to discuss it with other Tolkien fans, even though nothing has been added to the plot since before I was born. Kneasy: > All depends on what you expect of plot, I suppose. > If it's "Harry crunches Voldy, runs off with Ginny to farm Billywigs" > then it would be pretty sterile, facile and any number of other - iles. > Me, I'm hoping for more. > I want it to go along a different path that will cause readers to think, > discuss, argue long after the books have been published. But it can > only reach that point if JKR guides the plot arc away from the trite > and mundane. I've posted before that I'd be happy for Jo to come up > with something entirely different - even to not come to a clear > conclusion, to leave it all in the mind of the reader, for him/her to > decide or determine what it was all about. Renee: Though I can't say I disagree with most of what you say here, I don't see what it has to do with wanting to speculate about plot developments or not. The one thing I don't quite understand is, why it would take an open ending or a vague conclusion for the reader to get to decide what it was all about. Even if the conclusion is wholly unambiguous, there will be enough questions left to ask and answer concerning symbolism and message and meaning and whatnot - precisely because plot isn't what literature is all about. I suspect we're either reading these books in vastly different ways, or we don't mean the same when we say 'plot'. (Or both.) > And when you consider it, that's the case with morals, ethics and such. > To mean anything they must be personal - and they change with time > and place. An imposed morality is no morality at all - morality is > developed according to personality and experiences - it comes from > within, it's part of one's belief system, philosophy, whatever. > Behaviour can be enforced, morality is much, much more. And Jo has > said that she hopes she's writing a story from which morals can be > drawn - again a matter of readers personal interpretations, rather than > a morality tale - here's the author's beliefs, take it or leave it. Renee: Did I leave the impression I wanted a story with a moral of universal validity and applicability? That wasn't my intention. I merely said I like to discuss/read about the moral aspects of the books, among other things. And I can subscribe to everything you say here. Renee From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 31 13:33:11 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:33:11 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream, 2-way mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlnbtr" wrote: > > > Magda Grantwich: > > I knew the Sirius-vision was fake when I read Hermione's practical, logical objections and Harry's inadequate and emotional responses. It was clear that this was not going to be the usual Harry-saves-the-day-with-backup-from-pals thing that was the climax of the other books.<< > Juli now: When I first read OoP I almost cried when I learned that Sirius was been held prisioner by Voldemort. Not for a second did I thought it was fake.< Pippin: I knew because people had been telling Harry for hundreds of pages that it was important for him to learn to block the visions. It would have been rather anticlimactic if they'd all been wrong. Besides, anything that Snape, Sirius, Dumbledore, Hermione and Lupin agree on must be downright self-evident. In retrospect the biggest clue is that in the earlier OOP visions, Harry *is* Voldemort, but in the last vision he *sees* Voldemort. Juli: > . What if he had thought about the gift BEFORE > going into Umbridge's office? Could Sirius be alive then? < Pippin: JKR has said the mirror wouldn't have been as useful as you think...I'm afraid that if Sirius and James had them, Pettigrew had one too, so that line of communication was probably covered. Pippin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 14:06:44 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:06:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: How to Get Through the Door (was: The Do Not Disturb Sign on JKR's website is off.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041031140644.24943.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116852 --- vmonte wrote: > Can someone figure out how to open the door on JKR's site? There > are a bunch of flying keys now on the screen!!! > > http://origin.jkrowling.com/en/ Here's the thread from Fiction Alley that describes how others are getting through the door: http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73957 Lots of spoilers - just highlight with your cursor to read (everyone knows about this, right?) Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 31 14:16:02 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:16:02 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: <20041031140644.24943.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116853 vmonte: > > Can someone figure out how to open the door on JKR's site? There > > are a bunch of flying keys now on the screen!!! > > > > http://origin.jkrowling.com/en/ Magda: > Here's the thread from Fiction Alley that describes how others are > getting through the door: > > http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php? s=&threadid=73957 > > Lots of spoilers - just highlight with your cursor to read (everyone > knows about this, right?) SSSusan: TLC also has the steps in the comments to its announcement: http://www.the-leaky- cauldron.org/MTarchives/week_2004_10_31.html#005177 S P O I L E R S P A C E DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF I MEAN IT!! So the three chapters are: Spinners End Draco's Detour Felix Felicis 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave us, and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the new DADA professor? But chapter 14? Would it really be FOURTEEN chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? Jeepers, I hope not, as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter book, and then we'll NEVER get it! Siriusly Snapey Susan From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 14:20:25 2004 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 06:20:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041031142025.42160.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116854 > Finwitch: > > Normal working day? Sure, but Harry *had* seen the corridor in DoM > before, during the day he had trial (otherwise it'd just be some > corridor he'd not recognise). He HAD seen DoM before, during a > working day, and NO ONE was there then as far as he could see. Well, actually HE was there himself, and Arthur Weasley who'd taken him there, and everyone in the wizen-whatchamacallit was there too. So during a working day there would likely be people around that area. > And the SNAKE got there just fine to kill Arthur, which WAS a true > vision. So apparently, Voldemort knows how to get in (and besides, > Harry saw Lucius Malfoy, a DE, giving bribes when he was at the > Ministry). That happened in the middle of the night. The Sirius-vision happened in the afternoon. > Harry knows full well how corrupted the Ministry is - the Ministry > that denied Voldemort ever came back. And besides, Voldemort WAS at > the Ministry in the end, was he not? Irrelevant to the issue of the Sirius-vision. > And um - what if Voldemort HAD captured Sirius and was torturing > him in order to get Harry there - possibly polyjuiced as an auror > or something..? But he hadn't, had he? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From s_ings at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 14:42:52 2004 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:42:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: ADMIN: Where to Post on Updates to Rowling's Website Message-ID: <20041031144252.2669.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116855 Greetings from Hexquarters! We are also excited to see a new update to Rowling's website. Just a reminder that to avoid parallel discussions and to be consistent with our posting rules, we need our list members to observe the following: * If your post discusses the information on Rowling's site about the characters, the plot or any other information about the books themselves (including discarded scenes and backstories), please post it on this list. * If your post discusses how to use the website, access the flash features or the hidden clues, discuss your scrapbook, or anything else relating to the site or Rowling rather than the HP books themselves, please post it on the OT-Chatter list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter If you have any questions about your post, please contact us at: hpforgrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com (without the spaces). Thank you for your cooperation! Sheryll aka Rylly Elf for the HPfGU List Administration team ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 31 14:53:15 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:53:15 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" wrote: > > > > Sitting meekly waiting to be spoon-fed is not something I'm > > comfortable with. I don't mind being beaten, I don't mind being > > wrong, but doing nothing is not acceptable. It implies that one is > > happy not to think, that existing canon is the be-all and end-all > > of HP so close down and put your mind in neutral. > Nora: > Kneasy. It's not mindless to work through a text in other ways than > just trying to figure out what's going to happen. Anyone doing > interpretation knows very well that existing canon is not the end > all. I can only speak for myself, again--but I am not deeply > interested in speculation--or rather, that's not what I'm interested > enough to take the trouble to write it out. It stays primarily to > myself. But I am mildly annoyed by your implication that to not put > the mechanics of the plot first is to become a spoon-fed reader. > Unless you're a rabid deconstructionist, you have to rely upon your > text, to some degree. And, for the moment, any interpreter must work > with what he has. I happen to particularly enjoy trying to work > through the meanings, implication, and structure of what we know so > far, rather than wondering so much about the future events. This > doesn't meant that I don't wonder and speculate at times, but again, > that's not my main interest. > Kneasy: I think it quite possible that your interpretation of my post is mistaken. Admittedly, you won't have been helped by a typographical error that resulted in one small word being omitted from the section shown above and my assumption that you would understand what I was referring to by 'spoon-feeding'. You obviously didn't. So I've expanded it somewhat. I note that you snipped the preceding sentences where I freely admit that all the information is not yet available and that when it appears it may well change our opinions. Also that JKR has implied that there is a, no - *the* central knot which if unravelled will reveal just what the whole thing is about. This, so far as *I'm* concerned is the Grail. Nor, reviewing my post do I find that anywhere I state that analysis and interpretation is something to be slighted. On the contrary, *in my view* these are the necessary precursors to other exercises such as extrapolation or using the conclusions drawn from analysis to formulate theories. As a scientist, what I don't understand is how someone can draw conclusions, derive information from interpretation and not use it in an attempt to answer obvious questions. Such as - "if so-and-so really is like this, what could that mean for the future?" Especially given that we are now facing the 6th book of 7 and the climax approaches. In the four years or so that I've been reading HP, I've analysed and interpreted to reach a stage where I'm reasonably satisfied with my conclusions - accepting they they may be invalidated by new canon. So what do I do now? Repeat all my posts ad nauseam? Keep on saying, discussing the same thoughts over and over and over? Not I. Not only is it boring for the board readers, it's boring for me. You may or may not have noticed that I've greatly reduced my posts on threads that keep covering the same old ground of Snape-bashing, pensieves, the evils of Slytherin House, etc. etc. Not worth it. Not only was I posting the same old words, I was getting the same old responses. As I pointed out in the post that started this thread, almost no-one changes their mind once they've chosen which stance to take. It's nothing new and I'm no different to anyone else, but if you dig into old posts going back to the beginning of the site the same subjects, the same views and the same responses turn up with monotonous regularity. Lately I rarely bother to read the posts on such subjects; deja vu is only interesting in small doses. Ennui looms. But there is a further step that can be taken with the conclusions that have been drawn - construct theories based on them, see how they hold up under scrutiny by members. If there is no canon conflict they may even be accurate predictions. But for worthwhile theories to be posited the canon must provide sufficient information. It's possible it may not do so. Which is bloody annoying. Which brings us to:- Spoon-feeding - isn't this what JKR is doing on her web-site? "Oh, they need extra clues, guidance, whatever on this subject or that individual. I'll drop this nugget in there for them." Personally I'll use what she gives, but I don't feel totally overjoyed about it and I'm not alone. I've had mails that wonder if she's belatedly realising that she's not provided enough information in the books that in hindsight could be pointed to as acceptable foreshadowing or clues. The new information regarding letters to Petunia being the most obvious example so far. If there are many more web-site revelations then it may be justifiable to wonder if the actual books, the 'pure' canon is sufficient to enable valid conclusions to be drawn or key story lines to be identified. It is to this aspect of the fun and games of analysis and interpretation that the section above, clipped from my previous post, refers. Perhaps I should have made this more explicit, but since there are no other instances of what could be referred to as 'spoon-feeding' I thought it would be obvious. However, there is that typographical error in there for which I apologise and which when corrected may alter your overall perceptions - or there again it may not. For "..the canon is the be-all and end-all.." read "..the canon is not the be-all and end-all..." and refers again to the extra information being released on the web-site. Plus the possibility that sticking to book canon may be of limited value and that we, you, I or whoever might as well sit around waiting for crumbs to fall into our laps - because it's the only way we're going to be able to reach accurate conclusions. Hence the remark that the implication is that we should be happy to receive fresh snippets rather than thinking about the existing text, because it might be a pointless undertaking anyway. And if it turns out to be so I'll be absolutely livid. Even with this possibility lurking in the background I am not prepared to sit around and do nothing. I'll still attempt to squeeze as much out of the books as possible - and quite probably more than many think justifiable. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 15:12:21 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:12:21 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream, 2-way mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116857 > Pippin: snip. > In retrospect the biggest clue is that in the earlier OOP visions, > Harry *is* Voldemort, but in the last vision he *sees* Voldemort. Alla: I like this one very much. But did you know for sure, when you first read OOP? I know I did not that is why I am so not surprised that Harry did not. > Pippin: > JKR has said the mirror wouldn't have been as useful as you > think...I'm afraid that if Sirius and James had them, Pettigrew had > one too, so that line of communication was probably covered. Alla: If I remember correctly, she said that mirror will show up and even though it won't help in a way we think, it will help in a way we did not think, but I can be wrong. From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 15:45:08 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:45:08 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116858 > > SSSusan wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > So the three chapters are: > Spinners End > Draco's Detour > Felix Felicis > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest stay > ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave us, > and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the new > DADA professor? But chapter 14? Would it really be FOURTEEN > chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? Jeepers, I hope not, > as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter book, and then we'll > NEVER get it! > ********To me, Spinners End sounds more like the chapter in which Cornelius Fudge finally makes a public display of 'foot-in-mouth disease'... What has the Ministry been doing lately, even after they went public on Lord Thingy's return? They have been 'spinning' the news, trying to look good even though they were in bad shape... Jo told us that Fudge will be replaced, she was very sure of it ages ago, like she had written that chapter, proofed-read it and given it the 'OK, to go' green light... Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Spinners End chapter is when we see Fudge (and maybe Percy?) spinning out of the Ministry, in a manner of speaking. As for Felix Felicis, those are latin terms related to 'happy' not cats. Like you, I first thought that it could very well be the name for the new DADA teacher, but chapter 14 is much too late to introduce a new teacher, unless Book 6 has the longest Summer break in all the HP books... I guess anything could be plausible, even that Felix is the half blood prince, but we'll just have to wait... Marcela From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 16:02:13 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:02:13 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116859 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "templar1112002" wrote: > > > > > SSSusan wrote: > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > Spinners End > > Draco's Detour > > Felix Felicis > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > stay > > ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? > > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave > us, > > and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the > new > > DADA professor? But chapter 14? Would it really be FOURTEEN > > chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? Jeepers, I hope > not, > > as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter book, and then we'll > > NEVER get it! > > > > > ********To me, Spinners End sounds more like the chapter in which > Cornelius Fudge finally makes a public display of 'foot-in-mouth > disease'... What has the Ministry been doing lately, even after > they went public on Lord Thingy's return? They have > been 'spinning' the news, trying to look good even though they > were in bad shape... > Jo told us that Fudge will be replaced, she was very sure of it > ages ago, like she had written that chapter, proofed-read it and > given it the 'OK, to go' green light... Yes, I wouldn't be > surprised if Spinners End chapter is when we see Fudge (and maybe > Percy?) spinning out of the Ministry, in a manner of speaking. Dungrollin: If it's about Fudge and Percy, it would have to have an apostrophe after the last s. Sounds like a place to me too. A village, or a house... But who on earth would live there? We don't know any Ariadnes, or Arachnuses, a Mme Araign?e, Frau Spinne, Signor Ragno, or Se?ora Ara?a, do we? Hmmm. I'm sure I had a Gaelic dictionary somewhere... Could be Madame Malkin, I suppose. > As for Felix Felicis, those are latin terms related to 'happy' not > cats. Like you, I first thought that it could very well be the > name for the new DADA teacher, but chapter 14 is much too late to > introduce a new teacher, unless Book 6 has the longest Summer > break in all the HP books... I guess anything could be plausible, > even that Felix is the half blood prince, but we'll just have to > wait... > > Marcela Dungrollin: Actually in GoF 'Mad-eye Moody' was chapter 13, in Ootp 'Professor Umbridge' was chapter 12, (in Cos, chapter 6 was 'Gilderoy Lockhart', and PS and PoA don't have chapters named after the DADA teachers, though that could be a result of editing). And if Harry's got his shortest stay ever in Privet Drive, we've got over a month of summer holidays to get through before he goes back to Hogwarts. The name (if name it is) could also be translated 'Lucky the Lucky'; (a lucky man; luckier than lucky; luckier than lucky Jack McLucky, winner of last year's Mr. Lucky competition...) and if he *is* the DADA teacher, could this be the chap to break the jinx, and last two years? Ponder ponder ponder... Dungrollin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 31 16:02:17 2004 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 31 Oct 2004 16:02:17 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1099238537.28.30771.m7@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116860 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 31, 2004 Time: 11:00AM CST (GMT-06:00) Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change 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 Hope to see you there! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 31 16:01:36 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:01:36 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116861 SSSusan wrote: > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > Spinners End > > Draco's Detour > > Felix Felicis > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > > stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? > > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave > > us, and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for > > the new DADA professor? But chapter 14? Would it really be > > FOURTEEN chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? > > Jeepers, I hope not, as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter > > book, and then we'll NEVER get it! Marcela replied: > To me, Spinners End sounds more like the chapter in which > Cornelius Fudge finally makes a public display of 'foot-in-mouth > disease'... What has the Ministry been doing lately, even after > they went public on Lord Thingy's return? They have > been 'spinning' the news, trying to look good even though they were > in bad shape... > Jo told us that Fudge will be replaced, she was very sure of it > ages ago, like she had written that chapter, proofed-read it and > given it the 'OK, to go' green light... Yes, I wouldn't be > surprised if Spinners End chapter is when we see Fudge (and maybe > Percy?) spinning out of the Ministry, in a manner of speaking. SSSusan: I agree that that would certainly fit...and I like it...but for lack of an apostophe. Granted, an apostrophe after the R or the final S could also make sense in a place name such as I suggested, but it's *definitely* required if one is talking about a spinner's (or spinners') demise. So I'm not sure how to work around that.... Marcela: > As for Felix Felicis, those are latin terms related to 'happy' not > cats. Like you, I first thought that it could very well be the > name for the new DADA teacher, but chapter 14 is much too late to > introduce a new teacher, unless Book 6 has the longest Summer break > in all the HP books... I guess anything could be plausible, even > that Felix is the half blood prince, but we'll just have to wait... SSSusan: Right. I understand that the reference likely is to "lucky," but there also could be more than ONE play on words -- hence, my mentioning Felix the Cat and the common first three letters with "feline." JKR is known to use existing terminology or cultural references *and* to kind of invent her own play on words as well. The reference to "lucky" would be interesting if, indeed, Felix Felicis is the new DADA instructor, since we've seen this position as jinxed or UNlucky since Book 1. But Chapter 14 to meet our DADA instructor.... What *could* that mean is happening before the school year starts?!? Siriusly Snapey Susan From musicofsilence at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 16:27:20 2004 From: musicofsilence at hotmail.com (lifeavantgarde) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:27:20 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116862 SSSusan wrote: S P O I L E R S P A C E DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF I MEAN IT!! >>>> So the three chapters are: Ch 2: Spinners End Ch 6: Draco's Detour Ch 14: Felix Felicis 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? 3) Would it really be FOURTEEN chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? Jeepers, I hope not, as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter book, and then we'll NEVER get it!<<<< >>>Marcela: To me, Spinners End sounds more like the chapter in which Cornelius Fudge finally makes a public display of 'foot-in-mouth disease'... What has the Ministry been doing lately, even after they went public on Lord Thingy's return? They have been 'spinning' the news, trying to look good even though they were in bad shape... <<< Stefanie: I agree with SSSusan on this one..."Spinners End" contains no apostrophes in "Spinners" so it's not referring to the end of the spinner or the end which belongs to the spinners or any such deviation of that. Felix Felicis can definitely be the DADA teacher...we get the chapter entitled "Professor Umbridge" at Ch. 12 in OotP, and "Mad Eye Moody" at Ch. 13 in GoF. Perhaps this all does fit in with Harry's shortest stay at Privet Drive (and maybe consequently his most eventful summer to date). We have JKR's comment on "[t]he next book, Half Blood Prince, [having] the least that [we] see of the Dursleys. [We] see them quite briefly." (EBF) The Dursleys generally feature from 2-3 chapters in each book so far. If this is his shortest stay ever, it makes a bit of sense that they'd only be in the book for one. SO -- also keeping in step with the general formula of the books, it in GOF and OOTP, it was two chapters from the arrival of the kids at Hogwarts and the chapter titled with the DADA teacher's name (Only one in CoS, and there is no chapter named "Professor Quirrell". There also is no "Professor Lupin", but he's the only one we meet before school starts anyway, and there's two chapters between the arrival at school and the first DADA class) From this, we can make an educated assumption that "Draco's Detour" is during the summer break. I like SSSusan's theory for that, also...but who knows what JKR has up her sleeve. It would be interesting to see Draco pop out a third dimension, you know? Heck, I wouldnt' care if we were introduced to the DADA teacher in ch 30! More Book = More Goodness to me! Xo) But aside from that, Felix being the DADA teacher isn't farfetched by his chapter being the fourteenth. Sounds like a happy guy, eh? Stefanie, who is so giddy, she now wants to dress up as JKR for Hallowe'en (instead of Madame Rosmerta Xo) ) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 31 16:53:34 2004 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:53:34 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > Ennui looms. But there is a further step that can be taken with the conclusions that have been drawn - construct theories based on them, see how they hold up under scrutiny by members. If there is no canon conflict they may even be accurate predictions. But for worthwhile theories to be posited the canon must provide sufficient information. It's possible it may not do so. Which is bloody annoying.Which brings us to:- > > Spoon-feeding - isn't this what JKR is doing on her web-site? > "Oh, they need extra clues, guidance, whatever on this subject or that individual. I'll drop this nugget in there for them." Pippin: I fail to understand why people assume Jo can't be as sneaky when she writes in the first person as she can in the third. Now, I don't know that she is, but I do know she's implied there are questions that can't be answered "I can't tell you that" without giving too much away. Some of the nuggets may be fool's gold. -------- http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/bbcintjul00.html What's the weirdest thing a child's ever asked you at an event or signing? The most startling things are when children ask me questions which reveal they're following my thought processes a lot more closely than I would have guessed. There was a boy who asked me in San Francisco [before Book 3 appeared], where did Scabbers come from, what's his history? For people who don't know, Scabbers is a rat who turns out not to be a rat at all; and I found it quite spooky that he'd homed in on that, because I'd known from the first book that he wasn't a rat. I think children are reading the books 12 times, and they're really starting to know the way my mind works. ----- You'll notice she doesn't say how she dealt with the question . I try to understand what's coming by deciphering the clues, and if that leads to an interesting plot twist, so be it...but I know the more detailed the predictions get, the more likely they are to be proved wrong. The plot twists should extend the theme -- it's not like there's the mechanics of the plot, and then there's what the books mean. Every time a sympathetic character is revealed as a bad guy, we're shown that affection can distort one's judgment as much as hatred. As to spoon feeding: People were already speculating that Petunia had information from the wizarding world before Jo answered the question about Remember My Last, so I'm not sure why anyone would think she was making up for missing foreshadowing. IMO, we're simply getting information in advance of Book Six -- shameless hype, but so what? Pippin From terpnurse at qwest.net Sun Oct 31 17:03:30 2004 From: terpnurse at qwest.net (Steven Spencer) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:03:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116864 dungrollin wrote: > If it's about Fudge and Percy, it would have to have an apostrophe > after the last s. > > Sounds like a place to me too. A village, or a house... > But who on earth would live there? We don't know any Ariadnes, or > Arachnuses, a Mme Araign?e, Frau Spinne, Signor Ragno, or > Se?ora Ara?a, do we? Hmmm. I'm sure I had a Gaelic dictionary > somewhere... Could be Madame Malkin, I suppose. > > Terpnurse - breaking free from lurkdom: My first thought when I saw that title was Aragog. Spiders are certainly known spinners. Perhaps Harry & Co. are going to revisit the Spinners at the End of the path? From kreneeb at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 17:25:00 2004 From: kreneeb at hotmail.com (hermionekitten9) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:25:00 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116865 > > SSSusan wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > I MEAN IT!! > > So the three chapters are: > Spinners End > Draco's Detour > Felix Felicis > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? ***kitten: I agree I think it sounds more like a place then a person (grammer n' all)...maybe a graveyard perhaps? > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? Stefanie: I like SSSusan's theory for that, also...but who knows what JKR has up her sleeve. It would be interesting to see Draco pop out a third dimension, you know? ***kitten: "Draco Detour" this one really interests me... I don't know about a visit to dad in prison though... first of all Azkaban has always been described as really bad place... and I just don't think that Narcissa, a mother who wouldn't let her little boy go too far away for school, would let him visit there... secondly it would be to hard to do with the books being in Harry's pov.... Detour suggest that he is leaving the route he's suppose to be taking... which could be literally (going to azkaban when he's suppose to be going to hogwarts) or a psychological detour, one of a more personal nature(going good when he's suppose to be going bad) The first thing that came to my mind was that maybe "redeemed draco" isn't such a crack-pot theory after all...anyway... Either way I'm all for a 3d draco. :) > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave us,and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the new DADA professor? Stefanie: Heck, I wouldnt' care if we were introduced to the DADA teacher inch 30! More Book = More Goodness to me! Xo) But aside from that,Felix being the DADA teacher isn't farfetched by his chapter being the fourteenth. kitten: second that notion!! kitten...imagining a wonderful 900 chapter book-g-... a girl can dream can't she-g- From ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 31 17:33:59 2004 From: ladyramkin2000 at yahoo.co.uk (ladyramkin2000) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:33:59 -0000 Subject: Greasy git Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116866 Could we perhaps stop this practice of calling Snape a greasy git? It's one thing for Ron (I think it was Ron) giving him this title. Ron is very young, and "greasy git" is the sort of thing a boy would say, but its quite another thing for adults to use such a juvenile expression. Fair enough if you don't like Snape - I agree there is plenty to dislike - but can we please stop using this puerile phrase when a trawl through the dictionary will produce dozens of much better alternatives. Sylvia (who is sorry to sound schoolmarmish but really feels quite strongly about this) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 31 17:35:16 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:35:16 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116867 SSSusan wrote: > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > So the three chapters are: > > Spinners End > > Draco's Detour > > Felix Felicis > > > > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? Stefanie: > I like SSSusan's theory for that, also...but who knows > what JKR has up her sleeve. It would be interesting to see Draco > pop out a third dimension, you know? ***kitten: > "Draco Detour" this one really interests me... I don't know about a > visit to dad in prison though... first of all Azkaban has always > been described as really bad place... and I just don't think that > Narcissa, a mother who wouldn't let her little boy go too far away > for school, would let him visit there... SSSusan: Can't speak for Stefanie, but I was thinking more along the lines of Draco's going there w/ the purpose of assisting in Daddy et al.'s escape. So I suspect Mumsy wouldn't even be aware. This would be a DE kid kind of project. ***kitten: > secondly it would be to hard to do with the books being in Harry's > pov.... SSSusan: We have seen JKR depart from this previously, though. The scene which comes to mind for me is Frank Bryce & the Riddles. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 31 17:53:52 2004 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:53:52 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116868 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermionekitten9" wrote: > > > > > SSSusan wrote: > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > > ***kitten: I agree I think it sounds more like a place then a person > (grammer n' all)...maybe a graveyard perhaps? Actually, it brings to mind the giant spiders. JKR has said that we will be seeing Aragog again. Perhaps this is a reference to him or his spawn? > > > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? > The first thing > that came to my mind was that maybe "redeemed draco" isn't such a > crack-pot theory after all...anyway... Either way I'm all for a 3d > draco. :) > Well, we normally meet Draco on the Hogwarts Express. Given the events of the last few months, story-time, and depending on what happens during the summer, I would not be surprised if Harry and his friends (including the DA members) have less than their previous tolerance for Draco and his antics. This may refer to nothing more mysterious than Draco, et. al., running their mouths in their usual fashion and getting tossed off the train. > > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave > us,and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the > new DADA professor? > This is actually a standard entry form for an adjective in a Latin- English dictionary. That is it gives the basic form followed by the plural form. I agree it might be a character name. Of interest is the fact that "Felix" not only means "lucky," but also "happy" (the latter being the root of "Feliz Navidad.") > kitten...imagining a wonderful 900 chapter book-g-... a girl can > dream can't she-g- Err, if it's 900 pages long, I hope it's better put together and much better edited than the rambling, poorly designed atrocity that was OOTP (IMO, of course). Lupinlore From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 31 18:00:57 2004 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:00:57 -0000 Subject: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream, 2-way mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pippin wrote: > > snip. > > > In retrospect the biggest clue is that in the earlier OOP > visions, > > Harry *is* Voldemort, but in the last vision he *sees* Voldemort. > Hickengruendler: I don't think that really holds water. After all, during the murder of Frank Bryce, or during the scene where Voldemort learns from Crouch's deaths, Harry also wasn't Voldemort. Therefore I think we can assume that both kind of dreams can be real. I don't blame Harry for believing the dream. I don't think there's any way he could have known for sure if it was real, even if I agree with everyone who was sure from the beginning that it was a trap. However, I do blame him for wanting to rush off at once without checking other possibilities. He listened to Hermione in the end (and only very grudgingly) to use the fire, however, if he had thought only for a minute, he must have thought about either Sirius' present or at least Snape. And actually, I think Ron, Hermione and Ginny are equally to blame. They, too, knew that Snape was a member of the Order and apparently still didn't think about him. Hickengruendler From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 18:05:15 2004 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:05:15 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116870 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "templar1112002" > wrote: > > > > > > > > SSSusan wrote: > > > > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > > Spinners End > > > Draco's Detour > > > Felix Felicis > > > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > > stay > > > ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > > > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? > > > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR > gave > > us, > > > and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the > > new > > > DADA professor? But chapter 14? Would it really be FOURTEEN > > > chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? Jeepers, I hope > > not, > > > as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter book, and then we'll > > > NEVER get it! Finwitch: Spinning. For some reason my first thought spinning wheel, the old- fashioned device for making thread out of wool/cotton/whatever. Related to Sleeping Beauty? or Fates? Good point about spiders, though - and a place. Spiders: Book1: Harry's FIRST sleeping place, under the stairs, had lots of spiders within, and Lee Jordan had a tarantula. Book2: Hagrid's friend-pet, Aragog, his wife & the little ones who were about to *eat* Harry & Ron. Book3: Ron's boggart turns into a giant spider. Book4: Fake!Moody's target for unforgivables. The answer to the Sphinx's riddle is 'spider' - and Harry & Cedric fight the Arachnomantula together. Book5: Did anyone notice spiders anywhere? 12 Grimmauld Place, perhaps? Potion ingredients? What was that silvery device Sirius knocked off him - didn't it sort of move like a spider? I think there WILL be spiders somewhere... And indeed, a place. Whose place, though? Moody's? Lupin's? Tonks'? Or even, Sirius' place in London, left for Harry? Where did James Potter's parents live? As usual, one hint provides more questions than answers. Draco's detour could be Draco visitin' his Dad in Azkaban with Voldemort, or Draco might be getting a Dark Mark! (Voldemort is how Harry gets to witness it, otherwise we'd need to change pov... if Draco's going somewhere Harry's not, that is.) Then again, Draco might visit 12 Grimmauld Place - even demand it on grounds of his mother being a Black... Felix Felicis... if not a person, it's a plant, an animal, a spell, a magical phenomenon... I understand how one might think of cats, though - I recall some cat-food by name of Felix, and there's that FELINE also... but also that James Bond's CIA friend is named Felix Leiter. (and all their secret weapons are a bit like magic! I wonder how JKR feels of James Bond 007..) But I like the thought of FF being the name of new DADA professor. (And I wonder where Aberforth lurks). Finwitch From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 31 18:11:21 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:11:21 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steven Spencer" wrote: > > > > Wait for it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terpnurse - breaking free from lurkdom: > > My first thought when I saw that title was Aragog. Spiders are > certainly known spinners. Perhaps Harry & Co. are going to revisit the > Spinners at the End of the path? Yeah, that was the way my thoughts lurched too. Acromantula. Nice opportunity for Ron to have the heebie-jeebies again, maybe even end up as sushi for arachnids, for Aragog to come clean if he knows more about the Chamber than he admitted first time around - quite a few possibles on this line if you favour it. Draco's detour. Could be almost anything; as some have suggested he might be visiting dear old dad, or it might be Knockturn Alley (he did seem interested in some of the merchandise) or, since it's near the beginning of the book, he might get thrown off the Hogwarts Express or never actually get to Kings Cross. Felix Felicis. Hum. My Latin was awful and many years ago, but doesn't this come out as Happy Fortunes? Or Fortunately Happy? or some variation thereof? Interesting that both words start with capital letters. Could be a name, but given Jo's predilection for matching character to name - well, Fortune Teller, maybe? Or perhaps Feng Shui has hit the WW. Kneasy From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 31 18:11:59 2004 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:11:59 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: <10CEFAF8-2A97-11D9-9BC3-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116872 Kneasy: > I prefer books where the personae have a bit of depth, and with > the depth inevitably comes complexity - and I see a lot of > complexity in HP. Hopefully this is both intentional and integral > to the story. Complexity now should guarantee that the ending then > is not predictable. Goody. But if it's not intentional and > integral, if it's mere flummery and window-dressing then it would > mean that I've misunderstood the author's intentions - it would > mean that I've been wasting my time. SSSusan: I don't think you'll be wasting your time, Kneasy, but I admit to wondering whether the *degree* of complexity at the end will be enough to please those who love it so. JKR *has* used complex twists- -the TT in PoA, Crouch!Moody in GoF, for instance--and there's room for plenty more. But my personal opinion is that the whole series won't hinge on a hugely complex theory that's close to impossible for a 10-year-old to follow. As I've stated a million times before, I don't think she's *gearing* these books to 10-year-olds, but I do think that she has them in mind to a point. I've also argued for ages for a series ending which will prove to be "elegantly simple"--doesn't have to be fluffy, mind you, just elegantly simple. Kneasy: > Others have a different approach. They're perfectly satisfied with > the way that the characters have been written (so far, anyway) and > see no reason for the (as they perceive it) wild imaginings of > subversive anarchists apparently bent on turning a much-loved > character into something different. The fact that throughout the > books we have been presented with radical re-assessments of quite > significant characters and there's absolutely no reason to assume > that the process has ended two books short of the climax, doesn't > cut much ice. > Especially if it's one of their favourites under the knife being > subjected to a little involuntary cosmetic surgery. SSSusan: I'm not much GOOD at doing the wild imaginings, but I think it's fun to read the posts of others who are good at it. I had fun trying to figure out if Fudge could be ESE! in a way different from the obvious...but I'm not wedded to it, and I'm open to a more straightforward reading of him. And I'll still enjoy reading many of the alternative readings of a character. Kneasy: > Just suppose, to take an example, Jo writes Sirius as ESE > and Snape as having behaved the way he has because it was in > Harry's best interests, would it be happily accepted by all? > > A lot of fans have invested a lot of time defending or dismissing > the him, her or it of the text. Long evenings spent poring over > canon to refute or confirm opinions proposed by others. It's been > going on for years on this site alone - and do you know what is > absolutely amazing? If you browse through the back files there are > very, very few of the "fan of" or "anti to" posters who change > their opinion of a character unless they are absolutely forced to > do so by new canon. (Yes, SSS, I know you've shifted a bit on > Snapey, but you're an exception.) SSSusan: Why, thank you. :-) I *have* changed my views on him a bit. At the start I was openly a huge fan of Rickman!Snape and a pretty big basher of canon!Snape. While there are still areas where I'll bring a club and do a bit of bashing [e.g., Snape's presumed realization that Harry's role is so important to defeating Voldy that NEEDS to learn, yet his not going the extra mile to, while still being a prick if he wants to be, working to be sure Harry does learn], I have backed off a bit in many areas and will speak to his strengths. Anyway, I don't tend to get my hackles up *too* much re: any given character [with the possible exceptions of Harry, Lupin & Molly]. BUT sometimes the *vehemence* of an argument for/against a character can get me riled up -- the unwillingness to consider an alternative view or to acknowledge the importance of context or to acknowledge how a single revelation could put someone in a very different light and require a change in judgment of him/her. Kneasy: > Quite often those enamoured of character protest - "But it's about > Harry - aren't the books called Harry Potter and the Thingy of > Whatsit? What else could they be about?" Well, there's the Thingy > of Whatsit, right there in the title that you seem to have > forgotten about. With no PS/SS, CoS, PoA, GoF or OoP to > keep him occupied Harry would have a lot of spare time on his > hands. > It's called a plotline. None of which originate with Harry, all of > which involve the deeds of others, all of which in some way pre- > date his cognizance and the solving of which brings him and us > closer to enlightenment. Harry merely reacts to events. He's a > function of the plot, too. Another clockwork mouse wound up and > released by JKR. And let's not forget, these single book plots are > there to lead us to the greater plot, the one encompassing the > whole series, the one that explains the what and why of the whole > kit and caboodle. > > You won't suss that out by sighing over Sirius or frowning at > Snape. It's conceivable you might by theorising, though. > Or aren't you interested in that bit? SSSusan: I tend to think more as Nora does on this, in terms of the Harry- centralness of it all, but about theory... it's not that I'm not interested in theory; it's that I'm also interested in character and analysis. In fact, I am one of those who is, simply, easily entertained! Give me theories, give me character analysis, give me "what if" wonderings, give me interpretation, ... and I'm a happy camper. I'm content to think about it all. Well, not it ALL, there are topics I don't care one whit to read about [with apologies to others who do care deeply]: the specifics of what the centaurs did to DJU, whether it was Daedalus Diggle or someone else who bowed to Harry in the street, whether DD is TT!Ron, etc. But what I'm not interested in does *not* all belong in one "class" of posts -- either theories or character analysis. At that point, it's just personal interest or lack thereof. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 18:19:20 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:19:20 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116873 > SSSusan: > Can't speak for Stefanie, but I was thinking more along the lines of > Draco's going there w/ the purpose of assisting in Daddy et al.'s > escape. So I suspect Mumsy wouldn't even be aware. This would be a > DE kid kind of project. Alla: I think I may agree with you, Susan. Does it mean to you that JKR will do FINALLY EVIL Draco, no other hidden depth Draco in HBP? > SSSusan: > We have seen JKR depart from this previously, though. The scene > which comes to mind for me is Frank Bryce & the Riddles. > Alla: Indeed. From yutu75es at yahoo.es Sun Oct 31 18:33:10 2004 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa hagrid) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:33:10 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! References: Message-ID: <003701c4bf78$165bc430$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 116874 ----- Original Message ----- From: "lupinlore" To: Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 6:53 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermionekitten9" > wrote: >> >> > >> > SSSusan wrote: >> > >> > S >> > P >> > O >> > I >> > L >> > E >> > R >> > S >> > P >> > A >> > C >> > E >> > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF >> > >> > >> > I MEAN IT!! >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Lupinlore wrote: > This is actually a standard entry form for an adjective in a Latin- > English dictionary. That is it gives the basic form followed by the > plural form. I agree it might be a character name. Of interest is > the fact that "Felix" not only means "lucky," but also "happy" (the > latter being the root of "Feliz Navidad.") > Me (Fridwulfa): Actually, the standard entry form for any word in latin is nominative and genitive form, both singular. "Felix Felicis" means, happy, fertile, prolific, productive, propitious, benevolent, kind. Those are all the entries I found in my latin diccionary. Mind you, it's a latin-spanish diccionary, so I had to translate into English, but I think those are the right meanings. I think it could well be the next DADA teacher, even though it's chapter 14, it doesn't necessarily mean that we are meeting him so late, maybe we are just learning more about him then. It could be this mysterious man, with the feline looks, yellow eyes, bushy hair and the limp we were told about some time ago. Cheers Fridwulfa From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 19:18:10 2004 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:18:10 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116875 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan wrote: > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > > Spinners End > > > Draco's Detour > > > Felix Felicis > > > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > > > stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > SSSusan: > I agree that that would certainly fit...and I like it...but for lack > of an apostophe. Granted, an apostrophe after the R or the final S > could also make sense in a place name such as I suggested, but it's > *definitely* required if one is talking about a spinner's (or > spinners') demise. So I'm not sure how to work around that.... > Neri: Spinners End certainly sounds like a place. IMO it is the Order's new HQ, or at least their safe place for Harry. It's only the second chapter (the first chapter will be the opening chapter that JKR had almost used several times in the past). 12GP is probably not HQ anymore, since Narcissa would guess this from Kreacher even if he wasn't able to tell her, the Borrow is certainly not safe enough, so Spinners End it is. Where is it? My guess is at the less savory end of Nockturn Alley. They'll be spinning all kind of interesting things there. It'll be conveniently close to Borgin & Burks, the Weasley Wizarding Weezies, The Leaky Cauldron and other attractions. Googling "Spinners End" I found that it is the name of a romantic book by Mary Minton: http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6267239&matches=3&qsort=r According to the book review this is a place in London, but it doesn't appear like it really exists. There is also an industrial estate in Birmingham: http://www.touchbirmingham.co.uk/comdir/cditem.cfm/20256 Neri From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 19:23:29 2004 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:23:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)... Message-ID: <9d.518c6ec4.2eb695b1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116876 In a message dated 10/31/2004 11.05 Central Standard Time, terpnurse at qwest.net writes: > Terpnurse - breaking free from lurkdom: > > My first thought when I saw that title was Aragog. Spiders are > certainly known spinners. Perhaps Harry &Co. are going to revisit the > Spinners at the End of the path? > > > I think that's a strong possibilty. The "End" could refer to Aragog's death however rather than being the end of a path. Maybe he tells Harry and Co something vital before he dies? Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lindydivaus at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 11:57:23 2004 From: lindydivaus at yahoo.com (Eileen Forster Keck) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:57:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Subject: Re: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream (was : What should Harry REALLY feel) In-Reply-To: <1099183729.8108.51576.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20041031115723.39178.qmail@web50806.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116877 Del replies : > I admire Harry for always rushing to people's help.... My problem is that he *believed* the dream was truewhen to me it was so obviously a fake. > I'm not saying he shouldn't have done anything while knowing Sirius was in danger. I'm just saying that if Harry had forced himself to think straight almost impossible, I know... Eileen: Harry was working on past (recent) experience, and an overload of adolescent hormones. Had he ignored the "dream" of Mr. Weasley and the snake, his best friend's father would now be dead. He is quite attached to Mr. Weasley (and not only as Ron's father), but he loves Sirius, the first adult to openly love him and one who even offered him a home away from the despised Dursleys. Even an adult might have tremendous difficulties sorting these things out in time. Harry is flawed, as we all are, and has many additional handicaps, not the least of which is the (still recent) transition from boy-in-the-cupboard to Savior of the WW. Coping with that sort of a mind-boggling transition leaves one with a LOT of side effects, more bad that good, at least during a high-stress period. Hannah said: > It seems to be accepted that teenagers, while more able to make decisions about morality and their own behaviour than younger children, are still going to make mistakes and shouldn't necessarily be damned for them. And...even though they have more information, teenagers sometimes have more difficult applying it. :-) After all, along with that "information" they have also acquired, almost suddenly, the ability to see more that one side of an arguement, and that is a disturbing ability! Small children see ONE possibility: the one that affects them most directly (this is true as a rule, though there are of course exceptions). Eileen From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 19:20:44 2004 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:20:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)... Message-ID: <1e8.2cbf85c0.2eb6950c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116878 In a message dated 10/31/2004 11.41 Central Standard Time, susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes: > ***kitten: > >secondly it would be to hard to do with the books being in Harry's > >pov.... > > > SSSusan: > We have seen JKR depart from this previously, though. The scene > which comes to mind for me is Frank Bryce &the Riddles. > > But it was still Harry dreaming about it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Oct 31 13:10:48 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:10:48 -0000 Subject: The length of the Pensieve Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116879 Del wrote: > My question is: why is the scene described in Snape's Worst Memory so long ? > It starts *way* before what seems to be the actual event of importance starts. If what matters is the fight between Snape, Sirius and James, what's the need for that long time between the beginning of the memory and the fight? Hannah: > Probably the reason is just that JKR wanted us to get a nice long clip of the Marauders, and to 'ease us into' the scene > The length of memory must have got to do with how memories are removed before addition to the pensieve. I see it as something like this; Snape thinks about which memories he doesn't want Potter to see, and immediately the 'pantsing' comes to mind. Shuddering even at the memory of the humiliation, he places his wand against his head and thinks 'oh yes, it was after our DADA OWL.' So his brain accesses 'end of DADA OWL' and the memory is transferred from there on, presumably up until the end of the incident (or maybe of a *worse* incident that followed). > Saying that, I like the idea that maybe we are missing something significant in that pensieve scene. It's just the sort of thing JKR would do.... Great question Del, and I believe Hannah is on the right track with her answer. But one thing that came out of the penseive scene that is being overlooked; Harry's realisation that is father isn't "perfect". He had for so long been of the opinion that his father was this "saintly" great guy, that everyone loved, that seeing him do something so horrible (maybe even 'human'?) was quite a blow to Harry's center. He was very confused after viewing the pantsing that he couldn't carry on as usual. My opinion is that JKR made the scene as long as it is for Harry's and the readers benefit, to show James and Lily and the rest of their "gang" in another light, with the excuse of the pantsing that Hannah referenced above. Ms. Luna --realising how very late in the thread she is..hoping not too late! :-) From mail at chartfield.net Sun Oct 31 15:57:54 2004 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:57:54 -0000 Subject: Why has DD never suggested Harry thank Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: [snip] I would argue that [Harry's] negative opinion has been > tacitly confirmed by the person who, up until OOTP, he most trusts > and respects at Hogwarts, namely Dumbledore. > > Now, why would Dumbledore do this? I can think of two main reasons > off the top of my head... [large snip] Thanks for an interesting post, which I enjoyed reading. Here, briefly, is something that occurs to me about Snape. How is he regarded, not by Dumbledore, not by Harry and his other pupils, but by his colleagues and by other adults? Most interesting is McGonagall, a woman with very strong ideas about right and wrong, who seems to me to have an understated but quite apparent liking for the Potions Master, wrapped around with a healthy dose of inter-house competition, of course. At the end of Goblet of Fire, there he is shoulder to shoulder with McGonagall and Dumbledore, as accepted a member of that trio as she is. Here we see action, not words, from Dumbledore. He wasn't exactly hustled out of the front door at Grimmauld Place either, was he? Although I accept that was possibly to do with interest in his information rather than a desire to spend the evening in his company. And, of course, there was his refusal to stay to dinner - caused by dislike of Sirius, or by something else? Lupin appears very conciliatory and keen to keep things civil - but that fits in with what we believe to be Lupin's personality, avoiding confrontation and so on. And, of course, he was relying on Snape for his Wolfbane potion. Young adults like Bill Weasley and Tonks who haven't been out of Hogwarts that long tend to remember a bit too much about his teaching style to bring any new light to shed on his character. Also, of course, Umbridge hated him by the end, which I'm sure is a great sign - remember that ironic bow? I shouldn't think Hagrid likes him much, but can't remember any specific references off the top of my head. I'm sure there are some if other people care to post them. Similarly, I can't remember there being much from Flitwick or Sprout. Now, I'm not an apologist for Professor Snape, and I agree wholeheartedly that Dumbledore sees the value of Harry and others learning to deal early with nasty people. (In fact, I said so on this very list a long time ago, but got shouted down, but hey, that's life.) I also take very seriously JKR's injunction not to get too fond of him. I'm sure he'll turn out to have done something appalling so, as much as I would like to pencil in a future for him as the Half-Blood Prince who walks hand in hand into the sunset with Andromeda Tonks, I accept this is unlikely to occur. We just have to give JKR credit for having created a great character in Snape, and trust her to see that characterisation through to the end of book seven. In my humble opinion, anyway. Astrofiammante From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Oct 31 13:28:56 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:28:56 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116881 Alla: > > "I am glad they chose to be there and help him " > Del: > > So am I. I just wish Harry realised that they *chose* to be by his side and would treat them accordingly, instead of expecting more or something else. They do their best, but often he's just not satisfied. Geoff: > Yes, but isn't this the reaction of many people - not only teens - today? > Example:the new washing machine goes wrong, so they finish up yelling down the telphone at the customer service receptionist because they're the only person they can reach and to whom they can express their annoyance and frustration. > OK, they're sounding off at the wrong individual but their frustration leads them to /need/ a target. Harry's got to have a safety valve even if it is unfortunately his "customer service receptionist". I believe Geoff hit the nail right on the head. Harry's best friends, his defenders, the people that are there for him most often are also his "sounding board". He's has never had any real friends, and he is learning as he goes. Unfortunately, he's also a hormone driven teenager who has more angst than most. So, yes he will lash out at those that are closest to him. Not that it's the correct way to go, but hopefully he has learned how good he's got it with these two incredibly loyal friends, and he'll learn to trust them, and maybe not take things out on them as much as he has. If he should feel sorry for anything it is how he has not trusted Ron and Hermione as he should have. With that realisation and understanding he may "grow-up" a bit and start controlling his emotions...which have gotten him into most of his troubles. Ms. Luna From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 13:50:30 2004 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:50:30 -0000 Subject: Harry V In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ladyramkin2000" wrote: > > Although I would agree with Hogsheadbarmaid that the death of > Falstaff is one of the most moving things in Shakespeare, the person > who Henry orders to be executed for looting is actually Bardolph, > another of his old muckers. > What an interesting thread, though. I'm inclined to agree that one > of the twins might be the one who goes too far and has to be > sacrificed. Don't like it. Don't like it a bit! > > Sylvia (showing off, as usual, Kneasy) You are so right and I hang my head in shame. I knew that, which makes it even sadder... I think I need to put my lit refernces in the pensive and get them all untangled! So, death of Falstaff -- maybe an HP connection in some future post. Hanging of dear red nosed Bardolph -- topic of this thread and still a very 'nice' dramatic mement as Henry realizes he must move past his happy, childish, self-centered ways and be a leader. Will the same transition be required of young Harry? (I sort of hope not, but it is fun to think about.) --barmaid From mail at chartfield.net Sun Oct 31 15:23:58 2004 From: mail at chartfield.net (queen_astrofiammante) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:23:58 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > So, my question is - for what in his life Harry should REALLY feel > sorry for? > > Please think BIG.:) The single biggest thing was Harry's refusal to persevere with Occlumency - although I'm sure Snape needs to share the blame for this, and possibly also Dumbledore, for not keeping a closer eye on such an important part of his overall strategy. It's a tribute to Order of the Phoenix, and a measure of how the books seem to be aimed at an increasingly sophisticated readership, that there is no emotional black-and-white here. The weaknesses and mistakes of several people can be said to have contributed to Sirius's death, including those of Sirius himself. But in turn the weaknesses and mistakes are not clear-cut either. It is arguable that they are often explicable or excusable - Dumbledore was under pressure, Snape had been subjected to an intolerable intrusion, Harry was being kept in the dark, Sirius was being mistreated by Dumbledore, Lupin wasn't sufficiently assertive and avoided another confrontation. The complexity of all this, I think, is a sign of the quality of JKR's writing and characterisation in this book. Harry's the hero of the story, but is given depth of character by being capable of making mistakes, just like anyone else. (Please note that I am simply saying all of these are arguable positions, rather than attempting to justify them or say I think they are right - so I'm not going to spend hours, for instance, defending that remark about Dumbledore - it's just a passing example, not a statement of deeply-held belief) A popular answer to this question has been that Harry should never have looked into the Pensieve. I will say that it has always puzzled me as to why Snape should have made such a point of using it in front of Harry. His pupil was always expected at a given time - why not just use the Pensieve before Harry turned up, then put it on a high shelf out of harm's way? Even if Snape's view of Harry's character is one-sided and based a bit too much on animosity towards his dad, surely it could have occurred to Snape that he was arousing curiosity? And what the consequence of that might be? The conspiracy theorist's answer that he was trying to debunk Harry's view of his father is too much - Snape has too much of his own self- image to lose by showing the scene to Harry deliberately. But I'm saying that Harry's journey into the Pensieve is not quite black and white either, and that Snape did do something to contribute to his own downfall. Or it could have just been a handy plot contingency, but I prefer not to think that... ;- )) Astrofiammante, who was moved to make a Halloween visit to JKR.com in the hope of finding goodies... From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 19:54:20 2004 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:54:20 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116884 > > SSSusan wrote: > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > > Spinners End > > > Draco's Detour > > > Felix Felicis > > > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > > > stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? Neri wrote: Spinners End certainly sounds like a place. IMO it is the Order's new HQ, or at least their safe place for Harry. It's only the second chapter (the first chapter will be the opening chapter that JKR had almost used several times in the past). 12GP is probably not HQ anymore, since Narcissa would guess this from Kreacher even if he wasn't able to tell her, the Borrow is certainly not safe enough, so Spinners End it is. Where is it? My guess is at the less savory end of Nockturn Alley. They'll be spinning all kind of interesting things there. It'll be conveniently close to Borgin & Burks, the Weasley Wizarding Weezies, The Leaky Cauldron and other attractions. Googling "Spinners End" I found that it is the name of a romantic book by Mary Minton... According to the book review this is a place in London, but it doesn't appear like it really exists. Dungrollin responds: I'm with you on this, all except for it being around Nockturn Alley. If I were looking for a new HQ for the top-secret OotP, it certainly wouldn't be in the WW. How secret would that be? For some unknown reason, I was imagining a ramshackle old building, all rough oak beams and off-white whitewash, covered in liberal sprinklings of lichen and moss, with an ancient and rotting stile (into the sheep fields nearby), and surrounded by lime trees (or beech trees). Somewhere in Buckinghamshire, or Gloucestershire. Goodness only knows why, but the image sprang to mind... Dungrollin From cat_kind at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 15:10:51 2004 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:10:51 -0000 Subject: "I trust him". In-Reply-To: <89.1870dfd3.2eb5955e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116885 > >kmc adds: > >The failure of the Occlumency is due to a trust issue but Harry is > >the guilty party here not Snape? > > catkind: > I'm undecided as to whether Harry has let down anyone's trust in > him. If so, whose? > > > Julie: >snip< > As for Harry, one could certainly say he betrayed Snape's trust > by sticking his head where it didn't belong. That's true even if > Snape wasn't consciously "trusting" Harry not to delve into the > pensieve, but simply didn't think to retrieve the memories before > he left to deal with Montague. Harry's action is wrong, and he > knows that very well, hence the justifications to himself. >snip< catkind: Okay, I'm still trying to think how we define trust. I started with the phrase "trust him with my life". It has to mean more that trusting someone not to actively, intentionally do something to kill you. Otherwise I trust practically everyone with my life. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to trust someone to do something beyond their capabilities. So I ended up with trusting someone to do everything within their power. But I would go further to include some degree of actively entrusting something. James trusts Peter to be the Secret Keeper. Dumbledore trusts Snape with all sorts of tasks, including keeping Harry safe, when the logical course would be to throw the ex DE into Azkaban. It seems to me that no one has trusted Harry with anything at this point. Snape certainly does not trust him. But even those who are telling him to learn Occlumency - they are not trusting him with the task, they just have no other option. They don't even trust him far enough to explain properly why it is important. They are treating him as a child and telling him what to do, for his own good. Isn't the fact that no one blames him for his failure rather an indication that he wasn't trusted in the first place? I'm not debating that Harry has acted wrongly, especially in spying on Snape's memories; but I don't think Snape feels particularly "betrayed" at Harry's actions, just angry. catkind From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Oct 31 20:22:30 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:22:30 -0000 Subject: Black and white and read all over. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > Kneasy: > > Dear, oh dear. > > Sounds as if there's someone else with fairly limited expectations. > > Renee: > So if people are not particularly interested in speculating about > the plot, their expectations must be limited? That's a non sequitur, > if you ask me. I fully expect the last two books to be entertaining, > enjoyable, exciting and bursting with surprises, with a big showdown > at the end. > Kneasy: No. It means they don't appreciate my ironic asides. > snip> > Renee: > Though I can't say I disagree with most of what you say here, I > don't see what it has to do with wanting to speculate about plot > developments or not. > > The one thing I don't quite understand is, why it would take an open > ending or a vague conclusion for the reader to get to decide what it > was all about. Even if the conclusion is wholly unambiguous, there > will be enough questions left to ask and answer concerning symbolism > and message and meaning and whatnot - precisely because plot isn't > what literature is all about. I suspect we're either reading these > books in vastly different ways, or we don't mean the same when we > say 'plot'. (Or both.) > > Kneasy: Bit of both probably. It needn't be vague or open necessarily. Those were possible alternatives thrown in as examples to show that I'm hoping, willing to accept, indeed desperate for, almost anything that isn't a bog-standard, run of the mill, fantasy conclusion. I want HP to be different, better than perhaps I have a right to expect. Literature isn't plot, I'll agree with you there. But I don't consider that what JKR writes is literature in the sense that I understand it. This is a pretty delicate subject among her fans (of which I am one) but I don't believe that she's reached a standard that would classify her work as literature. I don't think she has the technical skills, the necessary experience or possibly even the inclination to write the sort of stuff that would be generally accepted as literature. Do you read Jo for her prose style? I doubt it; I doubt anyone else does either. It's not very good. It's the story, the characters and, dare I say it, the plot. They're what engages the reader, as does the incredible amount of detail she includes. It's those that make her books so popular. But if I was told that for the rest of my life I would only be allowed to read and re-read 10 books then HP would not be one of my choices. It might get into my top 50 - just. I'm looking forward to the next book, but I'm also looking forward to the next Discworld novel, the next Jasper Fforde, the next Alastair Reynolds, none of which I would classify as literature, all of which are character/plot driven. I enjoy books of this type - in moderation. I also enjoy coffee cake but I intersperse binges of it with more solid fare. So it is with books. HP is a very good series of books *of it's type*. And that is not a put-down, it's a considered opinion from someone who has read for pleasure an average of 3 books a week for the past 45 years. HP is fun. But if I want real meat I look elsewhere. Others may disagree with my views. Fine. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 21:23:51 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:23:51 -0000 Subject: Star draco and pureblood naming conventions In-Reply-To: <20041023.184910.5412.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116887 Hannah: > > I always thought Draco was named that because of it's > > meaning 'dragon.' I personally suspect JKR chose the name > because she it and thought it fit the character, but who knows. JKR may not even have realised that there was a star called Draco > Aura: > Considering the carefulness with which JKR picks her names and draws her characters, I have no doubt she knew it was a star. Out of all the star names, JKR picked the one that sounds like a spoiled little dragon. > Carol notes: With the exception of Narcissa, named after a flower (or maybe she enjoys looking at her reflection, like the mythical Narcissus!), all the Black family members of Sirius's generation are named after stars or constellations: Bellatrix (star) (the name means "woman warrior" or Amazon) Sirius (star) Regulus (star) Andromeda (constellation) In naming Draco after a constellation, Narcissa is following the family tradition that was for some reason set aside when she received her own name. Evidently Lucius had no objection, possibly because it emphasized the Malfoys' connection to another pureblood family, the Blacks. (Ironic that Narcissa would be named after a flower just like the Muggleborn Lily!) Someone mentioned that Rabastan Lestrange is also apparently named after a star, Rastaban, though the spelling has been rearranged. Maybe he's closely related to the Blacks or his family sometimes follows a similar tradition (though they didn't for Rodolphus). The Lestranges are definitely purebloods as Bellatrix's name would have been burned off the chart when she married Rodolphus. Other purebloods appear to have Roman or anglicized Greek first names: Lucius Malfoy, Theodore Nott, possibly Severus Snape, etc.--part of their view of themselves as wizarding aristocracy, I suppose. The Weasleys, in contrast, give their children ordinary Muggle names (with the exception of Bilius, Ron's bilious middle name)--possibly in conscious rebellion against pureblood tradition but more likely because of Arthur's fascination with Muggles. (His own name, Arthur, might be common in wizarding families because of the Merlin connection. Molly, OTOH, seems Muggleish, if somewhat old-fashioned.) At any rate, it's no accident that Draco was named after a constellation, or that the constellation represents a dragon. "Caput draconis" (dragon's head) and "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" (never tickle a sleeping Draco, erm, dragon) probably tie in somewhere. Or maybe JKR is just tantalizing us. There are threads on the significance of the star/constellation names from about a year ago if you want to look for them. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 21:35:42 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:35:42 -0000 Subject: Draco and Lucius (Was: Draco & Snape ) In-Reply-To: <11.366d7a14.2eabd326@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116888 Chancie wrote: I too would like to see Draco as more than a just all out bad > kid. (I personaly don't think there is such a think as a person who has no hope of being a productive member of society....but that's a WHOLE other story, so I'll spare you from that =D ) I just don't see Draco turning his back on his father whom he clearly admires to go to Harry's side! Carol responds: I'm wondering about Draco's sudden switch from "Father" (used in all previous references by Draco to Lucius) to "Dad" near the end of OoP. To me, it seemed almost out of character. Does this switch from formality to informality suggest a loss of respect (Lucius got caught) or an increase in affection or both or is it just a slip on JKR's part? (Note that the Weasleys, with the possible exception of pompous Percy, always use "Dad" rather than "Father.") Carol From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 21:39:13 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:39:13 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Del: > I call people on their behaviour when they do that in RL, just as much > as I disapprove of Harry doing it. > > And yes we all need safety valve. But *in my book* people should NEVER > be used as safety valves. I try and apologise when I do it, and I > expect the same from others. Geoff: Basically, I agree with you. But it happens. If you have worked up a head of steam, it may come out like this. There are alternatives - kicking the cat (not nice), banging your head on the wall, hitting yourself over the head with a bottle of Skelegro, a cold shower, a long walk (please feel free to extend the list). Looking at the washing machine, this was an example in my own house about 5 years ago. We had a new machine which went wrong and after three weeks and a dozen phone calls, my wife, who is temperamentally far more long-suffering than I am, finally rang up the store and got to work on the manager. Result - replacement machine within two days..... You have doubtless heard the expression "It would try the patience of a saint"? From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Oct 31 21:50:16 2004 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:50:16 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116890 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: Hannah: 2. Harry never once thanking Snape for saving his life in PS. Not > even a note. OK, Snape might not have appreciated it, but you'd > think the boy would at least try. Snape worked very hard that year, > as far as we (and Harry) can see, to protect Harry, unlike any of > the rest of the staff. Thanking Snape would be difficult, but it > would have been right. Harry should at least have felt he ought > to. But he seems to have no guilt over having suspected Snape all > year, and no compunction at all to say a simple thank you. If it > were me, I'd have felt pretty damn guilty about the whole thing. Geoff: Hannah, Hannah, Harry is eleven; he's a boy. When I was that age, I would only actually think about doing something like this when my mother said to me "Now you must write a thank you letter to So-and-so to thank them for whatever". Might make an interesting letter though... "Dear Professor Snape Thank you for saving me. I hope you will enjoy going back to hating my father's memory in peace. Love Harry" Geoff Pay a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at: http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From apeiron at comcast.net Sun Oct 31 22:11:19 2004 From: apeiron at comcast.net (Christopher Nehren) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:11:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Lucius (Was: Draco & Snape ) In-Reply-To: References: <11.366d7a14.2eabd326@aol.com> Message-ID: <20041031221119.GA15557@prophecy.dyndns.org> No: HPFGUIDX 116891 On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 16:35:42 EST, Carol scribbled these curious markings: > I'm wondering about Draco's sudden switch from "Father" (used in all > previous references by Draco to Lucius) to "Dad" near the end of OoP. > To me, it seemed almost out of character. Does this switch from > formality to informality suggest a loss of respect (Lucius got caught) > or an increase in affection or both or is it just a slip on JKR's > part? I personally don't see "dad" as suggestive of a loss of respect. If you read the line where he uses it, it's about his father being in prison -- not just any prison, but Azkaban. I personally see his usage of "dad" when he just previously used "father" twice as a sign of emotion, akin to McGonagall's usage of "Albus!" in the very beginning. It seems that there's a large amount of sadness combined with the fury of Harry still being alive -- and taunting him (Draco), of all things -- which caused the otherwise uncharacteristic show of familial affection from Draco. And, if I'm not mistaken, there's a bit of denial in his words, as well: he likens his father's situation to the other escaped DEs and says that he'll be out soon too. I'll admit that it's possible for it to be a slip, but being that I don't have any evidence either way, I'll just say that much about it. Christopher -- I abhor a system designed for the "user", if that word is a coded pejorative meaning "stupid and unsophisticated". -- Ken Thompson - Unix is user friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly. From editor at texas.net Sun Oct 31 22:06:46 2004 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:06:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! References: Message-ID: <002901c4bf96$118efe40$5858aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 116892 SSSusan: > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > So the three chapters are: > Spinners End > Draco's Detour > Felix Felicis > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest stay > ever on Privet Drive, anyone? My husband recently pointed out that Aragog is a character as much as any other--*and* he has a cause against Voldemort. Perhaps this chapter deals with the acromantulas and their efforts in the War...? Wilder ideas have been posted here. ~Amanda From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sun Oct 31 22:27:28 2004 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:27:28 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: <002901c4bf96$118efe40$5858aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116893 > SSSusan: > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > S > > P > > A > > C > > E > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > Spinners End > > Draco's Detour > > Felix Felicis > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest stay > > ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > AmanitaMuscaria now: The only other spinner I can think of would be the Sneakoscope - I know the punctuation doesn't correspond, but I can just imagine the thing going off because of Dudley perhaps, and Vernon going into a fit, crushing it, and throwing Harry out. But I agree it sounds more placename-ish. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 22:48:01 2004 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:48:01 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116894 Finwitch wrote: > > Felix Felicis... if not a person, it's a plant, an animal, a spell, a > magical phenomenon... I understand how one might think of cats, > though - I recall some cat-food by name of Felix, and there's that > FELINE also... but also that James Bond's CIA friend is named Felix > Leiter. (and all their secret weapons are a bit like magic! I wonder > how JKR feels of James Bond 007..) But I like the thought of FF being > the name of new DADA professor. (And I wonder where Aberforth lurks). > ****Like many other posters, my first thought about that chapter name was that it was the new DADA teacher, maybe even connected with the 'feline-like' description of that other clue JKR gave us earlier (orangy hair, bandy legs, lion-like mane, etc).... But then I thought that it could also be the name of the new Minister of Magic, people could find it 'optimistic' to have a new minister with such a name in times of War... after all, this is chapter 14 when he/she shows up (that is , if its a person), a bit too late for a DADA teacher to show up, especially considering the previous five books, in which we've learned of the new DADA fairly earlier than chapter 14, with OoTP having the most 'Summer break' chapters and yet getting Dolores Umbridge officially introduced as DADA teacher by chapter 12. I know, there are other better possible candidates for that job, but during Harry's hearing in OoTP, we learned that the Wizengamot was composed of more than 50 members, and Harry could barely see them from his lower stand... It wouldn't be surprising to find that one of them, perhaps one that voted in favor of Harry's dismissal of charges, was this Felix Felicis character. Just adding more to the 'pondering pool bank'... Marcela From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 23:09:24 2004 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:09:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041031230924.32247.qmail@web20022.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116895 > > SSSusan: > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT > FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > > Spinners End > > > Draco's Detour > > > Felix Felicis > > > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. > Harry's shortest > stay > > > ever on Privet Drive, anyone? That's definitely more likely than my first thought, which was of Aragog. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com From kreneeb at hotmail.com Sun Oct 31 23:20:30 2004 From: kreneeb at hotmail.com (hermionekitten9) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:20:30 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116896 >SSSusan wrote: > > > > > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > S > > > P > > > A > > > C > > > E > > > DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO FIND THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF > > > > > > > > > I MEAN IT!! > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > > Spinners End > > > Draco's Detour > > > Felix Felicis > > > > > > 2) Draco's detour to visit daddy in Azkaban, perhaps? >***kitten: "Draco Detour" this one really interests me... I don't know about a visit to dad in prison though... first of all Azkaban has always been described as really bad place... and I just don't think that Narcissa, a mother who wouldn't let her little boy go too far away for school, would let him visit there... > > >SSSusan: >Can't speak for Stefanie, but I was thinking more along the lines of Draco's going there w/ the purpose of assisting in Daddy et al.'s escape. So I suspect Mumsy wouldn't even be aware. This would be a DE kid kind of project. kitten... I can see that.... but why his son? I'm sure dad has other people he could call on for help... like voldy, for example or crabb, or is it goyle that wasn't at the DOM? judging by the way his father treated him in cos I don't think Mr. Malfoy has a very High/trusting/respecting opinion of his son, I can see it being out of character of him for asking Draco for help... I also am of the mind that Malfoy senior won't tempt a "prison break"... I think he will stand trial (whether he gets off or is convicted is anybody guess) but I think that one of the reason that we had Harry's trial, and meet Mrs. Bones at the beginning of OOTP is for this reason... the people caught will be put on trial and maybe Harry, plus gang, will be called on as witnesses... like all things I'm not sure... but in my opinion, it does fits. > > >***kitten: > > secondly it would be to hard to do with the books being in Harry's pov.... > SSSusan: >We have seen JKR depart from this previously, though. The scene >which comes to mind for me is Frank Bryce & the Riddles. kitten: Harry was dreaming those times. The only time it really actually departs is Vernon at the begining of the first book.... I never said that jkr NEVER departs from it or COULDN'T do it, I just said it would be HARD for her to do... I think that it would be glaring obvious if we get something from Draco's point of view or his dad, in the second chapter of the sixth book.... or have Harry follow Draco to azkaban... didn't JKR say that Harry will never go to azkaban? I think recall hearing that in an interview...or even have him dreaming about it, It would just seem to...well... kitten (who thinks that draco getting redeemed isn't out of the realm of possibilites... but thinks its gonna take more then one chapter to do it-g-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 23:32:01 2004 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:32:01 -0000 Subject: Timelines & a troubling passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116897 Beatnik wrote: > > I was re-reading PoA... and, well... "...Lily and James Potter had not died in a car crash. They had been murdered, murdered by the most > > feared Dark wizard *for a hundred years*, Lord Voldemort" (pg10, emphasis mine). "for a hundred years"...what's going on? > > bboyminn: > > Well, I'm sure you were looking for something grander and more > elborate than I am going to give you, but I think it is merely a > figure of speech; the turn of a phrase, and not a literal statement of > time. > Steve (bboy): > For example- I just started reading CoS (US Hb pg 4) and Voldemort is referred to as "...the greatest Dark sorcerer of all time". > > I'm sure that the books refer to Voldemort using various phrases of > time; 'in a century', 'of the age', 'for a hundred years', 'who ever > lived', 'of all time', etc.... I'm not exactly sure how I would search them all out since Voldemort is referred to by an assortment of names, but I'm confident that there are a variety of references and they simply attempt to express /a long time/ and are not meant to be taken as precise measurements of time. Carol responds: Also note that "greatest" is a value judgment and as such somewhat subjective. If you and I were talking about great English kings or great U.S. presidents, we would probably disagree about which was "greatest." Or, if we agreed on, say, the "greatest" living author of children's books, we might disagree as to how long it's been since the previous "greatest" children's author. Is JKR the "greatest" in a century or only in the last fifty, or evne twenty, years? So whether LV is the "greatest Dark wizard" who ever lived or the "greatest" in a century or the "greatest" in the last fifty years depends on who is talking. Voldemort and Hagrid are not going to have the same opinion on the matter, and neither is a reliable judge of the matter, anyway. And IIRC, we haven't heard from Dumbledore, who would be better informed than Hagrid and less subjective than Voldemort on the matter. The "most feared wizard in a hundred years" (not quite the same as "greatest Dark wizard," if we're going to nitpick), is the narrator writing from Harry's perspective. Harry's essential ignorance of Grindelwald (which matches ours) makes the reliability of this assertion rather questionable. (In a similar statement in SS/PS, we were *unreliably* informed that his parents died in a car crash, reflecting the state of Harry's "knowledge" at the time.) "The greatest Dark Wizard of all time" is a similar statement, reflecting the state of Harry's knowledge when he's even younger and even less informed. Diart!Tom's opinion of his future self is even less reliable--"the greatest sorceror in the world"--an assertion that Harry vehemently disputes by giving that honor to Dumbledore (CoS Am. ed. 314). (Interestingly, Harry repeats Tom's wording and then repeats it substituting "wizard" for "sorceror"--a distinction I'm not sure what to make of, especially since *Harry* makes it.) Earlier, Tom has expressed something like reverence for Salazar Slytherin, whose "blood runs in [his] veins" (314) and whose "noble work" he is carrying on (312), yet he refers to Lord Voldemort, defeated at Godric's Hollow, as "the greatest wizard of all time" (313), an opinion Harry doesn't dispute because he wants to know how Tom could know about Voldemort.(He doesn't yet know that Voldemort is Tom's "past, present, and future.") I'm not sure who else chimes in on the subject of greatest (Dark) wizard of all time, but if we were given Dumbledore's view, it could well be Salazar Slytherin rather than Voldemort *or* Grindelwald. Granted, it would still be a value judgment, but it would be an informed opinion and more likely to represent JKR's own view than anything spoken by another character or presented by the narrator from Harry's POV. Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 23:46:21 2004 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:46:21 -0000 Subject: What we find there- Places - real and imagined In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116898 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > > SSSusan wrote: > > > > > > > > > So the three chapters are: > > > > Spinners End > > > > Draco's Detour > > > > Felix Felicis > > > > > > > > 1) Spinners End sounds like a *place* to me. Harry's shortest > > > > stay ever on Privet Drive, anyone? > > > SSSusan: > > I agree that that would certainly fit. > > > > Neri: > > Spinners End certainly sounds like a place. IMO it is the Order's > new HQ, or at least their safe place for Harry. ..edited.. > > According to the book review this is a place in London, but it > doesn't appear like it really exists. There is also an industrial > estate in Birmingham: > http://www.touchbirmingham.co.uk/comdir/cditem.cfm/20256 > > Neri bboyminn: Oddly enough Spinners End Industrial Park is just west of Birmingham near a suburd called */Dursley/*. Based on my search at www.uk.map24.com for the postal code associated with the industrial park. SPINNERS END INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLDFIELDS. CRADLEY HEATH, WEST MIDLANDS, B64 6BS, UK In addition, when I Googled (google.co.uk) "Spinners End", I found an ancestory website with a discussion board which was discussing problems in using the 1881/91 census. Apparently, the census takers often strayed while polling people, so there were frequenly gaps in the street addresses that were added when the census taker returned at a later date. http://www.rowleyregis.com/postp1463.html "I was chasing my old ones in SPINNERS END [my emphasis]. I viewed the pages written in copperplate by the census taker as he worked from house to house. I recon that I was closing in even though the houses had been re-numbered, until the census taker took a notion to sidetrack down Holly Bush Lane." This could imply that Spinners End is a street name as well as a place name. Debatable whether he was searching for family on Spinners End street when the census taker strayed to Holly Bush Lane, or whether he was looking in the village of Spinners End, and from the street that he was researching, the census taker strayed to Holly Bush Lane. Most likely, JKR borrowed the name from the Novel in which it is mentioned or from a map, and adapted it for her own use, in a fashion similar to taking the name 'Dursley' from a map. That's a very common trick used by authors, they will search anywhere and everywhere to find good character and place names; phone books, TV/Film credits, plant and animal names, baby name registries, lists of famous poets/authors, product brand names, etc.... I've used them all myself. So, while I think it is fairly safe to assume it is a place name, I don't think we can make any inferences between it and the real world. Just a (mostly off topic) thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Oct 31 16:02:14 2004 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:02:14 -0000 Subject: Why has DD never suggested Harry thank Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116899 Lupinlore -- > We have argued back and forth about how Harry should regard Snape and > why he should or should not have such a negative attitude toward the > Potions Master. I would argue that his negative opinion has been > tacitly confirmed by the person who, up until OOTP, he most trusts > and respects at Hogwarts, namely Dumbledore. > > Now, why would Dumbledore do this? I can think of two main reasons > off the top of my head, and they aren't mutually exclusive. Note > that I am discounting the possibility of an evil or overtly > manipulative Dumbledore: > > 1) Dumbledore tolerates Snape in part because he thinks that > students should learn to deal with difficult people. However, the > flip side of that is that he feels no obligation to shield Snape from > the inevitable backlash and difficulties his attitudes engender. He is trying to teach Snape a lesson as > much as he is trying to teach the students. > > 2) The message he is sending Harry is simply fact. Snape really is > a selfish/hateful individual who opposes Voldemort for his own > reasons and helps Harry only because he is obligated to do so. > Dumbledore wishes it were not so, but he must face reality and > understands that, although he trusts his Potions Master, Severus' > actions are motivated largely be self-interest and percieved > obligation, not higher morality. Therefore he sees little reason to > whitewash the situation by suggesting that Harry pretend to a > gratitude Harry does not feel and that Severus would not appreciate > and perhaps does not deserve (the last depends of course on one's own > personal beliefs about what is deserving of gratitude). My take on the whole DD/Snape thing, is much more simple. I believe that DD hired Snape because he "knows his stuff", he's the best potions master that DD could find. And even though Snape was a DE, for some reason, DD looks past that. (that's the true mystery here) DD may also have hired Snape as a teacher to maintain Snape's 'cover', or even to have a DE on staff, one he 'trusts' to help keep informed of LV's movements or plans. (I believe that DD 'knew' LV would return and keeping Snape on staff is his way of being "in the loop") Snape being a mean and spiteful teacher is part of what DD is having to 'accept' as having Snape on staff. And Snape, even though he is mean to the students, does come to their aid when necessary, more out of loyalty to DD than to some "warm and fuzzy" feelings he may experience. So, I don't see why DD would suggest that Harry or anyone else show gratitude or apologize to Snape nor would he suggest that Snape do the same (apologize to Harry for refusing to continue Occulmency lessons). DD seems to keep out of how people treat one another. It's like he wants them to work it out for themselves. I don't believe DD is trying to teach anyone a lesson in getting along. I know there is much more to this and more I want to say, but trying to type fast a furious while children are "busy" Ms. Luna From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 16:20:33 2004 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:20:33 -0000 Subject: What should Harry REALLY feel sorry for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116900 "Hannah" wrote: > Harry sneaking off to Hogsmeade again and again during PoA. Granted it wasn't very smart but Harry should REALLY feel guilty about that? Talk about small potatoes! That sounds to me like a classic case of racking your mind in a desperate attempt to find something to feel guilty about. > Harry never once thanking Snape for saving his life in PS. I don't recall Snape thanking Harry for saving the entire wizard world, for the second time. On the contrary Snape continued to treat him like dirt, under those circumstances thank you not by Harry would be grotesque. By the way, people go on and on about Harry's bad behavior but forget that Ron acted about a thousand times worse in GoF than Harry ever did, and for one tenth the provocation. Eggplant From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 23:53:07 2004 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:53:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041031235307.39214.qmail@web20022.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116901 S P O I L E R S P A C E I've read a little more now. I've found out that almost everyone thinks Spinners End is a place name. So now I don't. I just think we're all going to be wrong. JKR is just too sneaky. :D Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From erikog at one.net Sun Oct 31 19:11:27 2004 From: erikog at one.net (Krista7) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:11:27 -0000 Subject: JKR.com's SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116902 > 3) Given how lion-like the previous description was that JKR gave us, > and Felix the Cat, FELine, etc., how 'bout Felix Felicis for the new > DADA professor? But chapter 14? Would it really be FOURTEEN > chapters before we even meet the new DADA prof? Jeepers, I hope not, > as we'd probably be looking at a 50-chapter book, and then we'll > NEVER get it! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Felix Felicis in Latin is something like "Luck of the Lucky." If I remember correctly, "felix" is both the masculine and neuter singular of this adjective, so it could be either "the lucky (man)" or just "luck." In addition, given JKR's love of word play, I'm inclined to believe it's both "luck of the lucky" AND the other side of the Latin meaning, which is to be of good omen, to be of good fortune. (While "felix" has suggestions of fate/divine fortune, it's almost always meant to suggest *good* things, note.) So, on the one hand, it is "luck of the lucky" and on the other, "the good fortune of the person who has good prophecies about him." Krista From snapesangel2002 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 31 20:12:51 2004 From: snapesangel2002 at yahoo.co.uk (laura) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:12:51 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)... In-Reply-To: <9d.518c6ec4.2eb695b1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116903 Melissa: > I think that's a strong possibilty. The "End" could refer to Aragog's death > however rather than being the end of a path. Maybe he tells Harry and Co > something vital before he dies? Someone's had an interesting idea on the Leaky Cauldron comments section. JK originally planned for Chapter 1 of HBP to be the first chapter of PS/SS. So Chapter 1 of HBP must deal with the murder of the Potters in Godrics Hollow. If Chapter 2: 'Spinners End' continues this theme, it could answer the question of where Hagrid took Harry in those missing 24 hours. Any thoughts? Laura* From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sun Oct 31 23:55:24 2004 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:55:24 -0000 Subject: What we find there (was: How to Get Through the Door)--SPOILERS!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 116904 > Dungrollin: > > If it's about Fudge and Percy, it would have to have an apostrophe > after the last s. > Antosha: Possibly true. However, it is worth pointing out that "Half-Blood Prince" was originally announced w/o the hyphen. The lack of thorough copy-edit actually struck me as endearing--it's nice to know that what we're getting on the site hasn't been processed and packaged through eighteen levels of pre-cleaning. There are a number of place names that derive from possessives that lack an apostrophe. (Of course, the only one that comes to mind at this moment is Caesar's Palace, a place that annoys the heck out of the wordsmith in me every time I get anywhere near Nevada....) Also, it could be glossed as spinners (plural noun) end (verb). In which case politicians or spiders seem the most likely candidates. From annegirl11 at juno.com Sun Oct 31 20:46:47 2004 From: annegirl11 at juno.com (annegirl11 at juno.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:46:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Hermione, Sirius, and the Dream, 2-way mirror Message-ID: <20041031.223137.5428.0.annegirl11@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 116914 Juli said: > When I first read OoP I almost cried when I learned that > Sirius was been held prisioner by Voldemort. Me too. *Horror* doesn't begin to describe it, and I wasn't even a R/S shipper then. I was on the fence as to whether or not it was a fake, but when Harry ignored Hermione and rushed headlong into the fray, things seemed suspecious. If he's going to take on adult responsibilities like heroism, he needs to have more emotional maturity; otherwise, he needs to let the adults handle things. > Besides Hermione shouldn't have said that LV trusted Harry's saving > people's thing, it was extremely rude. She may have been going for tough love. This was the fifth time Harry has almost gotten himself killed by taking something huge on his shoulders. I think Hermione was 100% correct, but in retrospect, she probably could have picked a better tactic. Though, honestly, I don't know what it could have been. "The vision isn't real" didn't work, "We should talk to someone first" didn't work. What was left but the truth, that Harry was rushing headlong b/c of his hero complex? Side note: WHY WHY WHY didn't Hermione talk to Snape?! He was right there, in the castle, 5 minutes away. She may dislike him, but she's got enough sense to know he's genuinly in the Order. So frustrating! > Harry doesn't walk around > thinking who to save and how to be the hero, when someone he cares > for is in danger he inmediately tries to help, it's just who he is. It isn't a bad quality, in and of itself. Harry *is* a hero; it's his job, as a character. But it needs to be tempered with responsibility and emotional restraint (which no one has taught him ). This has been dealt with in Buffy, about another schoolkid hero; when Buffy got too emotional and didn't listen to her comrads in arms, people died (I just realized that season 2 bears a striking resemblance to OOtP). As she got older, she learned not to get swept up in drama and panic -- people may be in danger, but as the hero, she learned how to stop and think before she acts. This is what bugs me about Harry as hero: Up until OOtP, he's been lucky. That's it, that's the ONLY reason he's still alive to be called a hero. Buffy was 16-going-on-30, well trained, informed, and supervised when necesary. Harry is just a kid who happens to get into nasty situations. In OOtP, he got in over his head, but wouldn't admit it. I agree with Snape in this respect: DD gives Harry way too much reign to run free. > On another idea, WHY didn't he open Sirius' package (the 2 way > mirror)?? That was just ... bad writing. Sorry, but, that was rediculous. I don't think JKR meant to taunt us with, "oh, the irony! he could have saved Sirius!" or to trivialize Sirius' death by showing us that it could have been easily averted. But that's how it came off. FWIW, she's said that 1) the mirror probably wouldn't have helped as much as we think it would and 2) aluded to a magical device important in the next book that is better than cell phones, so I suppose the mirror will be it. So it was introduced because it'll be important later. > Forgive me but I still can't deal with Sirius' death. :-/ I know, I know, I can't believe I'm this attached to him, either. He wasn't perfect, it's debatable that he was a good influence, but he and Harry were immediatly close because they *needed* each other. I feel like Sirius was cut down in the middle of his character arc, and given time and healing (and the love of a good werewolf), he could have become so much more than who he was before he died. The distance between who he was as a boy -- a brilliant student, mischevous but I don't belive he was malevolent, a loyal friend, and later an important member of the Order -- and who he became just . . . sucks. A lot. Worse is that it's so realistic, in the way that life is really unfair and doesn't tie off in a nice, balanced character arc. Aura ~*~ "You said I killed you - haunt me, then! The murdered do haunt their murderers, I believe. Be with me always - take any form - drive me mad! Only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!" --Wuthering Heights http://archive.skyehawke.com/authors.php?no=606